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
Black Nationalism a Reaction to America's Institutionalized White Supremacy
🔊 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

The SPLC on black nationalism:

The black nationalist movement is a reaction to centuries of institutionalized white supremacy in America. Black nationalists believe the answer to white racism is to form separate institutions — or even a separate nation — for black people. Most forms of black nationalism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic.

Existing black nationalist groups have grown in size and new groups have formed. This growth is a response to the current climate of racial divisiveness, specifically police violence and Donald Trump’s derisive remarks about African Americans, including journalists and NFL players, and majority-black countries.

Unlike white hate groups, they have made virtually no inroads into the mainstream political realm and have virtually no supporters among elected officials.

Indeed. Senator Patrick Little and congressman Paul Nehlen practically own the Capitol Building. The closest someone like Keith Ellison could get to a position of power, in contrast, is as busboy at a swanky DC restaurant.

Farrakhan with a random Hawaiian groupie

Looking at it for the first time, I expected the center’s censure to be exclusively attributed to black nationalism’s animus towards Jews, but it does make note of “anti-white” sentiment.

Black nationalism’s alleged hatred for whites is described as a “predictable reaction to white supremacy” while its reported antipathy towards Jews isn’t quasi-rationalized in a similar manner. Explicitly hating whites, while at some level understandable, is poor form. Negative feelings towards Jews are however entirely unprovoked manifestations of concentrated evil.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology 
Hide 112 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. If as Steve Sailer speculates, the SPLC shenanigans are financial in nature, what becomes of the organization?

    Presumably the ADLbb has an unobstructed path to dominance of the “hate” niche. Or perhaps the Human Rights Campaign (GayPride) will shift its focus, now that its original cause has nothing left to subve…accomplish.

    We’re going to hear a lot more about “deradicalization” especially if a Dem wins in ’20 (and the violent reaction I predict occurs).

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's so easy for lazy media organizations to disparage whoever they don't like by referring to the SPLC that I'm skeptical the organization will go anywhere. It certainly has the money to hang around forever.
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website

    I can accept that black nationalism was a reaction to white imperialism that conquered the Americas and brought over slaves from Africa.

    Nationalism has been a reaction to Imperialism, and for most of modern history, whites were the leading imperialists. Granted, white imperialism made great discoveries, connected the entire world, spread knowledge, inspired revolutions, and created vast new wealth & opportunities.
    But it was also destructive and devastating to many peoples around the world. Naturally, the weaker peoples whose lands, cultures, and autonomy are threatened or crushed by an imperialist power are going to move into nationalist mode.

    As blacks were under white imperialist domination in the US, it’s understandable that there was a movement to define, preserve, and protect blackness. This was black nationalism.

    But times change. White Imperialism was usurped by Jews. In time, the US became less a superpower nation than a super-colony or super-puppet of an even greater power, the Empire of Judea, a worldwide network. And this Jewish supremacist imperialist power is making white people participate in Judeo-centric ventures to destroy Russia & Iran, wage Wars for Israel, support Israel’s eradication of all vestiges of Palestinian nationhood, and etc.

    Because the dominant world power is now Jewish Imperialism, we need white nationalism or white national liberation movement to break free of this supremacism.

    Rule of History. Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). British Empire promoted British nationalism and patriotism but crushed the nationalist aspirations of subject peoples. It said NO to Indian nationalism, even resorting to ruthless means on occasion to suppress it. French empire suppressed Vietnamese and Algerian nationalisms.
    Japan was in nationalist mode when threatened by British and American imperialism, but as it modernized and grew into a major power(and was accepted into the imperialist club as ‘honorary whites’), the Japanese made imperialist moves on continental Asia. Japanese empire did all it could do to suppress Chinese and Korean nationalism(and then Filipino and Vietnamese nationalism as the empire expanded). Nazi Empire trampled on Polish and Czech nationalism and sought to crush Russia nationalism. Soviet Imperialism suppressed Polish and Hungarian nationalism.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Roman imperialists ruthlessly suppressed Jewish nationalism. Of course, Romans could take pride of Roman power and glory, but non-Romans had to suppress their own pride of identity to serve and honor Rome. Soviet Empire was somewhat different because it suppressed Russian nationalism along with other nationalism… though, over time, Russian national component of the empire did resurface.

    Why do Jews hate white nationalism? Jews often conflate white nationalism with white supremacism, but that’s mostly BS. White nationalism was actually far less aggressive than White imperialist Liberalism. Throughout American history, white nationalism emphasized America’s need to take care of its own affairs. It was white liberalism and white progressivism that wanted to expand and rule the world. Since late 19th century, US began to move more into imperialist mode as all the US continent was united and settled. White Imperialism came to dominate over white nationalism. But because the world was dominated by great European empires, American imperialism pretended to be for self-determination of nations. But American imperialism was only trying to invalidate existing empires so that it would gain hegemony over the ‘liberated’ nations.
    But sour feelings after WWI made Americans look inward. But the double whammy of WWII and the Cold War turned the US into a full-fledged world empire, though in counterbalance against another empire, an ‘evil’ one of Soviets.
    With the end of the Cold War, US could have retreated from imperialism and minded its own business, but the business opportunities of Free Trade and spectacular rise of Jewish power changed all that. Jews preferred expanded imperialist-globalism over nationalism because Jewish power owes more to horizontal networks around the world than vertical elite-mass unity in any nation(except in Israel). So, Jews were mainly loyal to the Network, the Empire of Judea, than to the US or any particular nation. As Jews gained dominant power in the US, the so-called lone superpower essentially became a colony of the Jewish Empire. The Jewel in the Crown. And because Jews don’t have the numbers, they need gentile support and obedience to Jewish supremacist imperialist power. And among all the goyim, whites are most crucial because they are most numerous, capable, and talented. Jews may be the overlords, but they need white managers, engineers, generals, negotiators, lawmen, and etc. to do the heavy lifting. But the ONLY WAY the whites are going to do as told is IF they are denied white identity and white nationalism. After all, if whites think as white nationalists, they will focus on ‘what is good for whites in our white nation’. They will be less likely to support Jewish supremacist agendas around the world like hatred toward Russia, Iran, Syria, and endless Wars for Israel. And this is why Jewish Imperialism must suppress white nationalism. Nationalism tends to be rebellious, defiant, and uppity against the empire, especially if it’s of an alien people.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Jews love Zionism and Israeli nationalism. Jews love to promote and glorify Jewish identity. Jews, who’d once been nationalist resisters against Roman imperialism, are now the New Romans, and they regard whites as the ‘new Jews’ to suppress and control(or destroy and scatter to the winds if they disobey Jewish Neo-Roman power). Just like Jewish Imperialism can’t abide Palestinian nationalism, it can’t tolerate white nationalism. Both threaten Jewish imperialist hegemony. Palestinians in W. Bank demand independence. And white nationalists want white liberation and emancipation from Jewish imperialist globalism. White national liberationists want OUT from the globo-homo empire and more Wars for Israel. This is what Jews fear. This is why Jews smear white nationalism as ‘white supremacism’ when, if anything, it is anti-supremacist against Jewish Imperialism. What Jews really want is for white cuck-collaborators to keep supporting Jewish imperialist hegemony around the world. Jews are projecting their own supremacism onto white nationalists. But then, Jews who created Israel through use of terror blame Palestinians as a race of terrorists.

    Why are Jews okay with black nationalism in the US? Because they don’t really see it as a threat. Besides, Jewish Empire relies far less on black ability and talent. While black talent in sports and music is very profitable to Jews, it is white talent that is crucial in managing and running the Empire as an engine and warship. So, it is far more important for Jews to make whites submit and obey.
    Also, black nationalism can be used to guilt-bait whites. Indeed, even as imperialism generally hates nationalisms, it may support one nationalism against another nationalism(seen as bigger threat) or a rival empire. It’s like the Empire of Judea is supportive of Ukrainian nationalism against Russian nationalism(which is seen as a bigger obstacle to total Jewish world hegemony). So, Jews see black nationalism the way they see Ukrainian nationalism. A useful tool for the moment.

    Now, was there a history of white nationalism that was supremacist? In a way, yes, but it was still less belligerent and dangerous than white imperialism and Jewish imperialism. White nationalist rule in the past did treat non-whites as second-class citizens or worse, BUT white nationalism had a limiting effect on the despoilment of America by the world. By allowing mostly only white immigration, American Indians lost their land only to Europeans mostly. Had America not been white nationalist and allowed open door immigration from the beginning, American Indians would have lost all their land to all the world in no time. And much of nature would have been destroyed. White nationalists did defeat and conquer the indigenous folks, but their great and noble race-ism still allowed some space for Indians and their narrative. Also, white nationalist race-ism served as a check on black biological supremacism and imperialism. As blacks were brought as slaves, they were socially oppressed by whites. But because of their superior muscle power, greater natural aggression, rowdier butt energy,and bigger dongs, they could easily become biological imperialists and supremacists over the weaker white race. In a state of nature, blacks will dominate over whites. If you take 200 whites and 200 blacks and strip them naked and put them on an island, blacks will beat up white guys and hump white girls. So, white race-ism and nationalism against blacks were both supremacist and defensive against black natural supremacism.

    Anyway, the most destructive, evil, and venal power in the world today is Jewish Imperialism. Look what it did to Russia in the 90s. Look at its spread of demented globo-homomania. Look at its Wars that leveled so many nations in Mid East and North Africa. Look at its economic destruction of Iran. Look at its demographic policies against US and EU. Look at how it makes white soldiers wreck Muslim nations and then pushes Muslims into the West. Look at how it spreads anti-white hatred in media and academia and Hollywood. Look at how the Sacklers acted like Sassoons who sold opium to the Chinese.

    Indeed, if white nationalists could pry themselves from Jewish imperialism, the world would be a much nicer place. After all, without white cuck-collaboration with Jewish imperialist power, Jews would do far less harm to the world.
    Suppose if whites(in national liberationist mode) had said NO to all these Wars for Israel. Middle East would be in one piece and millions wouldn’t be dead or displaced and pushed into white nations. There would be justice for Palestinians finally. US would not be in another stupid ‘cold war’ with Russia. And in the 90s, the US might have been constructive and helpful toward Russia than merely rapacious as the ‘shock doctrine’ turned out to be the shylock doctrine of looting the entire economy to enrich the Tribe. The world should welcome white nationalist liberation from Jewish Globalist Imperialism like the world greeted the national liberation of India from the British Empire. To Jews, a white national liberationist who says NO to being conscripted into the Jewish Empire is like an uppity slave who says NO. He must be whipped. White National Liberationists must say “Hell No, We won’t go” and “Globalists suck, we won’t cuck.”

    But then, the reason why so many in the non-white world participate with Jewish Imperialism against white nationalism is because white nationalism says “We want our white nations to remain white”, whereas Jewish imperialism says, “We will hand you free tickets to white nations IF you support our agenda as ‘new Europeans’ or ‘new Americans’.” Non-whites will do ANYTHING to come to richer and nicer white nations.
    Imperialism has its resisters but also collaborators. When the British empire existed, many Hindus and Chinese took advantage to spread out across the world for opportunities for profit. Most people will do ANYTHING for whatever improves their lives materially.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
    Young Whites bury themselves in college debt to study history.

    They'd do much better simply reading your comment.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Isn't Israel a thorn in the side of what you refer to as Jewish imperialism here? Is that why it is so controversial among elite Jews who view themselves as citizens of the world?
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "As blacks were under white imperialist domination in the US, it’s understandable that there was a movement to define, preserve, and protect blackness. This was black nationalism. "

    The problem with this is that first, American negro culture is defined by its perceived lower tier status relative to American whites. All of the anger, angst, outrage, resentment, envy, jealousy, etc, that mostly defines American negro culture requires the presence of whites in order for that identity to have any meaning or authenticity.

    So secondly, preserving "blackness" independent of white influence would require negros to return to Africa and resume their ancestral identities, free of white influence.

    American "black nationalism" is a non-sequitur, as they have no "nation" to begin with. (Can there be Samoan nationalism in the US?) Again, its national identity is based upon its relationship to a larger, more productive and influential ethnic group that built the nation. Remove that larger group and what's left is not a nation. It's a collection of tribes fighting over the leftovers.

    All black nationalism was or is in its least harmless form was merely a different flavor of grievance racketeering.
    , @Iris

    Now, was there a history of white nationalism that was supremacist?
     
    Does White supremacism really exist? So-called "White" supremacist theories were produced only at specific periods of history, when needed to justify colonial or imperialist ventures.

    European racism always was a "scientific" racism artificially produced by academia to serve the powers-that-be in achieving a defined goal; it is not rooted in the historic identity and collective being of the White European people.

    The only entrenched supremacism that have continuously existed and traversed the centuries unscathed is the Jewish supremacism, because it is an inherent part of the Jewish identity
    , @DCThrowback
    There's a lot of good in this, but it can stand w/ a little Albion's seed along with some "divide and conquer" practiced by ruling (((elite))) to stop, say, the Bernie whites and the MAGA whites from understanding who the true enemy is.

    In addition, how whites are divided matters. E Michael Jones will tell you - there are no white people. There will never be "white nationalism". It will always be "racist" - the brand has been poisoned beyond repair. Looking back to the past, the Protestants and the Jews came together to "slaughter" Catholic strongholds in major urban centers in the 40s and 50s...and the Jews replaced the Protestants as the elite. The only way to unite against the Jewish rule, he would argue, is under the banner of the Catholic church, which by definition can never be Jewish. I find that position to be interestingly persuasive. But you want to talk about buying low on a brand, the Catholic Church is like buying WaPo for $250M....

    Ralph Nader kind of got it when he recommended the two merge together in an AmCon article in the 2014 time frame about nationalist conservatism in the 1930s using "anti-corporatism" as the uniting banner...

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/who-owns-america/

    And here's Michael Tracey on Nader's affection for Ron Paul as a grand uniter back in 2011...

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/ralph-naders-grand-alliance/

    But unless we secure the border and reverse the demographic decline, all of this remains moot.
  3. @Priss Factor
    I can accept that black nationalism was a reaction to white imperialism that conquered the Americas and brought over slaves from Africa.

    Nationalism has been a reaction to Imperialism, and for most of modern history, whites were the leading imperialists. Granted, white imperialism made great discoveries, connected the entire world, spread knowledge, inspired revolutions, and created vast new wealth & opportunities.
    But it was also destructive and devastating to many peoples around the world. Naturally, the weaker peoples whose lands, cultures, and autonomy are threatened or crushed by an imperialist power are going to move into nationalist mode.

    As blacks were under white imperialist domination in the US, it's understandable that there was a movement to define, preserve, and protect blackness. This was black nationalism.

    But times change. White Imperialism was usurped by Jews. In time, the US became less a superpower nation than a super-colony or super-puppet of an even greater power, the Empire of Judea, a worldwide network. And this Jewish supremacist imperialist power is making white people participate in Judeo-centric ventures to destroy Russia & Iran, wage Wars for Israel, support Israel's eradication of all vestiges of Palestinian nationhood, and etc.

    Because the dominant world power is now Jewish Imperialism, we need white nationalism or white national liberation movement to break free of this supremacism.

    Rule of History. Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). British Empire promoted British nationalism and patriotism but crushed the nationalist aspirations of subject peoples. It said NO to Indian nationalism, even resorting to ruthless means on occasion to suppress it. French empire suppressed Vietnamese and Algerian nationalisms.
    Japan was in nationalist mode when threatened by British and American imperialism, but as it modernized and grew into a major power(and was accepted into the imperialist club as 'honorary whites'), the Japanese made imperialist moves on continental Asia. Japanese empire did all it could do to suppress Chinese and Korean nationalism(and then Filipino and Vietnamese nationalism as the empire expanded). Nazi Empire trampled on Polish and Czech nationalism and sought to crush Russia nationalism. Soviet Imperialism suppressed Polish and Hungarian nationalism.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Roman imperialists ruthlessly suppressed Jewish nationalism. Of course, Romans could take pride of Roman power and glory, but non-Romans had to suppress their own pride of identity to serve and honor Rome. Soviet Empire was somewhat different because it suppressed Russian nationalism along with other nationalism... though, over time, Russian national component of the empire did resurface.

    Why do Jews hate white nationalism? Jews often conflate white nationalism with white supremacism, but that's mostly BS. White nationalism was actually far less aggressive than White imperialist Liberalism. Throughout American history, white nationalism emphasized America's need to take care of its own affairs. It was white liberalism and white progressivism that wanted to expand and rule the world. Since late 19th century, US began to move more into imperialist mode as all the US continent was united and settled. White Imperialism came to dominate over white nationalism. But because the world was dominated by great European empires, American imperialism pretended to be for self-determination of nations. But American imperialism was only trying to invalidate existing empires so that it would gain hegemony over the 'liberated' nations.
    But sour feelings after WWI made Americans look inward. But the double whammy of WWII and the Cold War turned the US into a full-fledged world empire, though in counterbalance against another empire, an 'evil' one of Soviets.
    With the end of the Cold War, US could have retreated from imperialism and minded its own business, but the business opportunities of Free Trade and spectacular rise of Jewish power changed all that. Jews preferred expanded imperialist-globalism over nationalism because Jewish power owes more to horizontal networks around the world than vertical elite-mass unity in any nation(except in Israel). So, Jews were mainly loyal to the Network, the Empire of Judea, than to the US or any particular nation. As Jews gained dominant power in the US, the so-called lone superpower essentially became a colony of the Jewish Empire. The Jewel in the Crown. And because Jews don't have the numbers, they need gentile support and obedience to Jewish supremacist imperialist power. And among all the goyim, whites are most crucial because they are most numerous, capable, and talented. Jews may be the overlords, but they need white managers, engineers, generals, negotiators, lawmen, and etc. to do the heavy lifting. But the ONLY WAY the whites are going to do as told is IF they are denied white identity and white nationalism. After all, if whites think as white nationalists, they will focus on 'what is good for whites in our white nation'. They will be less likely to support Jewish supremacist agendas around the world like hatred toward Russia, Iran, Syria, and endless Wars for Israel. And this is why Jewish Imperialism must suppress white nationalism. Nationalism tends to be rebellious, defiant, and uppity against the empire, especially if it's of an alien people.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Jews love Zionism and Israeli nationalism. Jews love to promote and glorify Jewish identity. Jews, who'd once been nationalist resisters against Roman imperialism, are now the New Romans, and they regard whites as the 'new Jews' to suppress and control(or destroy and scatter to the winds if they disobey Jewish Neo-Roman power). Just like Jewish Imperialism can't abide Palestinian nationalism, it can't tolerate white nationalism. Both threaten Jewish imperialist hegemony. Palestinians in W. Bank demand independence. And white nationalists want white liberation and emancipation from Jewish imperialist globalism. White national liberationists want OUT from the globo-homo empire and more Wars for Israel. This is what Jews fear. This is why Jews smear white nationalism as 'white supremacism' when, if anything, it is anti-supremacist against Jewish Imperialism. What Jews really want is for white cuck-collaborators to keep supporting Jewish imperialist hegemony around the world. Jews are projecting their own supremacism onto white nationalists. But then, Jews who created Israel through use of terror blame Palestinians as a race of terrorists.

    Why are Jews okay with black nationalism in the US? Because they don't really see it as a threat. Besides, Jewish Empire relies far less on black ability and talent. While black talent in sports and music is very profitable to Jews, it is white talent that is crucial in managing and running the Empire as an engine and warship. So, it is far more important for Jews to make whites submit and obey.
    Also, black nationalism can be used to guilt-bait whites. Indeed, even as imperialism generally hates nationalisms, it may support one nationalism against another nationalism(seen as bigger threat) or a rival empire. It's like the Empire of Judea is supportive of Ukrainian nationalism against Russian nationalism(which is seen as a bigger obstacle to total Jewish world hegemony). So, Jews see black nationalism the way they see Ukrainian nationalism. A useful tool for the moment.

    Now, was there a history of white nationalism that was supremacist? In a way, yes, but it was still less belligerent and dangerous than white imperialism and Jewish imperialism. White nationalist rule in the past did treat non-whites as second-class citizens or worse, BUT white nationalism had a limiting effect on the despoilment of America by the world. By allowing mostly only white immigration, American Indians lost their land only to Europeans mostly. Had America not been white nationalist and allowed open door immigration from the beginning, American Indians would have lost all their land to all the world in no time. And much of nature would have been destroyed. White nationalists did defeat and conquer the indigenous folks, but their great and noble race-ism still allowed some space for Indians and their narrative. Also, white nationalist race-ism served as a check on black biological supremacism and imperialism. As blacks were brought as slaves, they were socially oppressed by whites. But because of their superior muscle power, greater natural aggression, rowdier butt energy,and bigger dongs, they could easily become biological imperialists and supremacists over the weaker white race. In a state of nature, blacks will dominate over whites. If you take 200 whites and 200 blacks and strip them naked and put them on an island, blacks will beat up white guys and hump white girls. So, white race-ism and nationalism against blacks were both supremacist and defensive against black natural supremacism.

    Anyway, the most destructive, evil, and venal power in the world today is Jewish Imperialism. Look what it did to Russia in the 90s. Look at its spread of demented globo-homomania. Look at its Wars that leveled so many nations in Mid East and North Africa. Look at its economic destruction of Iran. Look at its demographic policies against US and EU. Look at how it makes white soldiers wreck Muslim nations and then pushes Muslims into the West. Look at how it spreads anti-white hatred in media and academia and Hollywood. Look at how the Sacklers acted like Sassoons who sold opium to the Chinese.

    Indeed, if white nationalists could pry themselves from Jewish imperialism, the world would be a much nicer place. After all, without white cuck-collaboration with Jewish imperialist power, Jews would do far less harm to the world.
    Suppose if whites(in national liberationist mode) had said NO to all these Wars for Israel. Middle East would be in one piece and millions wouldn't be dead or displaced and pushed into white nations. There would be justice for Palestinians finally. US would not be in another stupid 'cold war' with Russia. And in the 90s, the US might have been constructive and helpful toward Russia than merely rapacious as the 'shock doctrine' turned out to be the shylock doctrine of looting the entire economy to enrich the Tribe. The world should welcome white nationalist liberation from Jewish Globalist Imperialism like the world greeted the national liberation of India from the British Empire. To Jews, a white national liberationist who says NO to being conscripted into the Jewish Empire is like an uppity slave who says NO. He must be whipped. White National Liberationists must say "Hell No, We won't go" and "Globalists suck, we won't cuck."

    But then, the reason why so many in the non-white world participate with Jewish Imperialism against white nationalism is because white nationalism says "We want our white nations to remain white", whereas Jewish imperialism says, "We will hand you free tickets to white nations IF you support our agenda as 'new Europeans' or 'new Americans'." Non-whites will do ANYTHING to come to richer and nicer white nations.
    Imperialism has its resisters but also collaborators. When the British empire existed, many Hindus and Chinese took advantage to spread out across the world for opportunities for profit. Most people will do ANYTHING for whatever improves their lives materially.

    Young Whites bury themselves in college debt to study history.

    They’d do much better simply reading your comment.

  4. White separatism is supposedly a form of white supremacy.

    What other supposedly oppressed group in human history has demanded to live near their supposed oppressor?

  5. DOJ says white gangbangers are “white supremacists.” Meanwhile, black and brown gangbangers are just plain old “criminals.”
    http://newobserveronline.com/us-doj-criminals-with-nazi-names-are-white-supremacists-but-hispanic-or-black-power-name-gangs-are-not-supremacists/

    And those same “white supremacists” have been caught smuggling illegal aliens across the border.
    http://newobserveronline.com/aryan-brotherhood-prison-gang-posing-as-white-supremacists-caught-smuggling-nonwhite-invaders-into-us/

    Ordinary criminals are being implicitly portrayed as part of an imaginary worldwide white supremacist terror network for ideological reasons.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Yeah it happens a lot. Even out here in rural white all Republican towns

    People want those drugs and drug money and illegals have a wide selection of both if you're willing to help.
  6. @216
    If as Steve Sailer speculates, the SPLC shenanigans are financial in nature, what becomes of the organization?

    Presumably the ADLbb has an unobstructed path to dominance of the "hate" niche. Or perhaps the Human Rights Campaign (GayPride) will shift its focus, now that its original cause has nothing left to subve...accomplish.

    We're going to hear a lot more about "deradicalization" especially if a Dem wins in '20 (and the violent reaction I predict occurs).

    It’s so easy for lazy media organizations to disparage whoever they don’t like by referring to the SPLC that I’m skeptical the organization will go anywhere. It certainly has the money to hang around forever.

    • Replies: @Screwtape
    The local smut rag here in my blue outpost did just that recently.

    The ‘story’ was about some group, Identity Europa, a “racist hate group” that is being literally hunted down by the ____ anti-fascists (named as a legitimate regional organization in the story).

    Apparently the IE group has ‘rebranded’ and reappeared on Twitter after its previous incarnation was purged, so the [noble and righteous] antifa group is going after Twitter too.

    The author, without a drop of irony, calls the antifa mob “a sectet underground network of activists” who have successfully doxxed numerous members of IE, resulting in ‘many losing their jobs’ with many more to come.

    In the meantime the antifa have this secret crack response team hitting the streets to remove the stickers placed around town by IE. Lolz

    Interestingly, the original online piece referenced both the ADL and the SPLC as the authorities of record in defining the IE as anti-semitic and hate group, respectively. So its “official”.

    Subsequently, the same story has been ‘updated’ and no such references are made, though the labels remain.

    Given what Facebook just did, it is plain to see that all forms of centralized media are fully integrated in a collaborative effort to propagandize.

    The silver lining is that their anti-white/christian/tradition/normal actions are coming into view of the normies. But the whites here are cucked hard. Gonna take more than that.
    , @Screwtape
    Also, its long been known that some agency or related shadowy element will plant a story in some obscure but ‘legitimate’ news outlet.

    The story is seasoned for a few days/weeks/months depending on urgency.

    Then the Paper of Record aka Bezos Blog or other mainstream source will be given breadcrumbs to that story.

    The story is printed/broadcast in the mainstream. And poof. The truth.

    The internet has not just made reporters and ‘fact checking’ editorial boards lazy, it has actually helped to destroy the truth and usher in this sark time of manipulation and control.

    The circular nature of how primary information is sourced and curated, the expectations and demands of ‘speed to market’ of that information, and the inversion of the moral code of the purveyors means nothing can be relied upon to carry the truth, especially those ideas that challenge the Narrative.

    Sure, its always been like this to some degree. But bever before have we been living in a time when the info is 24/7 in the palm of our hands (and our children’s) at such volume and frequency that it eclipses real life, observable facts, and the time and space for people to absorb, test, challenge, and compare those ideas to their lived experience and beliefs.

    The lies are one thing, but the destruction of the will to seek out the truth is something else.
  7. @Priss Factor
    I can accept that black nationalism was a reaction to white imperialism that conquered the Americas and brought over slaves from Africa.

    Nationalism has been a reaction to Imperialism, and for most of modern history, whites were the leading imperialists. Granted, white imperialism made great discoveries, connected the entire world, spread knowledge, inspired revolutions, and created vast new wealth & opportunities.
    But it was also destructive and devastating to many peoples around the world. Naturally, the weaker peoples whose lands, cultures, and autonomy are threatened or crushed by an imperialist power are going to move into nationalist mode.

    As blacks were under white imperialist domination in the US, it's understandable that there was a movement to define, preserve, and protect blackness. This was black nationalism.

    But times change. White Imperialism was usurped by Jews. In time, the US became less a superpower nation than a super-colony or super-puppet of an even greater power, the Empire of Judea, a worldwide network. And this Jewish supremacist imperialist power is making white people participate in Judeo-centric ventures to destroy Russia & Iran, wage Wars for Israel, support Israel's eradication of all vestiges of Palestinian nationhood, and etc.

    Because the dominant world power is now Jewish Imperialism, we need white nationalism or white national liberation movement to break free of this supremacism.

    Rule of History. Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). British Empire promoted British nationalism and patriotism but crushed the nationalist aspirations of subject peoples. It said NO to Indian nationalism, even resorting to ruthless means on occasion to suppress it. French empire suppressed Vietnamese and Algerian nationalisms.
    Japan was in nationalist mode when threatened by British and American imperialism, but as it modernized and grew into a major power(and was accepted into the imperialist club as 'honorary whites'), the Japanese made imperialist moves on continental Asia. Japanese empire did all it could do to suppress Chinese and Korean nationalism(and then Filipino and Vietnamese nationalism as the empire expanded). Nazi Empire trampled on Polish and Czech nationalism and sought to crush Russia nationalism. Soviet Imperialism suppressed Polish and Hungarian nationalism.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Roman imperialists ruthlessly suppressed Jewish nationalism. Of course, Romans could take pride of Roman power and glory, but non-Romans had to suppress their own pride of identity to serve and honor Rome. Soviet Empire was somewhat different because it suppressed Russian nationalism along with other nationalism... though, over time, Russian national component of the empire did resurface.

    Why do Jews hate white nationalism? Jews often conflate white nationalism with white supremacism, but that's mostly BS. White nationalism was actually far less aggressive than White imperialist Liberalism. Throughout American history, white nationalism emphasized America's need to take care of its own affairs. It was white liberalism and white progressivism that wanted to expand and rule the world. Since late 19th century, US began to move more into imperialist mode as all the US continent was united and settled. White Imperialism came to dominate over white nationalism. But because the world was dominated by great European empires, American imperialism pretended to be for self-determination of nations. But American imperialism was only trying to invalidate existing empires so that it would gain hegemony over the 'liberated' nations.
    But sour feelings after WWI made Americans look inward. But the double whammy of WWII and the Cold War turned the US into a full-fledged world empire, though in counterbalance against another empire, an 'evil' one of Soviets.
    With the end of the Cold War, US could have retreated from imperialism and minded its own business, but the business opportunities of Free Trade and spectacular rise of Jewish power changed all that. Jews preferred expanded imperialist-globalism over nationalism because Jewish power owes more to horizontal networks around the world than vertical elite-mass unity in any nation(except in Israel). So, Jews were mainly loyal to the Network, the Empire of Judea, than to the US or any particular nation. As Jews gained dominant power in the US, the so-called lone superpower essentially became a colony of the Jewish Empire. The Jewel in the Crown. And because Jews don't have the numbers, they need gentile support and obedience to Jewish supremacist imperialist power. And among all the goyim, whites are most crucial because they are most numerous, capable, and talented. Jews may be the overlords, but they need white managers, engineers, generals, negotiators, lawmen, and etc. to do the heavy lifting. But the ONLY WAY the whites are going to do as told is IF they are denied white identity and white nationalism. After all, if whites think as white nationalists, they will focus on 'what is good for whites in our white nation'. They will be less likely to support Jewish supremacist agendas around the world like hatred toward Russia, Iran, Syria, and endless Wars for Israel. And this is why Jewish Imperialism must suppress white nationalism. Nationalism tends to be rebellious, defiant, and uppity against the empire, especially if it's of an alien people.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Jews love Zionism and Israeli nationalism. Jews love to promote and glorify Jewish identity. Jews, who'd once been nationalist resisters against Roman imperialism, are now the New Romans, and they regard whites as the 'new Jews' to suppress and control(or destroy and scatter to the winds if they disobey Jewish Neo-Roman power). Just like Jewish Imperialism can't abide Palestinian nationalism, it can't tolerate white nationalism. Both threaten Jewish imperialist hegemony. Palestinians in W. Bank demand independence. And white nationalists want white liberation and emancipation from Jewish imperialist globalism. White national liberationists want OUT from the globo-homo empire and more Wars for Israel. This is what Jews fear. This is why Jews smear white nationalism as 'white supremacism' when, if anything, it is anti-supremacist against Jewish Imperialism. What Jews really want is for white cuck-collaborators to keep supporting Jewish imperialist hegemony around the world. Jews are projecting their own supremacism onto white nationalists. But then, Jews who created Israel through use of terror blame Palestinians as a race of terrorists.

    Why are Jews okay with black nationalism in the US? Because they don't really see it as a threat. Besides, Jewish Empire relies far less on black ability and talent. While black talent in sports and music is very profitable to Jews, it is white talent that is crucial in managing and running the Empire as an engine and warship. So, it is far more important for Jews to make whites submit and obey.
    Also, black nationalism can be used to guilt-bait whites. Indeed, even as imperialism generally hates nationalisms, it may support one nationalism against another nationalism(seen as bigger threat) or a rival empire. It's like the Empire of Judea is supportive of Ukrainian nationalism against Russian nationalism(which is seen as a bigger obstacle to total Jewish world hegemony). So, Jews see black nationalism the way they see Ukrainian nationalism. A useful tool for the moment.

    Now, was there a history of white nationalism that was supremacist? In a way, yes, but it was still less belligerent and dangerous than white imperialism and Jewish imperialism. White nationalist rule in the past did treat non-whites as second-class citizens or worse, BUT white nationalism had a limiting effect on the despoilment of America by the world. By allowing mostly only white immigration, American Indians lost their land only to Europeans mostly. Had America not been white nationalist and allowed open door immigration from the beginning, American Indians would have lost all their land to all the world in no time. And much of nature would have been destroyed. White nationalists did defeat and conquer the indigenous folks, but their great and noble race-ism still allowed some space for Indians and their narrative. Also, white nationalist race-ism served as a check on black biological supremacism and imperialism. As blacks were brought as slaves, they were socially oppressed by whites. But because of their superior muscle power, greater natural aggression, rowdier butt energy,and bigger dongs, they could easily become biological imperialists and supremacists over the weaker white race. In a state of nature, blacks will dominate over whites. If you take 200 whites and 200 blacks and strip them naked and put them on an island, blacks will beat up white guys and hump white girls. So, white race-ism and nationalism against blacks were both supremacist and defensive against black natural supremacism.

    Anyway, the most destructive, evil, and venal power in the world today is Jewish Imperialism. Look what it did to Russia in the 90s. Look at its spread of demented globo-homomania. Look at its Wars that leveled so many nations in Mid East and North Africa. Look at its economic destruction of Iran. Look at its demographic policies against US and EU. Look at how it makes white soldiers wreck Muslim nations and then pushes Muslims into the West. Look at how it spreads anti-white hatred in media and academia and Hollywood. Look at how the Sacklers acted like Sassoons who sold opium to the Chinese.

    Indeed, if white nationalists could pry themselves from Jewish imperialism, the world would be a much nicer place. After all, without white cuck-collaboration with Jewish imperialist power, Jews would do far less harm to the world.
    Suppose if whites(in national liberationist mode) had said NO to all these Wars for Israel. Middle East would be in one piece and millions wouldn't be dead or displaced and pushed into white nations. There would be justice for Palestinians finally. US would not be in another stupid 'cold war' with Russia. And in the 90s, the US might have been constructive and helpful toward Russia than merely rapacious as the 'shock doctrine' turned out to be the shylock doctrine of looting the entire economy to enrich the Tribe. The world should welcome white nationalist liberation from Jewish Globalist Imperialism like the world greeted the national liberation of India from the British Empire. To Jews, a white national liberationist who says NO to being conscripted into the Jewish Empire is like an uppity slave who says NO. He must be whipped. White National Liberationists must say "Hell No, We won't go" and "Globalists suck, we won't cuck."

    But then, the reason why so many in the non-white world participate with Jewish Imperialism against white nationalism is because white nationalism says "We want our white nations to remain white", whereas Jewish imperialism says, "We will hand you free tickets to white nations IF you support our agenda as 'new Europeans' or 'new Americans'." Non-whites will do ANYTHING to come to richer and nicer white nations.
    Imperialism has its resisters but also collaborators. When the British empire existed, many Hindus and Chinese took advantage to spread out across the world for opportunities for profit. Most people will do ANYTHING for whatever improves their lives materially.

    Isn’t Israel a thorn in the side of what you refer to as Jewish imperialism here? Is that why it is so controversial among elite Jews who view themselves as citizens of the world?

    • Replies: @Gordo

    Isn’t Israel a thorn in the side of what you refer to as Jewish imperialism here? Is that why it is so controversial among elite Jews who view themselves as citizens of the world?
     
    They view themselves as super-citizens, the rest of us as subjects.
  8. @fnn
    DOJ says white gangbangers are "white supremacists." Meanwhile, black and brown gangbangers are just plain old "criminals."
    http://newobserveronline.com/us-doj-criminals-with-nazi-names-are-white-supremacists-but-hispanic-or-black-power-name-gangs-are-not-supremacists/

    And those same "white supremacists" have been caught smuggling illegal aliens across the border.
    http://newobserveronline.com/aryan-brotherhood-prison-gang-posing-as-white-supremacists-caught-smuggling-nonwhite-invaders-into-us/

    Ordinary criminals are being implicitly portrayed as part of an imaginary worldwide white supremacist terror network for ideological reasons.

    Yeah it happens a lot. Even out here in rural white all Republican towns

    People want those drugs and drug money and illegals have a wide selection of both if you’re willing to help.

  9. @Audacious Epigone
    It's so easy for lazy media organizations to disparage whoever they don't like by referring to the SPLC that I'm skeptical the organization will go anywhere. It certainly has the money to hang around forever.

    The local smut rag here in my blue outpost did just that recently.

    The ‘story’ was about some group, Identity Europa, a “racist hate group” that is being literally hunted down by the ____ anti-fascists (named as a legitimate regional organization in the story).

    Apparently the IE group has ‘rebranded’ and reappeared on Twitter after its previous incarnation was purged, so the [noble and righteous] antifa group is going after Twitter too.

    The author, without a drop of irony, calls the antifa mob “a sectet underground network of activists” who have successfully doxxed numerous members of IE, resulting in ‘many losing their jobs’ with many more to come.

    In the meantime the antifa have this secret crack response team hitting the streets to remove the stickers placed around town by IE. Lolz

    Interestingly, the original online piece referenced both the ADL and the SPLC as the authorities of record in defining the IE as anti-semitic and hate group, respectively. So its “official”.

    Subsequently, the same story has been ‘updated’ and no such references are made, though the labels remain.

    Given what Facebook just did, it is plain to see that all forms of centralized media are fully integrated in a collaborative effort to propagandize.

    The silver lining is that their anti-white/christian/tradition/normal actions are coming into view of the normies. But the whites here are cucked hard. Gonna take more than that.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  10. @Audacious Epigone
    It's so easy for lazy media organizations to disparage whoever they don't like by referring to the SPLC that I'm skeptical the organization will go anywhere. It certainly has the money to hang around forever.

    Also, its long been known that some agency or related shadowy element will plant a story in some obscure but ‘legitimate’ news outlet.

    The story is seasoned for a few days/weeks/months depending on urgency.

    Then the Paper of Record aka Bezos Blog or other mainstream source will be given breadcrumbs to that story.

    The story is printed/broadcast in the mainstream. And poof. The truth.

    The internet has not just made reporters and ‘fact checking’ editorial boards lazy, it has actually helped to destroy the truth and usher in this sark time of manipulation and control.

    The circular nature of how primary information is sourced and curated, the expectations and demands of ‘speed to market’ of that information, and the inversion of the moral code of the purveyors means nothing can be relied upon to carry the truth, especially those ideas that challenge the Narrative.

    Sure, its always been like this to some degree. But bever before have we been living in a time when the info is 24/7 in the palm of our hands (and our children’s) at such volume and frequency that it eclipses real life, observable facts, and the time and space for people to absorb, test, challenge, and compare those ideas to their lived experience and beliefs.

    The lies are one thing, but the destruction of the will to seek out the truth is something else.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The lies are one thing, but the destruction of the will to seek out the truth is something else.

    That's a profoundly important observation.
  11. Comparing Pew 2016 to 2018 the black support for BLM went up from 65% to 83%, and this is because of economic anxiety skyrocketing for blacks and plummeted for whites since Trump was elected (yes even white dems are less economically anxious). This is despite Trump having the lowest black unemployment rate and causing many young black defectors. Yes liberal whites are more liberal on the racial resentment questions than blacks, but they mostly cite service and volunteering as the best method of change.

    Where as the most cited strategy among African Americans is revolution. And with a majority of the respondents, 64 percent, believe that the Black Lives Matter movement would be more effective with a centralized leadership structure under one national leader we’ll definitely see something violent develop soon if we do have any economic downturn

    Which looks increasingly likely

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    That said the bane of the communism movement in America has been its inability to get blacks to actually significantly riot and protest despite the communist feverish support of the black belt or Chicago nations. Though with the diminishing of the influence of the black church and blacks being less and less politically important to democrats, the communist certainly have the biggest opportunity for recruitment.

    As do the conservatives (fun fact: a white conservative speaker sees fall in support from nonwhite conservatives, a conservative nonwhite doesn't see a fall with either group....even the whitest of evangelicals)
  12. @Oblivionrecurs
    Comparing Pew 2016 to 2018 the black support for BLM went up from 65% to 83%, and this is because of economic anxiety skyrocketing for blacks and plummeted for whites since Trump was elected (yes even white dems are less economically anxious). This is despite Trump having the lowest black unemployment rate and causing many young black defectors. Yes liberal whites are more liberal on the racial resentment questions than blacks, but they mostly cite service and volunteering as the best method of change.

    Where as the most cited strategy among African Americans is revolution. And with a majority of the respondents, 64 percent, believe that the Black Lives Matter movement would be more effective with a centralized leadership structure under one national leader we'll definitely see something violent develop soon if we do have any economic downturn

    Which looks increasingly likely

    That said the bane of the communism movement in America has been its inability to get blacks to actually significantly riot and protest despite the communist feverish support of the black belt or Chicago nations. Though with the diminishing of the influence of the black church and blacks being less and less politically important to democrats, the communist certainly have the biggest opportunity for recruitment.

    As do the conservatives (fun fact: a white conservative speaker sees fall in support from nonwhite conservatives, a conservative nonwhite doesn’t see a fall with either group….even the whitest of evangelicals)

  13. OT, but:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-notwithstanding-religious-symbols-1.5073945

    “The Coalition Avenir Québec government is proposing a new law that would prohibit public workers in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols such as a hijab, kippa or turban. …

    The ban would apply to Quebec Crown prosecutors, judges and any public employee who carries a firearm.

    It would also extend to teachers and principals, though there will be a grandfather clause in the bill to exempt teachers already working in the classroom.

    There are also new rules that would require citizens to uncover their faces to receive a public service for identification or security purposes.”

    Interesting how Canadian provincial politicians are actually doing a great job fighting the Globohomo… Doug Ford in Ontario, who is (unfortunately) pro-immigration but is working with Muslims and other minorities to fix the left wing school system. And now Francois Legault in Quebec, who is cutting immigration by 20% and banning religious symbols… We all know who this is targeting, despite the BS about “secular values”. Legault is a Quebec nationalist, a White, Quebec nationalist. You guys want this in the USA; you should study some of these Canadian politicians who are actually getting shit done.

    Also, the courts can’t block this, due to the notwithstanding clause. The jurisdiction can declare notwithstanding and overturn the judge’s decision for up to 5 years.

    (P.S. the insiders I’ve talked to are increasingly confident that Trudeau will be out of office after the October election).

  14. The problem with nationalism based on skin color in the US is that it is simply unworkable. Whites have no discernible ethos that is in large similar enough that mere whiteness alone creates a nationhood as the history of Europe details.

    In the US we have some founding documents that outline our national ethos and practice. And if equitably applied in practice will generally yield a common ethos, regardless of skin color. The great experiment of separate but equal has thus far proved to be less than equal on all counts. I would that we could escape that fact — but we cannot.

    And it would be accurate that blacks desire for separate nation is the result of being in hostile territory. And in no less a response to the dominant population desiring to have them forgo their right to citizenship and be gone. Doesn’t make it any more workable.

    It would be an interesting discussion this business of carving up the US and whether said exit or entry into said states is voluntary or mandatory.

    • Replies: @Anon

    The problem with nationalism based on skin color in the US is that it is simply unworkable.
     
    Nationalism is not based on skin color. It is based on race. Race can imply skin tone within a certain range for most healthy members, but it certainly does not imply only skin tone.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    This is why I see political dissolution as likely, and sooner than most people think, with a currency crisis the most likely event to set it off.

    My hope: Voluntary movement into countries that resemble Bluestans and Redstans now. The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and culturally diverse. Redstans will be poorer, more equal, and more homogeneous.

    The strongest opposition to this won't come from totalitarian progressives who want to control deplorable behavior. It will come from the military-industrial complex, which will become far more difficult to maintain.
  15. Anon[211] • Disclaimer says:

    The black nationalist movement is a reaction to centuries of institutionalized white supremacy in America

    This seems like a political gauntlet that lacks the requisite nuance.

    To wit, the moral logic is easily co-opted and the narrative is easily flipped:

    “The White nationalist movement is a reaction to centuries of institutionalized Jewish supremacy in America and Europe”.

    After that, the essential argument is merely historical control narrative that is less and less clear to everyone as time passes. It certainly isn’t a clean win for Jews at this point in history.

    Leaving open such a clear and succinct opportunity for counter-argument, in reflecting their own moral logic back to them using even their precise sentence structure, is below the normal propaganda standard for Jews.

  16. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    The problem with nationalism based on skin color in the US is that it is simply unworkable. Whites have no discernible ethos that is in large similar enough that mere whiteness alone creates a nationhood as the history of Europe details.

    In the US we have some founding documents that outline our national ethos and practice. And if equitably applied in practice will generally yield a common ethos, regardless of skin color. The great experiment of separate but equal has thus far proved to be less than equal on all counts. I would that we could escape that fact -- but we cannot.

    And it would be accurate that blacks desire for separate nation is the result of being in hostile territory. And in no less a response to the dominant population desiring to have them forgo their right to citizenship and be gone. Doesn't make it any more workable.

    It would be an interesting discussion this business of carving up the US and whether said exit or entry into said states is voluntary or mandatory.

    The problem with nationalism based on skin color in the US is that it is simply unworkable.

    Nationalism is not based on skin color. It is based on race. Race can imply skin tone within a certain range for most healthy members, but it certainly does not imply only skin tone.

    • Agree: Roderick Spode
  17. “Nationalism is not based on skin color. It is based on race. Race can imply skin tone within a certain range for most healthy members, but it certainly does not imply only skin tone.”

    Laughing. Ok I will play. ohhh t’is a tangled web . . .

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human

    The primary component of this discussion is skin color. Hence the expressions:

    Black nationalism

    White nationalism

    But in response to your technical rabbinic assail:

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human

    ————————-

    As I stated regarding black nationalism, white nationalism or however one chooses to qualify it to sooth their ambitions and sensitivities, it would be interesting to consider a conversation and polity of how to carve up the country.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Laughing. Ok I will play. ohhh t’is a tangled web . . .
     
    It's not.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human
     
    If the first paragraph in that entry is your reference and perspective, it isn't you who is doing the laughing. It is everyone else here. And not at me.

    The primary component of this discussion is skin color. Hence the expressions:

    Black nationalism

    White nationalism
     

    Its not. Hence why "White Nationalists" are called "racists" and not "skin colorists".

    White and Black are colloquial distinctions for race, which goes well beyond skin color. As proven genetically and in social history.

    We didn't have specific genetic terminology before the 20th century, and so we are left with the historical legacy of the proximate racial values of "white" and "black". To have to describe this to you is to teach the equivalent of a primary school lesson.


    But in response to your technical rabbinic assail:

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human
     

    Ignoring that you twice posted the same link to politically correct nonsense, twenty four words apart (ha):

    It's not a "Rabinnic assail". Everyone who disagrees with your phrasing / concepts is not rabbinical, a rabbi or a Jew.

    My correction directs you to the finer racial distinction that is consistent through the sociopolitical history of the West and is a continued necessity: as it has always been.

    We've gotten into enough trouble by not politically succeeding at necessary boundary assertion. There is no need to perpetuate that failure here.

  18. The black nationalist movement is a reaction to centuries of institutionalized white supremacy in America

    The SPLC promotes propaganda for Black Nationalists now?

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
    The SPLC has never been about love of blacks, much though they may cry otherwise. It has always been, first and foremost, about love of money. Then, as Dees' power waned through the late eighties and nineties, and Cohen's waxed, love of money made room for hatred of whites.

    That's why the SPLC chides anti-white black racism, but gently, describing it as a reaction to white racism, while black anti-Semitism is just condemned.

    I actually bring up this exact point in my court battle with the SPLC now underway in the US Dist Court in Kansas City:

    https://www.craignelsen.com/nelsen_v_splc/dkt-034.pdf
  19. Clearly,

    the issue is nationalism as to skin color —

    regardless of what feels about the meaning of race.

    “in reflecting their own moral logic back to them using even their precise sentence structure, is below the normal propaganda standard for Jews.”

    Laugh.

    Such as interjecting a needless foray into the meaning of race when the matter is clearly stated in terms of nationalism by skin color.

    • Replies: @Anon

    “in reflecting their own moral logic back to them using even their precise sentence structure, is below the normal propaganda standard for Jews.”

    Laugh.

    Such as interjecting a needless foray into the meaning of race when the matter is clearly stated in terms of nationalism by skin color.
     
    You must really be upset to continue your temper tantrum over two posts, picking out excerpts from off-topic posts to twist into some kind of barely discernible jab at me in regard the topic you already addressed with a double-posted link (stutter).

    When disagreeing with you over the race concept, where did I reflect your own moral logic back to you using your sentence structure?

    Where do Jews attempt to motivate European tribes to have greater rather than less racial boundaries?

    Try to stay coherent and less emotional. It will help your case.
    , @fnn
    Race is an ancestry group, not a skin color. "White" (for the last 300 or so years) has come to usually refer to persons of European ancestry.

    Razib Khan on race and skin color:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/05/skin-color-is-not-race/


    One of the peculiarities of American discussion about race is that skin color is assumed to be synonymous with racial distinctions. That is, skin color is not just a trait, but it is the trait which defines between population differences. There’s a reason for this, the skin is the largest organ and it is very salient. Populations with little phylogenetic relationship to each other, from India to the Pacific to Southeast Asia have been referred to as “black” by lighter-skinned populations. No population is referred to by their neighbors as those “straight hairs,” to my knowledge. But another point in the United States is that historically the black-white dichotomy has dominated our historical narrative to the exclusion of others.
     

    It is important to consider the implications of the wide variation in the strength of the correlation between constitutive pigmentation and individual ancestry in these admixed samples. This variability is presumably a reflection of differences in the degree of population structure present in each population or of the levels of pigmentation differences between the parental populations and the number of genes involved. For example,the strong correlation observed in Puerto Ricans seems to indicate that continuous gene flow, assortative mating or both factors are important in this population. On the contrary, the correlation between melanin content and ancestry in Hispanics, though significant, is weak. This is consistent with historical data indicating that this population appeared as a result of a relatively old admixture event and that independent assortment has greatly decreased the association between unlinked markers created by the admixture process…Alternatively, the differences in the extent of the correlation between constitutive pigmentation and ancestry may be due in part to admixture histories involving populations with widely different pigmentation levels. The Puerto Rican individuals have substantial contributions from three parental groups (Europeans, West Africans and Indigenous Americans). The African American and African Caribbean individuals have contributions mainly from West Africans and Europeans, and the Mexican and Hispanic individuals have primarily European and Indigenous American ancestry.
     
  20. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    "Nationalism is not based on skin color. It is based on race. Race can imply skin tone within a certain range for most healthy members, but it certainly does not imply only skin tone."


    Laughing. Ok I will play. ohhh t'is a tangled web . . .

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human


    The primary component of this discussion is skin color. Hence the expressions:


    Black nationalism

    White nationalism


    But in response to your technical rabbinic assail:

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human


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

    As I stated regarding black nationalism, white nationalism or however one chooses to qualify it to sooth their ambitions and sensitivities, it would be interesting to consider a conversation and polity of how to carve up the country.

    Laughing. Ok I will play. ohhh t’is a tangled web . . .

    It’s not.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human

    If the first paragraph in that entry is your reference and perspective, it isn’t you who is doing the laughing. It is everyone else here. And not at me.

    The primary component of this discussion is skin color. Hence the expressions:

    Black nationalism

    White nationalism

    Its not. Hence why “White Nationalists” are called “racists” and not “skin colorists”.

    White and Black are colloquial distinctions for race, which goes well beyond skin color. As proven genetically and in social history.

    We didn’t have specific genetic terminology before the 20th century, and so we are left with the historical legacy of the proximate racial values of “white” and “black”. To have to describe this to you is to teach the equivalent of a primary school lesson.

    But in response to your technical rabbinic assail:

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human

    Ignoring that you twice posted the same link to politically correct nonsense, twenty four words apart (ha):

    It’s not a “Rabinnic assail”. Everyone who disagrees with your phrasing / concepts is not rabbinical, a rabbi or a Jew.

    My correction directs you to the finer racial distinction that is consistent through the sociopolitical history of the West and is a continued necessity: as it has always been.

    We’ve gotten into enough trouble by not politically succeeding at necessary boundary assertion. There is no need to perpetuate that failure here.

  21. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    Clearly,

    the issue is nationalism as to skin color ---


    regardless of what feels about the meaning of race.


    "in reflecting their own moral logic back to them using even their precise sentence structure, is below the normal propaganda standard for Jews."


    Laugh.


    Such as interjecting a needless foray into the meaning of race when the matter is clearly stated in terms of nationalism by skin color.

    “in reflecting their own moral logic back to them using even their precise sentence structure, is below the normal propaganda standard for Jews.”

    Laugh.

    Such as interjecting a needless foray into the meaning of race when the matter is clearly stated in terms of nationalism by skin color.

    You must really be upset to continue your temper tantrum over two posts, picking out excerpts from off-topic posts to twist into some kind of barely discernible jab at me in regard the topic you already addressed with a double-posted link (stutter).

    When disagreeing with you over the race concept, where did I reflect your own moral logic back to you using your sentence structure?

    Where do Jews attempt to motivate European tribes to have greater rather than less racial boundaries?

    Try to stay coherent and less emotional. It will help your case.

  22. @EliteCommInc.
    Clearly,

    the issue is nationalism as to skin color ---


    regardless of what feels about the meaning of race.


    "in reflecting their own moral logic back to them using even their precise sentence structure, is below the normal propaganda standard for Jews."


    Laugh.


    Such as interjecting a needless foray into the meaning of race when the matter is clearly stated in terms of nationalism by skin color.

    Race is an ancestry group, not a skin color. “White” (for the last 300 or so years) has come to usually refer to persons of European ancestry.

    Razib Khan on race and skin color:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/05/skin-color-is-not-race/

    One of the peculiarities of American discussion about race is that skin color is assumed to be synonymous with racial distinctions. That is, skin color is not just a trait, but it is the trait which defines between population differences. There’s a reason for this, the skin is the largest organ and it is very salient. Populations with little phylogenetic relationship to each other, from India to the Pacific to Southeast Asia have been referred to as “black” by lighter-skinned populations. No population is referred to by their neighbors as those “straight hairs,” to my knowledge. But another point in the United States is that historically the black-white dichotomy has dominated our historical narrative to the exclusion of others.

    It is important to consider the implications of the wide variation in the strength of the correlation between constitutive pigmentation and individual ancestry in these admixed samples. This variability is presumably a reflection of differences in the degree of population structure present in each population or of the levels of pigmentation differences between the parental populations and the number of genes involved. For example,the strong correlation observed in Puerto Ricans seems to indicate that continuous gene flow, assortative mating or both factors are important in this population. On the contrary, the correlation between melanin content and ancestry in Hispanics, though significant, is weak. This is consistent with historical data indicating that this population appeared as a result of a relatively old admixture event and that independent assortment has greatly decreased the association between unlinked markers created by the admixture process…Alternatively, the differences in the extent of the correlation between constitutive pigmentation and ancestry may be due in part to admixture histories involving populations with widely different pigmentation levels. The Puerto Rican individuals have substantial contributions from three parental groups (Europeans, West Africans and Indigenous Americans). The African American and African Caribbean individuals have contributions mainly from West Africans and Europeans, and the Mexican and Hispanic individuals have primarily European and Indigenous American ancestry.

  23. What tiresome nonsense.

    The Britannica article says the word race is generally meaningless. First, I never said anything about the word race. I used the terms as they were presented in the article. Which makes the matter of race inconsequential. Because the nationalism is based on the notion that by definition people of said color of skin would share a similar ethos.

    Race – is not an issue. What is an issue is your willful hackneyed insistence on having some issue which as routine I kindly entertain, despite its lack of relevance. that’s me being polite. That’s you making hay where no hay exists. But that is not atypical.

    Now the word racism is not the same as the word race. When someone refers to racism and I lean heavily on the old school version, they are saying that your are an advocate of policies and practices that deny rights based on superficial biological traits. i.e. skin color being the most prominent. That advocacy has generally been in reference to those with the power to deny rights on that basis. Hence a reference to white nationalists as espousing a polity or ethos that bars others while promoting their own – despite the fact that all should have the same rights.

    As noted previously, when referring to black nationalism it does not have the same bearing, though for the sake of playing balance, one might just grant that they are the same despite some key differences.

    The primary differences is historical practice. You just don’t have black nationalists in a position of power to deny whites their right as outlayed by the Constitution — thus by comparison the record highly favors a polity in the real of white nationalists also being actors of discrimination. In other words, reality matters. Now what some imagine is a rhetorical equivalent. When black ministers of Islam among talk about jews or whites they are almost discuss the matter from a position of not trusting them, about their character perceived or otherwise. But there is little in the way by my experience in which said ministers advocate a policy to deny them as citizens their rights.

    odd, race hasn’t even appeared as a wisp.

    The reason racist is the term is because of its historical use to skin color. You are forever playing the fields of rhetoric of which know not. I hate to say it context here matters. Racist refers to the practice of discrimination to skin color. It is a shame that the terms usefulness has become a mangled mess — much to your joy as you can squander that mess into meaningless nonsequitor, comments. I am just not so moved or intimidated by the tactic.

    Your attempt to technically manufacture a position by discussing race, which is but a tangential issue. What is disliked is my refusal to engage or bend to your preferred submissive posture. You are still smarting over several issues in which you used references that contradicted your advance and did so harshly.

    Ohh stop pretending to be some manner of moderator for fair play — the record is far to long gone for that role.

    Again,

    1. you interjected race – not me by doing so you muddled the discussion by diversion

    2. you are incorrect the social linguistic and rhetorical use of the word race has been to color.

    3, racism in the traditional meaning goes to the use of power to discriminate and or advocate for the same based on superficial traits — most often skin color. The tradition of the term race has been to color — not philosophical and political renderings — that is relatively new. It used to be and still is in my view -0- not skin colorist — but white racist(s) in all of colorful blandness. I have never heard skin colorists, but your imagined unique is in interesting turn of phrase — it’s just wrong.

    4. The practice of white nationalists historically has reflected a discriminatory consequence –hence why the crossover when using the term racists to their polity.

    I have no idea what you re talking political correctness. They give a full and descriptive understanding of race as discussed among the scientific community That is the mainstream community, I think. You are welcome to disagree. But that issue really has no place here.

    White nationalists

    Black nationalists

    Laughing. I certainly grant that people of reverse colors could labeled to said groups, though that exception would most likely reinforce the rule.

    as for the cite, if it applies, I see no reason to use it twice or more.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    You just don’t have black nationalists in a position of power to deny whites their right as outlayed by the Constitution
     
    This is not true.  Blacks in general have been highly successful in denying Whites freedom of residency and movement through the use of violent crime; they have used this success to ethnically cleanse and take over many neighborhoods and entire cities including Newark, Baltimore and Detroit.  When they do this they are often punished lightly or not even pursued by police, but any White attempting the same power-play against Blacks gets the James Fields treatment.  Having the government exercise power on your behalf while others cannot obtain the same protections is definitely a denial of rights to the latter.
  24. “You must really be upset to continue your temper tantrum over two posts, picking out excerpts from off-topic posts to twist into some kind of barely discernible jab at me in regard the topic you already addressed with a double-posted link (stutter).

    When disagreeing with you over the race concept, where did I reflect your own moral logic back to you using your sentence structure?

    Where do Jews attempt to motivate European tribes to have greater rather than less racial boundaries?”

    Ohh wow! Where to begin. You claimed to use so and so words and morality against them. And I am saying, just like your interjecting a discussion about race — which has little or no bearing on the issue. I never mentioned race. No hint of the term race. I used the expressed references in the article. White nationalism and what I sated is that whites have no largely similar unifying ethos that is identifiable by skin color and noted Europe as an example.

    Even among Europeans whites by history have major differences in ethos and practices . . . No European nationality exists despite skin color.

  25. “Race is an ancestry group, not a skin color. “White” (for the last 300 or so years) has come to usually refer to persons of European ancestry.”

    That is accurate, but no European nationality exists — so when one is advances white nationalism, according to your suggestion it looks like Europe, but Europeans have no singular nationality. So that reference would fall apart when designing said nationality in the US, as the only common factor salient to said constitution would be skin color and even that is unclear.

    I have a very clear idea what a black nationalist muslim state would look like, because it is based on a consistent set of principles beyond skin color.

    • Replies: @fnn
    European nationalities are relatively recent developments. For example, Charlemagne is claimed by both the French and the Germans. There is still a debate over whether the Poles or the Germans have a better claim to Copernicus. The dispute has become more subdued as the Germans have become progressively more self-hating and the Poles more assertive.
  26. Smollett going free makes things even better for us. It makes it plain as day how utterly corrupt the system is.

    Now, it’s in surreal territory: the Nigerian brothers may have been in ‘whiteface’? ROTFL.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That can't be true. Psychological projection just hit new stratospheric heights if it is!
  27. @EliteCommInc.
    "Race is an ancestry group, not a skin color. “White” (for the last 300 or so years) has come to usually refer to persons of European ancestry."

    That is accurate, but no European nationality exists -- so when one is advances white nationalism, according to your suggestion it looks like Europe, but Europeans have no singular nationality. So that reference would fall apart when designing said nationality in the US, as the only common factor salient to said constitution would be skin color and even that is unclear.

    I have a very clear idea what a black nationalist muslim state would look like, because it is based on a consistent set of principles beyond skin color.

    European nationalities are relatively recent developments. For example, Charlemagne is claimed by both the French and the Germans. There is still a debate over whether the Poles or the Germans have a better claim to Copernicus. The dispute has become more subdued as the Germans have become progressively more self-hating and the Poles more assertive.

    • Replies: @Aufklærer108

    Charlemagne is claimed by both the French and the Germans
     
    This is not entirely accurate. Everybody agrees he spoke and therefore was German. What is claimed by both sides is his legacy: were the Franks ancestors to the modern French or Germans?
  28. But let’s be clear, White Nationalism is definitely not a reaction to institutionalized, industrialized oppression of white people. It just popped into existence suddenly and for no reason at all, and we have no idea what’s behind it except that we’re pretty sure it’s somehow related to milk, cartoon frogs and prison gangs and needs to be crushed mercilessly (which, again, is not a form of oppression, because f*** you).

  29. correction: as for the cite, if it applies, I see no reason not to use it twice or more, if it is applicable.

  30. @Priss Factor
    I can accept that black nationalism was a reaction to white imperialism that conquered the Americas and brought over slaves from Africa.

    Nationalism has been a reaction to Imperialism, and for most of modern history, whites were the leading imperialists. Granted, white imperialism made great discoveries, connected the entire world, spread knowledge, inspired revolutions, and created vast new wealth & opportunities.
    But it was also destructive and devastating to many peoples around the world. Naturally, the weaker peoples whose lands, cultures, and autonomy are threatened or crushed by an imperialist power are going to move into nationalist mode.

    As blacks were under white imperialist domination in the US, it's understandable that there was a movement to define, preserve, and protect blackness. This was black nationalism.

    But times change. White Imperialism was usurped by Jews. In time, the US became less a superpower nation than a super-colony or super-puppet of an even greater power, the Empire of Judea, a worldwide network. And this Jewish supremacist imperialist power is making white people participate in Judeo-centric ventures to destroy Russia & Iran, wage Wars for Israel, support Israel's eradication of all vestiges of Palestinian nationhood, and etc.

    Because the dominant world power is now Jewish Imperialism, we need white nationalism or white national liberation movement to break free of this supremacism.

    Rule of History. Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). British Empire promoted British nationalism and patriotism but crushed the nationalist aspirations of subject peoples. It said NO to Indian nationalism, even resorting to ruthless means on occasion to suppress it. French empire suppressed Vietnamese and Algerian nationalisms.
    Japan was in nationalist mode when threatened by British and American imperialism, but as it modernized and grew into a major power(and was accepted into the imperialist club as 'honorary whites'), the Japanese made imperialist moves on continental Asia. Japanese empire did all it could do to suppress Chinese and Korean nationalism(and then Filipino and Vietnamese nationalism as the empire expanded). Nazi Empire trampled on Polish and Czech nationalism and sought to crush Russia nationalism. Soviet Imperialism suppressed Polish and Hungarian nationalism.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Roman imperialists ruthlessly suppressed Jewish nationalism. Of course, Romans could take pride of Roman power and glory, but non-Romans had to suppress their own pride of identity to serve and honor Rome. Soviet Empire was somewhat different because it suppressed Russian nationalism along with other nationalism... though, over time, Russian national component of the empire did resurface.

    Why do Jews hate white nationalism? Jews often conflate white nationalism with white supremacism, but that's mostly BS. White nationalism was actually far less aggressive than White imperialist Liberalism. Throughout American history, white nationalism emphasized America's need to take care of its own affairs. It was white liberalism and white progressivism that wanted to expand and rule the world. Since late 19th century, US began to move more into imperialist mode as all the US continent was united and settled. White Imperialism came to dominate over white nationalism. But because the world was dominated by great European empires, American imperialism pretended to be for self-determination of nations. But American imperialism was only trying to invalidate existing empires so that it would gain hegemony over the 'liberated' nations.
    But sour feelings after WWI made Americans look inward. But the double whammy of WWII and the Cold War turned the US into a full-fledged world empire, though in counterbalance against another empire, an 'evil' one of Soviets.
    With the end of the Cold War, US could have retreated from imperialism and minded its own business, but the business opportunities of Free Trade and spectacular rise of Jewish power changed all that. Jews preferred expanded imperialist-globalism over nationalism because Jewish power owes more to horizontal networks around the world than vertical elite-mass unity in any nation(except in Israel). So, Jews were mainly loyal to the Network, the Empire of Judea, than to the US or any particular nation. As Jews gained dominant power in the US, the so-called lone superpower essentially became a colony of the Jewish Empire. The Jewel in the Crown. And because Jews don't have the numbers, they need gentile support and obedience to Jewish supremacist imperialist power. And among all the goyim, whites are most crucial because they are most numerous, capable, and talented. Jews may be the overlords, but they need white managers, engineers, generals, negotiators, lawmen, and etc. to do the heavy lifting. But the ONLY WAY the whites are going to do as told is IF they are denied white identity and white nationalism. After all, if whites think as white nationalists, they will focus on 'what is good for whites in our white nation'. They will be less likely to support Jewish supremacist agendas around the world like hatred toward Russia, Iran, Syria, and endless Wars for Israel. And this is why Jewish Imperialism must suppress white nationalism. Nationalism tends to be rebellious, defiant, and uppity against the empire, especially if it's of an alien people.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Jews love Zionism and Israeli nationalism. Jews love to promote and glorify Jewish identity. Jews, who'd once been nationalist resisters against Roman imperialism, are now the New Romans, and they regard whites as the 'new Jews' to suppress and control(or destroy and scatter to the winds if they disobey Jewish Neo-Roman power). Just like Jewish Imperialism can't abide Palestinian nationalism, it can't tolerate white nationalism. Both threaten Jewish imperialist hegemony. Palestinians in W. Bank demand independence. And white nationalists want white liberation and emancipation from Jewish imperialist globalism. White national liberationists want OUT from the globo-homo empire and more Wars for Israel. This is what Jews fear. This is why Jews smear white nationalism as 'white supremacism' when, if anything, it is anti-supremacist against Jewish Imperialism. What Jews really want is for white cuck-collaborators to keep supporting Jewish imperialist hegemony around the world. Jews are projecting their own supremacism onto white nationalists. But then, Jews who created Israel through use of terror blame Palestinians as a race of terrorists.

    Why are Jews okay with black nationalism in the US? Because they don't really see it as a threat. Besides, Jewish Empire relies far less on black ability and talent. While black talent in sports and music is very profitable to Jews, it is white talent that is crucial in managing and running the Empire as an engine and warship. So, it is far more important for Jews to make whites submit and obey.
    Also, black nationalism can be used to guilt-bait whites. Indeed, even as imperialism generally hates nationalisms, it may support one nationalism against another nationalism(seen as bigger threat) or a rival empire. It's like the Empire of Judea is supportive of Ukrainian nationalism against Russian nationalism(which is seen as a bigger obstacle to total Jewish world hegemony). So, Jews see black nationalism the way they see Ukrainian nationalism. A useful tool for the moment.

    Now, was there a history of white nationalism that was supremacist? In a way, yes, but it was still less belligerent and dangerous than white imperialism and Jewish imperialism. White nationalist rule in the past did treat non-whites as second-class citizens or worse, BUT white nationalism had a limiting effect on the despoilment of America by the world. By allowing mostly only white immigration, American Indians lost their land only to Europeans mostly. Had America not been white nationalist and allowed open door immigration from the beginning, American Indians would have lost all their land to all the world in no time. And much of nature would have been destroyed. White nationalists did defeat and conquer the indigenous folks, but their great and noble race-ism still allowed some space for Indians and their narrative. Also, white nationalist race-ism served as a check on black biological supremacism and imperialism. As blacks were brought as slaves, they were socially oppressed by whites. But because of their superior muscle power, greater natural aggression, rowdier butt energy,and bigger dongs, they could easily become biological imperialists and supremacists over the weaker white race. In a state of nature, blacks will dominate over whites. If you take 200 whites and 200 blacks and strip them naked and put them on an island, blacks will beat up white guys and hump white girls. So, white race-ism and nationalism against blacks were both supremacist and defensive against black natural supremacism.

    Anyway, the most destructive, evil, and venal power in the world today is Jewish Imperialism. Look what it did to Russia in the 90s. Look at its spread of demented globo-homomania. Look at its Wars that leveled so many nations in Mid East and North Africa. Look at its economic destruction of Iran. Look at its demographic policies against US and EU. Look at how it makes white soldiers wreck Muslim nations and then pushes Muslims into the West. Look at how it spreads anti-white hatred in media and academia and Hollywood. Look at how the Sacklers acted like Sassoons who sold opium to the Chinese.

    Indeed, if white nationalists could pry themselves from Jewish imperialism, the world would be a much nicer place. After all, without white cuck-collaboration with Jewish imperialist power, Jews would do far less harm to the world.
    Suppose if whites(in national liberationist mode) had said NO to all these Wars for Israel. Middle East would be in one piece and millions wouldn't be dead or displaced and pushed into white nations. There would be justice for Palestinians finally. US would not be in another stupid 'cold war' with Russia. And in the 90s, the US might have been constructive and helpful toward Russia than merely rapacious as the 'shock doctrine' turned out to be the shylock doctrine of looting the entire economy to enrich the Tribe. The world should welcome white nationalist liberation from Jewish Globalist Imperialism like the world greeted the national liberation of India from the British Empire. To Jews, a white national liberationist who says NO to being conscripted into the Jewish Empire is like an uppity slave who says NO. He must be whipped. White National Liberationists must say "Hell No, We won't go" and "Globalists suck, we won't cuck."

    But then, the reason why so many in the non-white world participate with Jewish Imperialism against white nationalism is because white nationalism says "We want our white nations to remain white", whereas Jewish imperialism says, "We will hand you free tickets to white nations IF you support our agenda as 'new Europeans' or 'new Americans'." Non-whites will do ANYTHING to come to richer and nicer white nations.
    Imperialism has its resisters but also collaborators. When the British empire existed, many Hindus and Chinese took advantage to spread out across the world for opportunities for profit. Most people will do ANYTHING for whatever improves their lives materially.

    “As blacks were under white imperialist domination in the US, it’s understandable that there was a movement to define, preserve, and protect blackness. This was black nationalism. ”

    The problem with this is that first, American negro culture is defined by its perceived lower tier status relative to American whites. All of the anger, angst, outrage, resentment, envy, jealousy, etc, that mostly defines American negro culture requires the presence of whites in order for that identity to have any meaning or authenticity.

    So secondly, preserving “blackness” independent of white influence would require negros to return to Africa and resume their ancestral identities, free of white influence.

    American “black nationalism” is a non-sequitur, as they have no “nation” to begin with. (Can there be Samoan nationalism in the US?) Again, its national identity is based upon its relationship to a larger, more productive and influential ethnic group that built the nation. Remove that larger group and what’s left is not a nation. It’s a collection of tribes fighting over the leftovers.

    All black nationalism was or is in its least harmless form was merely a different flavor of grievance racketeering.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  31. “European nationalities are relatively recent developments. For example, Charlemagne is claimed by both the French and the Germans. There is still a debate over whether the Poles or the Germans have a better claim to Copernicus. The dispute has become more subdued as the Germans have become progressively more self-hating and the Poles more assertive.”

    The issue isn’t the history, it’s quite clear what is meant by white nationalism —-

    Anglo, Fanco, German . . . the problem is how that would translate in the US. When someone says, I am a white nationalist — it has not meaning. Now I would avoid being coy here, it generally means, the US a “white nation”. That it’s history and documents, traditions are comprised of people who are white usually anglo-saxon. There’s nothing subdued about nationalism, the problem is figuring out what that is.

    As your own comments relate, whites are bonded by color only as a body, other than that their practices, traditions, religions vary across Europe.

    As I said white nationalism (whatever that looks like) black nationalism, etc. It will be an interesting discussion on how to divide up the country.

    Certainly no one is talking about shipping whites off the continent somewhere else. And if so who decides that concept.

    You get these kinds of dillemmas when you attempt to claim idea that are in fact , not uniquely to skin color or as some would parlay the matter — “race.”

    • Replies: @fnn

    That is accurate, but no European nationality exists ...
     
    But. like I said, European nationalities are a recent phenomenon. The indigenous people(s) of Europe existed long before separate nationalities emerged.

    The issue isn’t the history...
     
    You think history isn't important? No, the problem is that you like to cherry-pick certain aspects of history.

    From the Wikipedia article on Copernicus:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Nationality

    There has been discussion of Copernicus' nationality and of whether it is meaningful to ascribe to him a nationality in the modern sense.

    Nicolaus Copernicus was born and raised in Royal Prussia, a semiautonomous and polyglot region of the Kingdom of Poland.[148][149] He was the child of German-speaking parents and grew up with German as his mother tongue.[150][151][152] His first alma mater was the University of Kraków in Poland. When he later studied in Italy, at the University of Bologna, he joined the German Nation, a student organization for German-speakers of all allegiances (Germany would not become a nation-state until 1871).
     

    Encyclopædia Britannica,[156] Encyclopedia Americana,[157] The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,[158] The Oxford World Encyclopedia,[159] and World Book Encyclopedia[160] refer to Copernicus as a "Polish astronomer". Sheila Rabin, writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, describes Copernicus as a "child of a German family [who] was a subject of the Polish crown",[10] while Manfred Weissenbacher writes that Copernicus's father was a Germanized Pole.
     

    Historian Michael Burleigh describes the nationality debate as a "totally insignificant battle" between German and Polish scholars during the interwar period.[166] Polish astronomer Konrad Rudnicki calls the discussion a "fierce scholarly quarrel in ... times of nationalism" and describes Copernicus as an inhabitant of a German-speaking territory that belonged to Poland, himself being of mixed Polish-German extraction.[167]

    Czesław Miłosz describes the debate as an "absurd" projection of a modern understanding of nationality onto Renaissance people, who identified with their home territories rather than with a nation.[168] Similarly, historian Norman Davies writes that Copernicus, as was common in his era, was "largely indifferent" to nationality, being a local patriot who considered himself "Prussian".[169] Miłosz and Davies both write that Copernicus had a German-language cultural background, while his working language was Latin in accord with the usage of the time.
     
    , @Mr. Rational

    Certainly no one is talking about shipping whites off the continent somewhere else.
     
    As usual, you are not merely wrong but completely opposite to the truth.
  32. Laughing and so it goes . . .

    “So secondly, preserving “blackness” independent of white influence would require negros to return to Africa and resume their ancestral identities, free of white influence.”

    And whites who advocate that is why white nationalist are referred to as racists — old school style Classic

    I think my point is made.

    Skin color being the manner by which a nation is formed —- it’ll be interesting to see who classifies as white — one drop or two

  33. I think a reasonable case can be made that multiracial societies are demonstrably feasible but multicultural ones not so much.

    Racial mixing has evidently occurred throughout history and doesn’t appear to be a barrier to the formation of a coherent society. For example, Polynesians are a mix of Asians and Melanesians, while the native English have a mixture of northern European, Mediterranean and southwest Asian genes.

    Cultural mixtures on the other hand do not seem to fare so well, India and Pakistan do not seem to be markedly different from a genetic point of view yet they are bitter enemies because of their differing religions/cultures. The enmity of the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland is well known, despite their obvious genetic similarities.

    I’m not sure why you are having so much trouble with race relations in the US. In Europe we have had far fewer problems with criminal behaviour by the black population, it seems they are better integrated and have far less of the victim mentality. The main problems have been with the newly arrived Muslims who have a different culture and also a not entirely unjustified resentment at the mess we have made of their homelands.

  34. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re cherrypicking.

    “The racism of a group like the Nation of Islam may be the predictable reaction to white supremacy. But if a white group espoused similar beliefs regarding African Americans and Jews and, few would have trouble describing it as racist and anti-Semitic. If we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.”

    This is the final paragraph of that page. Take note of the very last sentence.

    I guarantee you that if there was some Native American, or Asian supremacist group and they had enough numbers to rival the black supremacist or white supremacist group, the SPLC would start making files on them too.

    • Replies: @216
    The PRC government is Han supremacist by the standards of Western left-liberals. Perhaps thankfully the right-liberal NRO types aren't in the habit of calling China a "racist country", though perhaps the Epoch Times (Falun Gong) does call them that (not a reader so I don't know).

    Practically every reservation in this country is Native American supremacist, as tribal citizenship is normally measured on blood descent. So they are in a sense ethnostates.

    It can be also argued that the Hawaii independence movement is ethno-nationalist, and thus supremacist by those same standards.

    But you see, we live under Liberal Supremacy, and only white conservatives and their lackeys are demonized for ethnocentrism.
  35. @EliteCommInc.
    "European nationalities are relatively recent developments. For example, Charlemagne is claimed by both the French and the Germans. There is still a debate over whether the Poles or the Germans have a better claim to Copernicus. The dispute has become more subdued as the Germans have become progressively more self-hating and the Poles more assertive."

    The issue isn't the history, it's quite clear what is meant by white nationalism ----

    Anglo, Fanco, German . . . the problem is how that would translate in the US. When someone says, I am a white nationalist -- it has not meaning. Now I would avoid being coy here, it generally means, the US a "white nation". That it's history and documents, traditions are comprised of people who are white usually anglo-saxon. There's nothing subdued about nationalism, the problem is figuring out what that is.

    As your own comments relate, whites are bonded by color only as a body, other than that their practices, traditions, religions vary across Europe.


    As I said white nationalism (whatever that looks like) black nationalism, etc. It will be an interesting discussion on how to divide up the country.


    Certainly no one is talking about shipping whites off the continent somewhere else. And if so who decides that concept.

    You get these kinds of dillemmas when you attempt to claim idea that are in fact , not uniquely to skin color or as some would parlay the matter -- "race."

    That is accurate, but no European nationality exists …

    But. like I said, European nationalities are a recent phenomenon. The indigenous people(s) of Europe existed long before separate nationalities emerged.

    The issue isn’t the history…

    You think history isn’t important? No, the problem is that you like to cherry-pick certain aspects of history.

    From the Wikipedia article on Copernicus:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Nationality

    There has been discussion of Copernicus’ nationality and of whether it is meaningful to ascribe to him a nationality in the modern sense.

    Nicolaus Copernicus was born and raised in Royal Prussia, a semiautonomous and polyglot region of the Kingdom of Poland.[148][149] He was the child of German-speaking parents and grew up with German as his mother tongue.[150][151][152] His first alma mater was the University of Kraków in Poland. When he later studied in Italy, at the University of Bologna, he joined the German Nation, a student organization for German-speakers of all allegiances (Germany would not become a nation-state until 1871).

    Encyclopædia Britannica,[156] Encyclopedia Americana,[157] The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,[158] The Oxford World Encyclopedia,[159] and World Book Encyclopedia[160] refer to Copernicus as a “Polish astronomer”. Sheila Rabin, writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, describes Copernicus as a “child of a German family [who] was a subject of the Polish crown”,[10] while Manfred Weissenbacher writes that Copernicus’s father was a Germanized Pole.

    Historian Michael Burleigh describes the nationality debate as a “totally insignificant battle” between German and Polish scholars during the interwar period.[166] Polish astronomer Konrad Rudnicki calls the discussion a “fierce scholarly quarrel in … times of nationalism” and describes Copernicus as an inhabitant of a German-speaking territory that belonged to Poland, himself being of mixed Polish-German extraction.[167]

    Czesław Miłosz describes the debate as an “absurd” projection of a modern understanding of nationality onto Renaissance people, who identified with their home territories rather than with a nation.[168] Similarly, historian Norman Davies writes that Copernicus, as was common in his era, was “largely indifferent” to nationality, being a local patriot who considered himself “Prussian”.[169] Miłosz and Davies both write that Copernicus had a German-language cultural background, while his working language was Latin in accord with the usage of the time.

  36. @EliteCommInc.
    What tiresome nonsense.


    The Britannica article says the word race is generally meaningless. First, I never said anything about the word race. I used the terms as they were presented in the article. Which makes the matter of race inconsequential. Because the nationalism is based on the notion that by definition people of said color of skin would share a similar ethos.


    Race - is not an issue. What is an issue is your willful hackneyed insistence on having some issue which as routine I kindly entertain, despite its lack of relevance. that's me being polite. That's you making hay where no hay exists. But that is not atypical.


    Now the word racism is not the same as the word race. When someone refers to racism and I lean heavily on the old school version, they are saying that your are an advocate of policies and practices that deny rights based on superficial biological traits. i.e. skin color being the most prominent. That advocacy has generally been in reference to those with the power to deny rights on that basis. Hence a reference to white nationalists as espousing a polity or ethos that bars others while promoting their own - despite the fact that all should have the same rights.


    As noted previously, when referring to black nationalism it does not have the same bearing, though for the sake of playing balance, one might just grant that they are the same despite some key differences.


    The primary differences is historical practice. You just don't have black nationalists in a position of power to deny whites their right as outlayed by the Constitution -- thus by comparison the record highly favors a polity in the real of white nationalists also being actors of discrimination. In other words, reality matters. Now what some imagine is a rhetorical equivalent. When black ministers of Islam among talk about jews or whites they are almost discuss the matter from a position of not trusting them, about their character perceived or otherwise. But there is little in the way by my experience in which said ministers advocate a policy to deny them as citizens their rights.

    odd, race hasn't even appeared as a wisp.

    The reason racist is the term is because of its historical use to skin color. You are forever playing the fields of rhetoric of which know not. I hate to say it context here matters. Racist refers to the practice of discrimination to skin color. It is a shame that the terms usefulness has become a mangled mess -- much to your joy as you can squander that mess into meaningless nonsequitor, comments. I am just not so moved or intimidated by the tactic.


    Your attempt to technically manufacture a position by discussing race, which is but a tangential issue. What is disliked is my refusal to engage or bend to your preferred submissive posture. You are still smarting over several issues in which you used references that contradicted your advance and did so harshly.

    Ohh stop pretending to be some manner of moderator for fair play -- the record is far to long gone for that role.

    Again,

    1. you interjected race - not me by doing so you muddled the discussion by diversion

    2. you are incorrect the social linguistic and rhetorical use of the word race has been to color.

    3, racism in the traditional meaning goes to the use of power to discriminate and or advocate for the same based on superficial traits -- most often skin color. The tradition of the term race has been to color -- not philosophical and political renderings -- that is relatively new. It used to be and still is in my view -0- not skin colorist -- but white racist(s) in all of colorful blandness. I have never heard skin colorists, but your imagined unique is in interesting turn of phrase -- it's just wrong.

    4. The practice of white nationalists historically has reflected a discriminatory consequence --hence why the crossover when using the term racists to their polity.

    I have no idea what you re talking political correctness. They give a full and descriptive understanding of race as discussed among the scientific community That is the mainstream community, I think. You are welcome to disagree. But that issue really has no place here.


    White nationalists

    Black nationalists


    Laughing. I certainly grant that people of reverse colors could labeled to said groups, though that exception would most likely reinforce the rule.

    as for the cite, if it applies, I see no reason to use it twice or more.

    You just don’t have black nationalists in a position of power to deny whites their right as outlayed by the Constitution

    This is not true.  Blacks in general have been highly successful in denying Whites freedom of residency and movement through the use of violent crime; they have used this success to ethnically cleanse and take over many neighborhoods and entire cities including Newark, Baltimore and Detroit.  When they do this they are often punished lightly or not even pursued by police, but any White attempting the same power-play against Blacks gets the James Fields treatment.  Having the government exercise power on your behalf while others cannot obtain the same protections is definitely a denial of rights to the latter.

  37. @EliteCommInc.
    "European nationalities are relatively recent developments. For example, Charlemagne is claimed by both the French and the Germans. There is still a debate over whether the Poles or the Germans have a better claim to Copernicus. The dispute has become more subdued as the Germans have become progressively more self-hating and the Poles more assertive."

    The issue isn't the history, it's quite clear what is meant by white nationalism ----

    Anglo, Fanco, German . . . the problem is how that would translate in the US. When someone says, I am a white nationalist -- it has not meaning. Now I would avoid being coy here, it generally means, the US a "white nation". That it's history and documents, traditions are comprised of people who are white usually anglo-saxon. There's nothing subdued about nationalism, the problem is figuring out what that is.

    As your own comments relate, whites are bonded by color only as a body, other than that their practices, traditions, religions vary across Europe.


    As I said white nationalism (whatever that looks like) black nationalism, etc. It will be an interesting discussion on how to divide up the country.


    Certainly no one is talking about shipping whites off the continent somewhere else. And if so who decides that concept.

    You get these kinds of dillemmas when you attempt to claim idea that are in fact , not uniquely to skin color or as some would parlay the matter -- "race."

    Certainly no one is talking about shipping whites off the continent somewhere else.

    As usual, you are not merely wrong but completely opposite to the truth.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Get grip. That's are tort to the demand that blacks need to go back to Africa. There is no replacement attempt. I get the reason why you want pin the an ethos of such retorts, myopia can cause one to miss the point.
  38. Hmmmm . . .

    I can be intense, but I don’t think “temper tantrums” would be associated with my comments.

  39. @Screwtape
    Also, its long been known that some agency or related shadowy element will plant a story in some obscure but ‘legitimate’ news outlet.

    The story is seasoned for a few days/weeks/months depending on urgency.

    Then the Paper of Record aka Bezos Blog or other mainstream source will be given breadcrumbs to that story.

    The story is printed/broadcast in the mainstream. And poof. The truth.

    The internet has not just made reporters and ‘fact checking’ editorial boards lazy, it has actually helped to destroy the truth and usher in this sark time of manipulation and control.

    The circular nature of how primary information is sourced and curated, the expectations and demands of ‘speed to market’ of that information, and the inversion of the moral code of the purveyors means nothing can be relied upon to carry the truth, especially those ideas that challenge the Narrative.

    Sure, its always been like this to some degree. But bever before have we been living in a time when the info is 24/7 in the palm of our hands (and our children’s) at such volume and frequency that it eclipses real life, observable facts, and the time and space for people to absorb, test, challenge, and compare those ideas to their lived experience and beliefs.

    The lies are one thing, but the destruction of the will to seek out the truth is something else.

    The lies are one thing, but the destruction of the will to seek out the truth is something else.

    That’s a profoundly important observation.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @216
    If we examine journalism, anyone can see the secular decline that started in the 1990s. Consolidation into fewer chains, closing bureaus, and eventual displacement by the Internet. People with ambition don't go there anymore, the post-Watergate glow of this "profession" has vanished.

    The business of media depended to a remarkable degree on classified advertisement (Craigslist) and auto advertisement. When self-driving cars become viable, expect to see a dramatic fall off in auto ads as people stop buying cars in favor of Uber-like services. That might take down TV and replace it entirely with streaming services.

    So the typical journalist is living in existential dread, and given the vast overrepresentation of the 2%, some paranoia is to be expected. The far-left is well known (by us) for its disgust towards them, so their position within the progressive stack is falling.
  40. @Anonymous
    You're cherrypicking.

    "The racism of a group like the Nation of Islam may be the predictable reaction to white supremacy. But if a white group espoused similar beliefs regarding African Americans and Jews and, few would have trouble describing it as racist and anti-Semitic. If we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones."

    This is the final paragraph of that page. Take note of the very last sentence.

    I guarantee you that if there was some Native American, or Asian supremacist group and they had enough numbers to rival the black supremacist or white supremacist group, the SPLC would start making files on them too.

    The PRC government is Han supremacist by the standards of Western left-liberals. Perhaps thankfully the right-liberal NRO types aren’t in the habit of calling China a “racist country”, though perhaps the Epoch Times (Falun Gong) does call them that (not a reader so I don’t know).

    Practically every reservation in this country is Native American supremacist, as tribal citizenship is normally measured on blood descent. So they are in a sense ethnostates.

    It can be also argued that the Hawaii independence movement is ethno-nationalist, and thus supremacist by those same standards.

    But you see, we live under Liberal Supremacy, and only white conservatives and their lackeys are demonized for ethnocentrism.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Treating "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" as synonyms is almost as dumb as treating "nationalism" and "globalism" as synonyms.
  41. @EliteCommInc.
    The problem with nationalism based on skin color in the US is that it is simply unworkable. Whites have no discernible ethos that is in large similar enough that mere whiteness alone creates a nationhood as the history of Europe details.

    In the US we have some founding documents that outline our national ethos and practice. And if equitably applied in practice will generally yield a common ethos, regardless of skin color. The great experiment of separate but equal has thus far proved to be less than equal on all counts. I would that we could escape that fact -- but we cannot.

    And it would be accurate that blacks desire for separate nation is the result of being in hostile territory. And in no less a response to the dominant population desiring to have them forgo their right to citizenship and be gone. Doesn't make it any more workable.

    It would be an interesting discussion this business of carving up the US and whether said exit or entry into said states is voluntary or mandatory.

    This is why I see political dissolution as likely, and sooner than most people think, with a currency crisis the most likely event to set it off.

    My hope: Voluntary movement into countries that resemble Bluestans and Redstans now. The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and culturally diverse. Redstans will be poorer, more equal, and more homogeneous.

    The strongest opposition to this won’t come from totalitarian progressives who want to control deplorable behavior. It will come from the military-industrial complex, which will become far more difficult to maintain.

    • Replies: @216
    The Blair/Brown governments awarded significant pork-barrel military contracts to BAE facilities in Scotland, where the main naval bases are located. The RN has two new aircraft carriers, while only having the operational funding for one, both ships also are only getting half the number of F-35s they could theoretically carry.

    It was not an accident or mere electioneering. If Scotland voted out, the RN was going to be deprived of its bases, and there was probably some hushed discussion that Salmondstan would not join NATO and The Russians could breach the GIUK gap.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    laughing. As I say, carving up the US will be an interesting discussion. I just don't think it's workable or practical.

    We have a Constitutional system that works, generally. There were some major problems in implementing the ideals, but by and large blacks who read the constitution, the declaration, adhere to actual history as opposed to the one we have in out heads and understand basic economics get it. Blacks may get it better than any other population as most here have no real connections to their immigrant past at all -- it's not even a blur. They own the country in that way alone.

    The use of African-American is rhetorically useful to arrest negative history. A white person who says they are European American has more salience. But again, I think that is a positive. Nothing wrong with Africa that time and ownership will not cure.

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

    Since I don't have a clear picture why or how all of this white, black and whatever color countries will work --- it remains a vague notion, that does not really ferret out a problem or a solution. The color issue was and remains a tad peculiar. Skin color has no real ownership of ethos or politics. Blacks in Africa were/are as diverse and complex in civilization as Europe, Asia, or anywhere else. They had family structures, rules of conduct, religion, any number of assorted ideas even concepts of democracy were not foreign, even if not writ as we understand them today. What we have done with color is turn it into a meaning it was never intended to possess.

    I carry an contend to the end limit to make a point. And that point is all the work that the dominant population has invested in color simply has no value. During a firefight, the guy on the right, left front and rear just care that the other guy has his back. The carry over of ethnic and color loyalty has seriously impaired the ship of state. And conservatives and republicans of all polity should have known and should know better. That's my team and we have better ideas and a far better record of ordered society to fairness (on paper) as opposed to mere power.

    If some think that by skin color, otherwise played as race, IQ, morality as indicated by skin color means they can't live next to some other they have the right to move - go ahead do so. But it's a hard press to demand the other guy move based on your legal right to dislike that other.

    It doesn't matter a lick what color your skin, or notions one has about race. If frank meets Jill and they have relations (best in the framework of marriage -- sorry liberals) they are going to conceive a human being. That same human being will develop as per their biology environment. Their polity, morality, intelligence is simply unknown, but at the end of the day as the record makes clear red, green or blue when born they are not by virtue of skin color going to be conservative, democrat, moral or amoral . . .

    What matters with respect to nationality is how they think, what they think, what they believe and what they practice.


    Again nationalist agendas based on the assumption that skin color in relation to some notion of race owns a unique similar ethos, is simply not born out in history. I will defend the right for people to have those ideas, but trying to make sense of what, who, how and whatnots, aside from departing to start their own place is peculiar.

    I wish liberals wanted to go someplace else.

    , @Talha

    It will come from the military-industrial complex, which will become far more difficult to maintain.
     
    Good question would be; how are the nukes going to be divvied up?

    Peace.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    "The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and cultural diverse."

    Bluestans will also be characterized by constant ethnic friction, continued middle class white flight, Byzantine and corrupt governments, and eventually implosion. Here in California, I see your prophecy at work.
    , @Oleaginous Outrager
    Way, way, way, way, way too optimistic. If there is indeed a currency crisis and the trucks stop running, things will turn full Mad Max in less than a week. I would expect a stats guy to understand just how incredible fragile our JIT lifestyles are. Once the shelves are picked clean on the first day, it's cannibalism by summer.

    By the way something, most of the Bluestans would be worse off, because their "wealth" is almost entirely paper-based fiction and their access to the real essentials of life are extremely limited. Just as an example, riddle me this: who 'owns' the water in Lake Mead?
  42. @Priss Factor
    Smollett going free makes things even better for us. It makes it plain as day how utterly corrupt the system is.

    Now, it's in surreal territory: the Nigerian brothers may have been in 'whiteface'? ROTFL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq2A4KoQi7I

    That can’t be true. Psychological projection just hit new stratospheric heights if it is!

  43. @216
    The PRC government is Han supremacist by the standards of Western left-liberals. Perhaps thankfully the right-liberal NRO types aren't in the habit of calling China a "racist country", though perhaps the Epoch Times (Falun Gong) does call them that (not a reader so I don't know).

    Practically every reservation in this country is Native American supremacist, as tribal citizenship is normally measured on blood descent. So they are in a sense ethnostates.

    It can be also argued that the Hawaii independence movement is ethno-nationalist, and thus supremacist by those same standards.

    But you see, we live under Liberal Supremacy, and only white conservatives and their lackeys are demonized for ethnocentrism.

    Treating “white nationalism” and “white supremacy” as synonyms is almost as dumb as treating “nationalism” and “globalism” as synonyms.

    • Replies: @216
    To the left, its a distinction without a difference. "separatist" "nationalist" are poor fig leaves for the loud number of people whose real agenda is lebensraum, but for legal or tactical reasons won't say that.

    The triangulation is to argue "white victimhood", where whites need to be protected according to some kind of weakness. In the present tense this is laughable to the left, who maintain that on a sociological basis that powerful white men prevent any kind of repression of whites as a class.

    Perhaps this might be more persuasive in the future, as non-whites begin demanding their own spaces. South Africa has a trope of "whites refuse to integrate", whether or not this becomes more prominent could be a leading indicator of its utility in the West.

    Non-whites arguing the victimhood line on behalf of whites is usually the most effective.
    , @iffen
    Treating “white nationalism” and “white supremacy” as synonyms is almost as dumb

    I claim the dumb position. Whether one calls it white nationalism, white supremacy or white separatism, the effect is the same. It is tedious nonsense to claim otherwise.
  44. @Audacious Epigone
    The lies are one thing, but the destruction of the will to seek out the truth is something else.

    That's a profoundly important observation.

    If we examine journalism, anyone can see the secular decline that started in the 1990s. Consolidation into fewer chains, closing bureaus, and eventual displacement by the Internet. People with ambition don’t go there anymore, the post-Watergate glow of this “profession” has vanished.

    The business of media depended to a remarkable degree on classified advertisement (Craigslist) and auto advertisement. When self-driving cars become viable, expect to see a dramatic fall off in auto ads as people stop buying cars in favor of Uber-like services. That might take down TV and replace it entirely with streaming services.

    So the typical journalist is living in existential dread, and given the vast overrepresentation of the 2%, some paranoia is to be expected. The far-left is well known (by us) for its disgust towards them, so their position within the progressive stack is falling.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I don't read the Daily Howler blog anymore, because of TDS. Back when I did read it, the writer of it often said that the media's professionalism nose-dived in the early 1990's. Some of this due to the rising influence of head-strong and emotional Boomers, but it's probably mainly the result of the Cold War ending. Once the Soviets were no longer a threat, Americans turned on each other and we also became less serious, as a culture (just look at how flippant the culture of the 1990's was).

    There's always an audience for serious journalism, but modern journalists (along with all of our elites overall) are arrogant and corrupt, for the most part. I really do think (along with many others) that we've been in a freefall over the last 30 years. We've lost our way, and it's going to take a long time to get back on track.
  45. @Audacious Epigone
    Treating "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" as synonyms is almost as dumb as treating "nationalism" and "globalism" as synonyms.

    To the left, its a distinction without a difference. “separatist” “nationalist” are poor fig leaves for the loud number of people whose real agenda is lebensraum, but for legal or tactical reasons won’t say that.

    The triangulation is to argue “white victimhood”, where whites need to be protected according to some kind of weakness. In the present tense this is laughable to the left, who maintain that on a sociological basis that powerful white men prevent any kind of repression of whites as a class.

    Perhaps this might be more persuasive in the future, as non-whites begin demanding their own spaces. South Africa has a trope of “whites refuse to integrate”, whether or not this becomes more prominent could be a leading indicator of its utility in the West.

    Non-whites arguing the victimhood line on behalf of whites is usually the most effective.

  46. @Audacious Epigone
    This is why I see political dissolution as likely, and sooner than most people think, with a currency crisis the most likely event to set it off.

    My hope: Voluntary movement into countries that resemble Bluestans and Redstans now. The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and culturally diverse. Redstans will be poorer, more equal, and more homogeneous.

    The strongest opposition to this won't come from totalitarian progressives who want to control deplorable behavior. It will come from the military-industrial complex, which will become far more difficult to maintain.

    The Blair/Brown governments awarded significant pork-barrel military contracts to BAE facilities in Scotland, where the main naval bases are located. The RN has two new aircraft carriers, while only having the operational funding for one, both ships also are only getting half the number of F-35s they could theoretically carry.

    It was not an accident or mere electioneering. If Scotland voted out, the RN was going to be deprived of its bases, and there was probably some hushed discussion that Salmondstan would not join NATO and The Russians could breach the GIUK gap.

  47. Between endorsements like this and Tennessee Coates fawning over Kamala, AE’s prediction of her being the nominee may well come to happen.
    https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/candidate-kamala-harris-picks-up-endorsements-from-five-sc-democrats/article_229e192a-50d4-11e9-a1d7-df7e8109c2c7.html

  48. Question for the group, who does Kamala pick as her running mate? My guess is that Dems will go for broke and choose Julio as Veep. A dream team for them.

    • Replies: @216
    Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    Kamala is a total mediocrity, but she has the interest of the globalist witch cult. Stacey Abrams really is the black woman of choice for self-loathing white progressives who believe that only a black woman can save us. Abrams is smart, ambitious, and vengeful. White female progressives will be required to shave off all of their Becky hair to satiate President Stacey's racial vengeance. And the WFPs will willingly do this because they are good people and Oprah told them to do it.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It's not particularly imaginative but as bad as Beto is at the top of the ticket, he's a perfect VP for her. Texas should from now on be considered competitive. He's a softer, friendly counterweight to Harris' harder edge, and he implicitly lets white men who want to vote D know that while they are now to go to the back of the bus, they're still allowed to ride on it.
  49. I live in the UK but I have been watching these debates develop in the USA. It seems to me that there is a concerted effort to demonise people who are ‘white’. The Spanish colonial policies in south America were little different from those in the north and they also used slavery but that is rarely mentioned in these debates. It strikes me as very curious that Hispanics seem to be given a free pass on the subject and are usually included in the ‘victim’ category. I also note that the phrase ‘people of colour’ explicitly singles out white people and is obviously designed to do so, do not fall into the trap of using it.

    Over here in the UK, 2/3 of our government are members of ‘friends of Israel’ organisations and criticism of what is openly an apartheid ethno-state is in danger of becoming illegal. Usually the same people who support Israel are openly disparaging of any nationalist sentiments in Europe as racist and/or fascist, the hypocrisy is mind boggling. The latest developments in South Africa are also a matter of concern, where are the anti-racist protesters when it is white people who are victims of murderous racism?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Going after Anglo-Teutonics is "punching up". Since Anglo-Teutonics have done so well since the industrial revolution, Mediterranean whites (and the countries they settled) get a free pass.

    Most typical white liberals in America (and elsewhere, apparently) are incredibly clueless about the racial dynamics of Latin America, not realizing the galling hypocrisy of Conquistador-Hispanics lecturing Anglos about race relations in places like the US and South Africa.

    As Sailer likes to point out, the dysfunction and hypocrisy of the Latin New World is just too depressing to contemplate (much like black crime), esp. when you can spin tall tales about Dutchman and Englishman building great civilizations by exploiting hapless brown and black people. He says that actual interest in Mexican culture appears to be diminishing, in contrast to the number of notable Americans who became infatuated with Mexico in the early-mid 20th century.

    Of course, when people like Omar "punch up" at the group that's been the most successful since 1946 (Jews), they are shamed because in prior eras Jews accumulated so much victim baggage that they never can be said to have the upper position. By that logic, Anglo-Teutonics should never be given the upper position because once upon a time they frequently were treated like "barbarians" (and enslaved) by Mediterranean whites and Middle Easterners/North Africans.

    There's clearly a cyclical nature to this stuff; Teutons/Slavs/Meds/Japanese/Chinese/Arabs/Jews etc. all have their ups and downs, with the "up" period being correlated to expansion/increasing dominion of more land and tribes. The "down" period is when your tribe gets weak and glib, allowing rising tribes to take advantage of your vulnerability, and eventually take your land and your wives. Russia re-acquires Crimea and increases it's power in the Middle East and Asia, while the US's own population was subjected to the 9/11 hi-jackers getting training....In America/. China effectively gains financial control of the US after America's decadent neo-liberals sold their country out via NAFTA. America's Anglo-Teutonic core-population (and their ancestral cousins in the Anglo-Germanic sphere) has little apparent strength left.
  50. @Audacious Epigone
    This is why I see political dissolution as likely, and sooner than most people think, with a currency crisis the most likely event to set it off.

    My hope: Voluntary movement into countries that resemble Bluestans and Redstans now. The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and culturally diverse. Redstans will be poorer, more equal, and more homogeneous.

    The strongest opposition to this won't come from totalitarian progressives who want to control deplorable behavior. It will come from the military-industrial complex, which will become far more difficult to maintain.

    laughing. As I say, carving up the US will be an interesting discussion. I just don’t think it’s workable or practical.

    We have a Constitutional system that works, generally. There were some major problems in implementing the ideals, but by and large blacks who read the constitution, the declaration, adhere to actual history as opposed to the one we have in out heads and understand basic economics get it. Blacks may get it better than any other population as most here have no real connections to their immigrant past at all — it’s not even a blur. They own the country in that way alone.

    The use of African-American is rhetorically useful to arrest negative history. A white person who says they are European American has more salience. But again, I think that is a positive. Nothing wrong with Africa that time and ownership will not cure.

    ———————-

    Since I don’t have a clear picture why or how all of this white, black and whatever color countries will work — it remains a vague notion, that does not really ferret out a problem or a solution. The color issue was and remains a tad peculiar. Skin color has no real ownership of ethos or politics. Blacks in Africa were/are as diverse and complex in civilization as Europe, Asia, or anywhere else. They had family structures, rules of conduct, religion, any number of assorted ideas even concepts of democracy were not foreign, even if not writ as we understand them today. What we have done with color is turn it into a meaning it was never intended to possess.

    I carry an contend to the end limit to make a point. And that point is all the work that the dominant population has invested in color simply has no value. During a firefight, the guy on the right, left front and rear just care that the other guy has his back. The carry over of ethnic and color loyalty has seriously impaired the ship of state. And conservatives and republicans of all polity should have known and should know better. That’s my team and we have better ideas and a far better record of ordered society to fairness (on paper) as opposed to mere power.

    If some think that by skin color, otherwise played as race, IQ, morality as indicated by skin color means they can’t live next to some other they have the right to move – go ahead do so. But it’s a hard press to demand the other guy move based on your legal right to dislike that other.

    It doesn’t matter a lick what color your skin, or notions one has about race. If frank meets Jill and they have relations (best in the framework of marriage — sorry liberals) they are going to conceive a human being. That same human being will develop as per their biology environment. Their polity, morality, intelligence is simply unknown, but at the end of the day as the record makes clear red, green or blue when born they are not by virtue of skin color going to be conservative, democrat, moral or amoral . . .

    What matters with respect to nationality is how they think, what they think, what they believe and what they practice.

    Again nationalist agendas based on the assumption that skin color in relation to some notion of race owns a unique similar ethos, is simply not born out in history. I will defend the right for people to have those ideas, but trying to make sense of what, who, how and whatnots, aside from departing to start their own place is peculiar.

    I wish liberals wanted to go someplace else.

  51. @Audacious Epigone
    Isn't Israel a thorn in the side of what you refer to as Jewish imperialism here? Is that why it is so controversial among elite Jews who view themselves as citizens of the world?

    Isn’t Israel a thorn in the side of what you refer to as Jewish imperialism here? Is that why it is so controversial among elite Jews who view themselves as citizens of the world?

    They view themselves as super-citizens, the rest of us as subjects.

  52. @indocon
    Question for the group, who does Kamala pick as her running mate? My guess is that Dems will go for broke and choose Julio as Veep. A dream team for them.

    Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I predict Trump's margin of victory will be wider in Ohio than it will be in Texas in 2020. That will in fact be the case indefinitely. Ohio, like Missouri, is a state that used to be a "battleground" or a "bell weather" that is now increasingly reliably red.
  53. @Audacious Epigone
    This is why I see political dissolution as likely, and sooner than most people think, with a currency crisis the most likely event to set it off.

    My hope: Voluntary movement into countries that resemble Bluestans and Redstans now. The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and culturally diverse. Redstans will be poorer, more equal, and more homogeneous.

    The strongest opposition to this won't come from totalitarian progressives who want to control deplorable behavior. It will come from the military-industrial complex, which will become far more difficult to maintain.

    It will come from the military-industrial complex, which will become far more difficult to maintain.

    Good question would be; how are the nukes going to be divvied up?

    Peace.

  54. Let me help the SPLC: “black anti-Semitism is a predictable response to Judah Benjamin, Leo Frank and all those slumlords in Crown Heights.”

  55. “I wish liberals wanted to go someplace else.”

    I neglected my customary laugh, l’est some accuse my comments motivated out of tantrumming temper.

    But liberals have been vert effective at distorting issues all out of proportion by any means necessary to get their way. They are notorious for ignoring categories, name calling, twisting and shortcutting comments to make it appear the speaker is lying, changing the subject, has some malignant intent or otherwise psychologically ill, all manner of rhetorical mayhem.

    And that blacks have had to embrace a lot of destructive liberal socio-psychological advocacy has been interesting if not painful to watch. Almost as painful as blacks having to swallow a mountain of politically correct nonsense on the right.

    That any black person actually thinks murdering a child in the womb is ethical or justified is almost too counter intuitive to even consider.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    That any black person actually thinks murdering a child in the womb is ethical or justified is almost too counter intuitive to even consider.
     
    Black people kill each other at epidemic rates regardless of where in the world they are.  Black women obtain 72% of the abortions in Mississippi.  The Black abortion rate in NYC is higher than the Black birth rate.

    What you think is "counter intuitive" has zero relationship to reality (but everyone but you knew that already).

  56. Give the black nationalists whatever they want. It’d be well worth it to be rid of all of them forever.

  57. @EliteCommInc.
    "I wish liberals wanted to go someplace else."


    I neglected my customary laugh, l'est some accuse my comments motivated out of tantrumming temper.

    But liberals have been vert effective at distorting issues all out of proportion by any means necessary to get their way. They are notorious for ignoring categories, name calling, twisting and shortcutting comments to make it appear the speaker is lying, changing the subject, has some malignant intent or otherwise psychologically ill, all manner of rhetorical mayhem.

    And that blacks have had to embrace a lot of destructive liberal socio-psychological advocacy has been interesting if not painful to watch. Almost as painful as blacks having to swallow a mountain of politically correct nonsense on the right.

    That any black person actually thinks murdering a child in the womb is ethical or justified is almost too counter intuitive to even consider.

    That any black person actually thinks murdering a child in the womb is ethical or justified is almost too counter intuitive to even consider.

    Black people kill each other at epidemic rates regardless of where in the world they are.  Black women obtain 72% of the abortions in Mississippi.  The Black abortion rate in NYC is higher than the Black birth rate.

    What you think is “counter intuitive” has zero relationship to reality (but everyone but you knew that already).

  58. @Audacious Epigone
    This is why I see political dissolution as likely, and sooner than most people think, with a currency crisis the most likely event to set it off.

    My hope: Voluntary movement into countries that resemble Bluestans and Redstans now. The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and culturally diverse. Redstans will be poorer, more equal, and more homogeneous.

    The strongest opposition to this won't come from totalitarian progressives who want to control deplorable behavior. It will come from the military-industrial complex, which will become far more difficult to maintain.

    “The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and cultural diverse.”

    Bluestans will also be characterized by constant ethnic friction, continued middle class white flight, Byzantine and corrupt governments, and eventually implosion. Here in California, I see your prophecy at work.

    • Replies: @216
    White liberals would be more ethnocentric in their own society. Part of the reason they are so outgroup-favoring in our societies is the fear of us.

    So if you never had to fear "The Handmaids Tale", you would feel less inclined towards white guilt. Additionally, the Bluestan(s) could write constitutions that explicitly define the fundamental values of society as left-liberal, so White Bluestanis could have a strong civic nationalism.

    Look over the border at President AMLO, a white leftist, but also a strong ethnic and civic nationalist.
  59. @indocon
    Question for the group, who does Kamala pick as her running mate? My guess is that Dems will go for broke and choose Julio as Veep. A dream team for them.

    Kamala is a total mediocrity, but she has the interest of the globalist witch cult. Stacey Abrams really is the black woman of choice for self-loathing white progressives who believe that only a black woman can save us. Abrams is smart, ambitious, and vengeful. White female progressives will be required to shave off all of their Becky hair to satiate President Stacey’s racial vengeance. And the WFPs will willingly do this because they are good people and Oprah told them to do it.

    • Replies: @indocon
    Scary that in today's America that is within realm of possibility.
    , @Authenticjazzman
    "Smart, ambitious and vengful"

    Okay I'll give you the "ambitious" and "vengful" aspects, however "smart" is nothing more than a figment of your deranged leftist mind-set, simpleton is the appropriate expression regarding her.

    There has never been, and never will be a so-called "smart" person within the ranks of Democrats and their lunatic buddies the greens.

    It doesn't require "smartness" or an astronomical IQ , rather simply a relentless drive to accumulate huge amounts of money and power, by hook or crook, and this comprises the total biography of each and every democrat politico.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro jazz artist
  60. In addition to white supremacy and nonwhite supremacy, you would also have the third option of a government that follows race neutral policies. We’ve never really had that in this country. We pretty much swung from one to the other. As the country becomes more nonwhite and follows increasingly anti-white policies that means that people who follow a race neutralist position will increasingly be on the same side as white nationalists in protesting anti-white government policies. That’s kind of where I am. I think white nationalists would prefer pro-white government policies but would probably be willing to accept a race neutralist government but I don’t think most black nationalists ever would. They instinctively know that more whites would end up economically on top and more blacks would end up at the bottom in such a situation.

  61. I won’t dispute the fact that black women kill their children in the womb. Murder in the womb represents the number one cause of deaths for the black population and it is tragic.

    And there’s something else.

    That any black person actually thinks murdering a child in the womb is ethical or justified is almost too counter intuitive to even consider.

  62. Contrarianpost

    If you keep getting in trouble with the law, your support base will dry up. Sellner has been a comedy of errors, and painted himself into this box.

    The narrative of “international terrorist networks” is WineAunt bait, but those people vote.

    Once you’ve been rendered toxic, the only thing to do is to be thrown under the bus.

    • Replies: @luke2236
    emily g - you are a moron. A pure programmed npc who is o out of touch with reality that it would be comical were it not so sad.
    The threat to the world is the far left, funded and propagandised by the jew. THEY start wars, THEY force 'migrations' , THEY displace whites from their own lands, THEY demonise whites and Christians thru their stranglehold on media. THEY are the issue.
    believe me, if those of us on the right had the labyrinth of organisation that clowns like you claim, these issues would not exist - it would all be straightened up. I pray for that time to come.
  63. @SunBakedSuburb
    "The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and cultural diverse."

    Bluestans will also be characterized by constant ethnic friction, continued middle class white flight, Byzantine and corrupt governments, and eventually implosion. Here in California, I see your prophecy at work.

    White liberals would be more ethnocentric in their own society. Part of the reason they are so outgroup-favoring in our societies is the fear of us.

    So if you never had to fear “The Handmaids Tale”, you would feel less inclined towards white guilt. Additionally, the Bluestan(s) could write constitutions that explicitly define the fundamental values of society as left-liberal, so White Bluestanis could have a strong civic nationalism.

    Look over the border at President AMLO, a white leftist, but also a strong ethnic and civic nationalist.

  64. @SunBakedSuburb
    Kamala is a total mediocrity, but she has the interest of the globalist witch cult. Stacey Abrams really is the black woman of choice for self-loathing white progressives who believe that only a black woman can save us. Abrams is smart, ambitious, and vengeful. White female progressives will be required to shave off all of their Becky hair to satiate President Stacey's racial vengeance. And the WFPs will willingly do this because they are good people and Oprah told them to do it.

    Scary that in today’s America that is within realm of possibility.

  65. @Anon

    The black nationalist movement is a reaction to centuries of institutionalized white supremacy in America
     
    The SPLC promotes propaganda for Black Nationalists now?

    The SPLC has never been about love of blacks, much though they may cry otherwise. It has always been, first and foremost, about love of money. Then, as Dees’ power waned through the late eighties and nineties, and Cohen’s waxed, love of money made room for hatred of whites.

    That’s why the SPLC chides anti-white black racism, but gently, describing it as a reaction to white racism, while black anti-Semitism is just condemned.

    I actually bring up this exact point in my court battle with the SPLC now underway in the US Dist Court in Kansas City:

    https://www.craignelsen.com/nelsen_v_splc/dkt-034.pdf

  66. I am only going to address the matter of black on black crime in the US mantra.

    As epidemic is a loaded meaning in this context, I will not address that. However, I will address the issue of whether blacks have a disproportionate rate of crime ownership when compared to blacks.

    https://blackamericaweb.com/2017/10/24/black-on-black-crime-rate-is-far-lower-than-white-on-white-crime/

    Now I have to spend some time reading the analysis over. But I remain wedded to my position that of course more blacks commit crimes against blacks — most crime is locally based and as such involves said communities of a particular demographic. Most importantly, we are talking about a small percentage of blacks that undermines any suggestion that said crime rate is unique to blacks in general.

    The assail that black crime is epidemic in this regard is incorrect.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I will address the issue of whether blacks have a disproportionate rate of crime ownership when compared to blacks.

    https://blackamericaweb.com/2017/10/24/black-on-black-crime-rate-is-far-lower-than-white-on-white-crime/

     
    You are probably just trolling, but your position is not merely wrong.  It is insane.
    , @Mr. Rational

    The assail that black crime is epidemic in this regard is incorrect.
     
    Gross misuse of "assail" is an indicator that you are a typical low-IQ specimen attempting to sound sophisticated by using words you don't understand.  You're not even bright enough to look them up or use one of the several good on-line thesauruses to avoid looking foolish.

    You're so dumb you don't realize how dumb you are (Dunning-Kruger effect).  It is one more bit of proof that You Are Not Like Us and we have both the reason and the right to live and be governed completely separately from you.

  67. @216
    If we examine journalism, anyone can see the secular decline that started in the 1990s. Consolidation into fewer chains, closing bureaus, and eventual displacement by the Internet. People with ambition don't go there anymore, the post-Watergate glow of this "profession" has vanished.

    The business of media depended to a remarkable degree on classified advertisement (Craigslist) and auto advertisement. When self-driving cars become viable, expect to see a dramatic fall off in auto ads as people stop buying cars in favor of Uber-like services. That might take down TV and replace it entirely with streaming services.

    So the typical journalist is living in existential dread, and given the vast overrepresentation of the 2%, some paranoia is to be expected. The far-left is well known (by us) for its disgust towards them, so their position within the progressive stack is falling.

    I don’t read the Daily Howler blog anymore, because of TDS. Back when I did read it, the writer of it often said that the media’s professionalism nose-dived in the early 1990’s. Some of this due to the rising influence of head-strong and emotional Boomers, but it’s probably mainly the result of the Cold War ending. Once the Soviets were no longer a threat, Americans turned on each other and we also became less serious, as a culture (just look at how flippant the culture of the 1990’s was).

    There’s always an audience for serious journalism, but modern journalists (along with all of our elites overall) are arrogant and corrupt, for the most part. I really do think (along with many others) that we’ve been in a freefall over the last 30 years. We’ve lost our way, and it’s going to take a long time to get back on track.

  68. @MarkU
    I live in the UK but I have been watching these debates develop in the USA. It seems to me that there is a concerted effort to demonise people who are 'white'. The Spanish colonial policies in south America were little different from those in the north and they also used slavery but that is rarely mentioned in these debates. It strikes me as very curious that Hispanics seem to be given a free pass on the subject and are usually included in the 'victim' category. I also note that the phrase 'people of colour' explicitly singles out white people and is obviously designed to do so, do not fall into the trap of using it.

    Over here in the UK, 2/3 of our government are members of 'friends of Israel' organisations and criticism of what is openly an apartheid ethno-state is in danger of becoming illegal. Usually the same people who support Israel are openly disparaging of any nationalist sentiments in Europe as racist and/or fascist, the hypocrisy is mind boggling. The latest developments in South Africa are also a matter of concern, where are the anti-racist protesters when it is white people who are victims of murderous racism?

    Going after Anglo-Teutonics is “punching up”. Since Anglo-Teutonics have done so well since the industrial revolution, Mediterranean whites (and the countries they settled) get a free pass.

    Most typical white liberals in America (and elsewhere, apparently) are incredibly clueless about the racial dynamics of Latin America, not realizing the galling hypocrisy of Conquistador-Hispanics lecturing Anglos about race relations in places like the US and South Africa.

    As Sailer likes to point out, the dysfunction and hypocrisy of the Latin New World is just too depressing to contemplate (much like black crime), esp. when you can spin tall tales about Dutchman and Englishman building great civilizations by exploiting hapless brown and black people. He says that actual interest in Mexican culture appears to be diminishing, in contrast to the number of notable Americans who became infatuated with Mexico in the early-mid 20th century.

    Of course, when people like Omar “punch up” at the group that’s been the most successful since 1946 (Jews), they are shamed because in prior eras Jews accumulated so much victim baggage that they never can be said to have the upper position. By that logic, Anglo-Teutonics should never be given the upper position because once upon a time they frequently were treated like “barbarians” (and enslaved) by Mediterranean whites and Middle Easterners/North Africans.

    There’s clearly a cyclical nature to this stuff; Teutons/Slavs/Meds/Japanese/Chinese/Arabs/Jews etc. all have their ups and downs, with the “up” period being correlated to expansion/increasing dominion of more land and tribes. The “down” period is when your tribe gets weak and glib, allowing rising tribes to take advantage of your vulnerability, and eventually take your land and your wives. Russia re-acquires Crimea and increases it’s power in the Middle East and Asia, while the US’s own population was subjected to the 9/11 hi-jackers getting training….In America/. China effectively gains financial control of the US after America’s decadent neo-liberals sold their country out via NAFTA. America’s Anglo-Teutonic core-population (and their ancestral cousins in the Anglo-Germanic sphere) has little apparent strength left.

  69. Strauss and Howe’s cycle theories focus mainly on America, without as much research into the pre-American past. Yet it’s clear that Anglo-Teutonia gained strength in the period leading to the industrial revolution, thereby making the revolution possible. They then used that revolution to attain dominance of the world’s technology and culture, and ended up being the victims of their own ingenuity when WW2’s war innovations allowed people to be slaughtered and cities to be destroyed at a frightening clip. The Anglo-Teutonic region of Europe became depressed after WW2, with these countrie’s Boomers failing to have many kids, rejecting Christianity (or religion altogether), and outlawing expressions of nationalism or ethnic pride. America emerged much better off, and although American Boomers were more dysfunctional than the older generations, they still were quite religious and did have a decent number of kids. Boomers are also the last American generation to believe heavily in national pride, and in stark contrast to Western Europe, America’s Boomers are often quick to pounce on people who don’t express national and ethnic pride. But as you get to Gen X-ers, traits once thought to be distinct to Western Europe are now quite evident in Americans who came of age in the 1980’s and subsequent decades. X-ers and Millennials are often childless heathens who can’t stand their own country, or ethnic group, anymore.

    Anglo-Teutonia is on it’s last legs, as May/Merkel/Trump flail about as civilization changing crises surrounding migration, identity, and economic policy do not get properly addressed by the elites of virtually of the Anglo-Teutonic countries (w/ Denmark being about the only country to not have it’s head stuck up it’s ass).

  70. @EliteCommInc.
    I am only going to address the matter of black on black crime in the US mantra.


    As epidemic is a loaded meaning in this context, I will not address that. However, I will address the issue of whether blacks have a disproportionate rate of crime ownership when compared to blacks.

    https://blackamericaweb.com/2017/10/24/black-on-black-crime-rate-is-far-lower-than-white-on-white-crime/


    Now I have to spend some time reading the analysis over. But I remain wedded to my position that of course more blacks commit crimes against blacks --- most crime is locally based and as such involves said communities of a particular demographic. Most importantly, we are talking about a small percentage of blacks that undermines any suggestion that said crime rate is unique to blacks in general.

    The assail that black crime is epidemic in this regard is incorrect.

    I will address the issue of whether blacks have a disproportionate rate of crime ownership when compared to blacks.

    https://blackamericaweb.com/2017/10/24/black-on-black-crime-rate-is-far-lower-than-white-on-white-crime/

    You are probably just trolling, but your position is not merely wrong.  It is insane.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    My position is very simple,


    even if wanted to lean on the proportional position. That number represents a very small number of the black population, maybe 5%.

    Hardly reflects a sample of how most blacks behave.

    I would consider anyone who fears 5% of a population they most likely will never engage as bordering on paranoia. But I certainly get the value of promoting the 5% and ignoring the other 90% plus that rebuts the assail, the argument, the contend, the complaint, the attack, the concern, the charge . . .



    l'est there be any suggestion that I don't comprehend the meaning of the term assail.
  71. @EliteCommInc.
    I am only going to address the matter of black on black crime in the US mantra.


    As epidemic is a loaded meaning in this context, I will not address that. However, I will address the issue of whether blacks have a disproportionate rate of crime ownership when compared to blacks.

    https://blackamericaweb.com/2017/10/24/black-on-black-crime-rate-is-far-lower-than-white-on-white-crime/


    Now I have to spend some time reading the analysis over. But I remain wedded to my position that of course more blacks commit crimes against blacks --- most crime is locally based and as such involves said communities of a particular demographic. Most importantly, we are talking about a small percentage of blacks that undermines any suggestion that said crime rate is unique to blacks in general.

    The assail that black crime is epidemic in this regard is incorrect.

    The assail that black crime is epidemic in this regard is incorrect.

    Gross misuse of “assail” is an indicator that you are a typical low-IQ specimen attempting to sound sophisticated by using words you don’t understand.  You’re not even bright enough to look them up or use one of the several good on-line thesauruses to avoid looking foolish.

    You’re so dumb you don’t realize how dumb you are (Dunning-Kruger effect).  It is one more bit of proof that You Are Not Like Us and we have both the reason and the right to live and be governed completely separately from you.

  72. Was it black nationalism when her ancestors wanted the Italians gone?

    Oh wait, her ancestors were actually collaborators.

  73. @Priss Factor
    I can accept that black nationalism was a reaction to white imperialism that conquered the Americas and brought over slaves from Africa.

    Nationalism has been a reaction to Imperialism, and for most of modern history, whites were the leading imperialists. Granted, white imperialism made great discoveries, connected the entire world, spread knowledge, inspired revolutions, and created vast new wealth & opportunities.
    But it was also destructive and devastating to many peoples around the world. Naturally, the weaker peoples whose lands, cultures, and autonomy are threatened or crushed by an imperialist power are going to move into nationalist mode.

    As blacks were under white imperialist domination in the US, it's understandable that there was a movement to define, preserve, and protect blackness. This was black nationalism.

    But times change. White Imperialism was usurped by Jews. In time, the US became less a superpower nation than a super-colony or super-puppet of an even greater power, the Empire of Judea, a worldwide network. And this Jewish supremacist imperialist power is making white people participate in Judeo-centric ventures to destroy Russia & Iran, wage Wars for Israel, support Israel's eradication of all vestiges of Palestinian nationhood, and etc.

    Because the dominant world power is now Jewish Imperialism, we need white nationalism or white national liberation movement to break free of this supremacism.

    Rule of History. Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). British Empire promoted British nationalism and patriotism but crushed the nationalist aspirations of subject peoples. It said NO to Indian nationalism, even resorting to ruthless means on occasion to suppress it. French empire suppressed Vietnamese and Algerian nationalisms.
    Japan was in nationalist mode when threatened by British and American imperialism, but as it modernized and grew into a major power(and was accepted into the imperialist club as 'honorary whites'), the Japanese made imperialist moves on continental Asia. Japanese empire did all it could do to suppress Chinese and Korean nationalism(and then Filipino and Vietnamese nationalism as the empire expanded). Nazi Empire trampled on Polish and Czech nationalism and sought to crush Russia nationalism. Soviet Imperialism suppressed Polish and Hungarian nationalism.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Roman imperialists ruthlessly suppressed Jewish nationalism. Of course, Romans could take pride of Roman power and glory, but non-Romans had to suppress their own pride of identity to serve and honor Rome. Soviet Empire was somewhat different because it suppressed Russian nationalism along with other nationalism... though, over time, Russian national component of the empire did resurface.

    Why do Jews hate white nationalism? Jews often conflate white nationalism with white supremacism, but that's mostly BS. White nationalism was actually far less aggressive than White imperialist Liberalism. Throughout American history, white nationalism emphasized America's need to take care of its own affairs. It was white liberalism and white progressivism that wanted to expand and rule the world. Since late 19th century, US began to move more into imperialist mode as all the US continent was united and settled. White Imperialism came to dominate over white nationalism. But because the world was dominated by great European empires, American imperialism pretended to be for self-determination of nations. But American imperialism was only trying to invalidate existing empires so that it would gain hegemony over the 'liberated' nations.
    But sour feelings after WWI made Americans look inward. But the double whammy of WWII and the Cold War turned the US into a full-fledged world empire, though in counterbalance against another empire, an 'evil' one of Soviets.
    With the end of the Cold War, US could have retreated from imperialism and minded its own business, but the business opportunities of Free Trade and spectacular rise of Jewish power changed all that. Jews preferred expanded imperialist-globalism over nationalism because Jewish power owes more to horizontal networks around the world than vertical elite-mass unity in any nation(except in Israel). So, Jews were mainly loyal to the Network, the Empire of Judea, than to the US or any particular nation. As Jews gained dominant power in the US, the so-called lone superpower essentially became a colony of the Jewish Empire. The Jewel in the Crown. And because Jews don't have the numbers, they need gentile support and obedience to Jewish supremacist imperialist power. And among all the goyim, whites are most crucial because they are most numerous, capable, and talented. Jews may be the overlords, but they need white managers, engineers, generals, negotiators, lawmen, and etc. to do the heavy lifting. But the ONLY WAY the whites are going to do as told is IF they are denied white identity and white nationalism. After all, if whites think as white nationalists, they will focus on 'what is good for whites in our white nation'. They will be less likely to support Jewish supremacist agendas around the world like hatred toward Russia, Iran, Syria, and endless Wars for Israel. And this is why Jewish Imperialism must suppress white nationalism. Nationalism tends to be rebellious, defiant, and uppity against the empire, especially if it's of an alien people.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Jews love Zionism and Israeli nationalism. Jews love to promote and glorify Jewish identity. Jews, who'd once been nationalist resisters against Roman imperialism, are now the New Romans, and they regard whites as the 'new Jews' to suppress and control(or destroy and scatter to the winds if they disobey Jewish Neo-Roman power). Just like Jewish Imperialism can't abide Palestinian nationalism, it can't tolerate white nationalism. Both threaten Jewish imperialist hegemony. Palestinians in W. Bank demand independence. And white nationalists want white liberation and emancipation from Jewish imperialist globalism. White national liberationists want OUT from the globo-homo empire and more Wars for Israel. This is what Jews fear. This is why Jews smear white nationalism as 'white supremacism' when, if anything, it is anti-supremacist against Jewish Imperialism. What Jews really want is for white cuck-collaborators to keep supporting Jewish imperialist hegemony around the world. Jews are projecting their own supremacism onto white nationalists. But then, Jews who created Israel through use of terror blame Palestinians as a race of terrorists.

    Why are Jews okay with black nationalism in the US? Because they don't really see it as a threat. Besides, Jewish Empire relies far less on black ability and talent. While black talent in sports and music is very profitable to Jews, it is white talent that is crucial in managing and running the Empire as an engine and warship. So, it is far more important for Jews to make whites submit and obey.
    Also, black nationalism can be used to guilt-bait whites. Indeed, even as imperialism generally hates nationalisms, it may support one nationalism against another nationalism(seen as bigger threat) or a rival empire. It's like the Empire of Judea is supportive of Ukrainian nationalism against Russian nationalism(which is seen as a bigger obstacle to total Jewish world hegemony). So, Jews see black nationalism the way they see Ukrainian nationalism. A useful tool for the moment.

    Now, was there a history of white nationalism that was supremacist? In a way, yes, but it was still less belligerent and dangerous than white imperialism and Jewish imperialism. White nationalist rule in the past did treat non-whites as second-class citizens or worse, BUT white nationalism had a limiting effect on the despoilment of America by the world. By allowing mostly only white immigration, American Indians lost their land only to Europeans mostly. Had America not been white nationalist and allowed open door immigration from the beginning, American Indians would have lost all their land to all the world in no time. And much of nature would have been destroyed. White nationalists did defeat and conquer the indigenous folks, but their great and noble race-ism still allowed some space for Indians and their narrative. Also, white nationalist race-ism served as a check on black biological supremacism and imperialism. As blacks were brought as slaves, they were socially oppressed by whites. But because of their superior muscle power, greater natural aggression, rowdier butt energy,and bigger dongs, they could easily become biological imperialists and supremacists over the weaker white race. In a state of nature, blacks will dominate over whites. If you take 200 whites and 200 blacks and strip them naked and put them on an island, blacks will beat up white guys and hump white girls. So, white race-ism and nationalism against blacks were both supremacist and defensive against black natural supremacism.

    Anyway, the most destructive, evil, and venal power in the world today is Jewish Imperialism. Look what it did to Russia in the 90s. Look at its spread of demented globo-homomania. Look at its Wars that leveled so many nations in Mid East and North Africa. Look at its economic destruction of Iran. Look at its demographic policies against US and EU. Look at how it makes white soldiers wreck Muslim nations and then pushes Muslims into the West. Look at how it spreads anti-white hatred in media and academia and Hollywood. Look at how the Sacklers acted like Sassoons who sold opium to the Chinese.

    Indeed, if white nationalists could pry themselves from Jewish imperialism, the world would be a much nicer place. After all, without white cuck-collaboration with Jewish imperialist power, Jews would do far less harm to the world.
    Suppose if whites(in national liberationist mode) had said NO to all these Wars for Israel. Middle East would be in one piece and millions wouldn't be dead or displaced and pushed into white nations. There would be justice for Palestinians finally. US would not be in another stupid 'cold war' with Russia. And in the 90s, the US might have been constructive and helpful toward Russia than merely rapacious as the 'shock doctrine' turned out to be the shylock doctrine of looting the entire economy to enrich the Tribe. The world should welcome white nationalist liberation from Jewish Globalist Imperialism like the world greeted the national liberation of India from the British Empire. To Jews, a white national liberationist who says NO to being conscripted into the Jewish Empire is like an uppity slave who says NO. He must be whipped. White National Liberationists must say "Hell No, We won't go" and "Globalists suck, we won't cuck."

    But then, the reason why so many in the non-white world participate with Jewish Imperialism against white nationalism is because white nationalism says "We want our white nations to remain white", whereas Jewish imperialism says, "We will hand you free tickets to white nations IF you support our agenda as 'new Europeans' or 'new Americans'." Non-whites will do ANYTHING to come to richer and nicer white nations.
    Imperialism has its resisters but also collaborators. When the British empire existed, many Hindus and Chinese took advantage to spread out across the world for opportunities for profit. Most people will do ANYTHING for whatever improves their lives materially.

    Now, was there a history of white nationalism that was supremacist?

    Does White supremacism really exist? So-called “White” supremacist theories were produced only at specific periods of history, when needed to justify colonial or imperialist ventures.

    European racism always was a “scientific” racism artificially produced by academia to serve the powers-that-be in achieving a defined goal; it is not rooted in the historic identity and collective being of the White European people.

    The only entrenched supremacism that have continuously existed and traversed the centuries unscathed is the Jewish supremacism, because it is an inherent part of the Jewish identity

  74. @fnn
    European nationalities are relatively recent developments. For example, Charlemagne is claimed by both the French and the Germans. There is still a debate over whether the Poles or the Germans have a better claim to Copernicus. The dispute has become more subdued as the Germans have become progressively more self-hating and the Poles more assertive.

    Charlemagne is claimed by both the French and the Germans

    This is not entirely accurate. Everybody agrees he spoke and therefore was German. What is claimed by both sides is his legacy: were the Franks ancestors to the modern French or Germans?

  75. The current eastern zone of Germany (former GDR) is made up mostly of Germanized Slavs:
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2493882

    … In Germany there are three main Y-DNA haplogroups, RB1 in the West, I1 in the North and R1a in the East. R1a are of Slavic origins. Indeed, there was no Germany before it unified. There was Poland (which incidentally has only Y-DNA R1a and is one people, unlike Germans) before the divisions of Poland. Eastern Prussia spoke German, but those were the old Teutonic knights who had mixed with locals…

  76. @indocon
    Question for the group, who does Kamala pick as her running mate? My guess is that Dems will go for broke and choose Julio as Veep. A dream team for them.

    It’s not particularly imaginative but as bad as Beto is at the top of the ticket, he’s a perfect VP for her. Texas should from now on be considered competitive. He’s a softer, friendly counterweight to Harris’ harder edge, and he implicitly lets white men who want to vote D know that while they are now to go to the back of the bus, they’re still allowed to ride on it.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Hate to be a broken record, but I still standby the conviction that vice president is utterly irrelevant. Nobody cares.

    Hard-ass prosecutor Kamala isn't going to let anyone call the shots in her campaign or her admin., let alone beta Beto. Hilary is a F*g hag whose campaign manager was a fairy. And Tim Kaine is closeted, too.

    VPs are typically going to be either yes-men, or if the candidate is considered to be a radical departure from the norm (like Reagan in 1980, and Trump in '16), a blase establishment figure is given the VP position to help babysit the would-be president (Rockefeller moderate GHW. Bush keeping Reagan in line, globalist Christian fundamentalist Pence keeping Trump in line). What does it say about how screwed we are that Mike Pence is now considered the GOP norm? It's our "Christian" duty to bomb countries to smithereens, provided we accept the ensuing refugees and teach them about Jesus. Thanks a lot Boomers, for how you trash-talked the GI Gen New Dealers as being naive dreamers. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    From 1930-1980, we largely didn't mount protracted military campaigns all over the world, nor did we accept that much of the world's wretched masses (in fact, not until the early 1980's did the American establishment began to codify our "refugee" program in such a way as to be easily taken advantage of by cynical foreigners, while the 1990 immigration act completely annihilated what was left of our standards). While older generations helped make some of these mistakes, our ability to bounce back from mistakes, to correct them, has waned as the generations have turned over, w/Reagan and Bush 1's foreign engagements, for example, being relatively brief and inexpensive in comparison to the Boomer dominated foreign policy of the post-9/11 era. Besides, it's the Silents (and especially the Boomers) who demanded greater freedom to gamble, have sex, do drugs, etc. If every generation had the cultural mores of the GIs, than the New Deal era restrictions on corrupting behavior never would have been lifted.
    , @iffen
    Texas should from now on be considered competitive.

    You are discounting the personal distastefulness of Ted Cruz. We have a few more years before Texas goes purple. Same for Georgia, but we should consult the immigration stats for Georgia (and Texas) to be sure.
  77. @216
    Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio

    I predict Trump’s margin of victory will be wider in Ohio than it will be in Texas in 2020. That will in fact be the case indefinitely. Ohio, like Missouri, is a state that used to be a “battleground” or a “bell weather” that is now increasingly reliably red.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The Rust-Belt and Appalaicha will continue to tack to the GOP if the Dems keep failing to run populist candidates. The Sun-Belt has made greater and greater gains since the 1950's, generally at the expense of the industrial North.

    Texas doesn't feel as desperate as Ohio. Trump increased the GOP's popularity (if in some cases only briefly) in the Midwest, Northeast, and Upper South, precisely because campaign Trump focused on restoring American industry and didn't give us the usual happy-talk GOP bullshit that plays better in the Sun-belt and interior West.

    Bernie or Yang would clean up in most of the Midwest, and still be able to appeal to a good number of dissafected Trump voters in the Northeast (but culturally speaking, Bernie and Yang would probably be a big turn off for Southern voters, who detest anything that is seen to be pandering to Millennials and Gen Z; remember that the South is the most reactionary region of the country).

    If the GOP ran a generic stooge like Rubio, it would be interesting to see how Ohio/Indiana vote. There's no way in hell Rubio would win a Upper Midwestern state, provided the Dems run anyone who clears the low appeal bar of Hilary.

    One thing's for sure: The GOP's Sun-belt and interior Western base of rural, older, white, Protestant, and patriotic Americans is dwindling by the day. Putting it in strictly racial terms doesn't quite make sense, because religion (or lack thereof) leads to a lot of cultural differences between whites, while younger whites have much different needs (can't afford a car, can't afford a house, can't get married, etc.) than Boomers who grew up with in incredibly low cost of living in the 1960's-80's. To the extent that the GOP can maintain a grip on younger (and often broke) whites, it's only due to the Dems being stupid enough to not renounce things that have destroyed the middle class (e.g., off-shoring, high immigration levels, the destruction of heavy industry unions, etc.). Frankly I think both parties are, at the moment, so FUBAR'd that most whites under the age of 40 are just plain depressed and alienated from politics. Only do the aspiring young white elites invest that much into partisan politics (and if you think I'm wrong, show me the voting stats which indicate young people voting in state and local elections). Party ID affilation gets weak the younger the generation is, from what I understand (and weakness of affiliation tends to be stable as you age, thus Silents are much more partisan than later Gen X-ers to this day).

    I've heard the GOP "coroners" focus on both race and generation, when it comes to "autopsies". Neither is off-base, because the GOP is running the risk of dwindling into utter irrelvance outside of the militaristic and non-yuppiefied South, rural areas and the most lightly populated states of the Plains and interior West. That's because catering to comfortable Protestant retirees and those with military service is not a viable long-term election strategy, provided the other party can offer the barest minimum of services and respect to a larger chunk of the electorate. Each generation is less likely to own a gun than the last, for example (as per the GSS, with Silents being the most well-armed). Single issue culture voters (on religion, abortion, guns, big gov.) dominated mainstream politics in the 80's and 90's, but these voters typically were Silents and Boomers who came of age in the New Deal era and took prosperity for granted. We've now shifted to a climate where candidates are judged based on their economic populism, thereby enhancing the influence of X-ers and Millennials who just want a fair shake, and are tired of the Me Generation's bullshit.
  78. Of course, the SPLC offers a dispassionate summation of black nationalism, but as with all things they do it’s rife with half truths and spin. The implication is that black nationalism wouldn’t exist if white people weren’t such racist and intolerant assholes. But black nationalism has grown post 1965 when black wealth, prestige, political power and status has grown immeasurably and often at the expense of white people and during a time when anti-black racism has receded and been proscribed and punished by the establishment.

    Interracial violent crime and murder post 1965 is about 90% black on white. Blacks have almost nothing to fear from whites, so a strong case can be made that black nationalists are motivated by little more than blind hatred of white people. Whites have a difficult time understanding that non-whites and blacks particularly need little reason to hate whites other than we are a different race and aren’t them.

    Conversely, what’s today known as white nationalism has grown in response to the loss of group prestige, status and political power and the institutionalized anti-white racism and discrimination which seems to worsen every year. Most white nationalists rightfully see whites as being under seige in a nation their ancestors founded and built and have learned through direct contact with non-whites that they are generally hostile to whites.

    They also recognize that conservatism has been an abject failure in protecting white racial interests or in conserving American traditions and believe that the never ending racially based attacks on whites and their interests merit a race based defense and the adoption of a race based worldview.

  79. @Audacious Epigone
    I predict Trump's margin of victory will be wider in Ohio than it will be in Texas in 2020. That will in fact be the case indefinitely. Ohio, like Missouri, is a state that used to be a "battleground" or a "bell weather" that is now increasingly reliably red.

    The Rust-Belt and Appalaicha will continue to tack to the GOP if the Dems keep failing to run populist candidates. The Sun-Belt has made greater and greater gains since the 1950’s, generally at the expense of the industrial North.

    Texas doesn’t feel as desperate as Ohio. Trump increased the GOP’s popularity (if in some cases only briefly) in the Midwest, Northeast, and Upper South, precisely because campaign Trump focused on restoring American industry and didn’t give us the usual happy-talk GOP bullshit that plays better in the Sun-belt and interior West.

    Bernie or Yang would clean up in most of the Midwest, and still be able to appeal to a good number of dissafected Trump voters in the Northeast (but culturally speaking, Bernie and Yang would probably be a big turn off for Southern voters, who detest anything that is seen to be pandering to Millennials and Gen Z; remember that the South is the most reactionary region of the country).

    If the GOP ran a generic stooge like Rubio, it would be interesting to see how Ohio/Indiana vote. There’s no way in hell Rubio would win a Upper Midwestern state, provided the Dems run anyone who clears the low appeal bar of Hilary.

    One thing’s for sure: The GOP’s Sun-belt and interior Western base of rural, older, white, Protestant, and patriotic Americans is dwindling by the day. Putting it in strictly racial terms doesn’t quite make sense, because religion (or lack thereof) leads to a lot of cultural differences between whites, while younger whites have much different needs (can’t afford a car, can’t afford a house, can’t get married, etc.) than Boomers who grew up with in incredibly low cost of living in the 1960’s-80’s. To the extent that the GOP can maintain a grip on younger (and often broke) whites, it’s only due to the Dems being stupid enough to not renounce things that have destroyed the middle class (e.g., off-shoring, high immigration levels, the destruction of heavy industry unions, etc.). Frankly I think both parties are, at the moment, so FUBAR’d that most whites under the age of 40 are just plain depressed and alienated from politics. Only do the aspiring young white elites invest that much into partisan politics (and if you think I’m wrong, show me the voting stats which indicate young people voting in state and local elections). Party ID affilation gets weak the younger the generation is, from what I understand (and weakness of affiliation tends to be stable as you age, thus Silents are much more partisan than later Gen X-ers to this day).

    I’ve heard the GOP “coroners” focus on both race and generation, when it comes to “autopsies”. Neither is off-base, because the GOP is running the risk of dwindling into utter irrelvance outside of the militaristic and non-yuppiefied South, rural areas and the most lightly populated states of the Plains and interior West. That’s because catering to comfortable Protestant retirees and those with military service is not a viable long-term election strategy, provided the other party can offer the barest minimum of services and respect to a larger chunk of the electorate. Each generation is less likely to own a gun than the last, for example (as per the GSS, with Silents being the most well-armed). Single issue culture voters (on religion, abortion, guns, big gov.) dominated mainstream politics in the 80’s and 90’s, but these voters typically were Silents and Boomers who came of age in the New Deal era and took prosperity for granted. We’ve now shifted to a climate where candidates are judged based on their economic populism, thereby enhancing the influence of X-ers and Millennials who just want a fair shake, and are tired of the Me Generation’s bullshit.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @216
    It's immoral to deny the GOPs base self-determination, in perpetuity. You cannot rightfully change the control of territory by any means other than war.

    That's what mass immigration does. That's what denial of representation in academia does.

    Shifting everything down to an elities/economics paradigm isn't going to work. This is a moral arguement about whether or not we have a "right to exist", versus the competing claim that the Third World is entitled to the First World as compensation for centuries of imperialism.

    The left can engage in openly anti-white policies, but pays no price for it. No journalists are calling them anti-white, while every single GOP candidate has a detail of VICE/Vox etc people combing through everything they've done singe age 5.

    It's about Self-Determination, that's what Wilson told us when were dragged into that war.

    And its time to cash the check.
  80. @Audacious Epigone
    It's not particularly imaginative but as bad as Beto is at the top of the ticket, he's a perfect VP for her. Texas should from now on be considered competitive. He's a softer, friendly counterweight to Harris' harder edge, and he implicitly lets white men who want to vote D know that while they are now to go to the back of the bus, they're still allowed to ride on it.

    Hate to be a broken record, but I still standby the conviction that vice president is utterly irrelevant. Nobody cares.

    Hard-ass prosecutor Kamala isn’t going to let anyone call the shots in her campaign or her admin., let alone beta Beto. Hilary is a F*g hag whose campaign manager was a fairy. And Tim Kaine is closeted, too.

    VPs are typically going to be either yes-men, or if the candidate is considered to be a radical departure from the norm (like Reagan in 1980, and Trump in ’16), a blase establishment figure is given the VP position to help babysit the would-be president (Rockefeller moderate GHW. Bush keeping Reagan in line, globalist Christian fundamentalist Pence keeping Trump in line). What does it say about how screwed we are that Mike Pence is now considered the GOP norm? It’s our “Christian” duty to bomb countries to smithereens, provided we accept the ensuing refugees and teach them about Jesus. Thanks a lot Boomers, for how you trash-talked the GI Gen New Dealers as being naive dreamers. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    From 1930-1980, we largely didn’t mount protracted military campaigns all over the world, nor did we accept that much of the world’s wretched masses (in fact, not until the early 1980’s did the American establishment began to codify our “refugee” program in such a way as to be easily taken advantage of by cynical foreigners, while the 1990 immigration act completely annihilated what was left of our standards). While older generations helped make some of these mistakes, our ability to bounce back from mistakes, to correct them, has waned as the generations have turned over, w/Reagan and Bush 1’s foreign engagements, for example, being relatively brief and inexpensive in comparison to the Boomer dominated foreign policy of the post-9/11 era. Besides, it’s the Silents (and especially the Boomers) who demanded greater freedom to gamble, have sex, do drugs, etc. If every generation had the cultural mores of the GIs, than the New Deal era restrictions on corrupting behavior never would have been lifted.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Isn't Beto the perfectly affable yes-man who eases worries among dwindling WWC Dem voters that the party isn't full-throttle racialist yet (the way a Harris/Abrams ticket would appear to be)?
  81. @Mr. Rational

    Certainly no one is talking about shipping whites off the continent somewhere else.
     
    As usual, you are not merely wrong but completely opposite to the truth.

    Get grip. That’s are tort to the demand that blacks need to go back to Africa. There is no replacement attempt. I get the reason why you want pin the an ethos of such retorts, myopia can cause one to miss the point.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    That’s a retort to the demand that blacks need to go back to Africa.
     
    Which is a retort to the claims that bringing blacks here from Africa (instead of leaving them to be emasculated and the survivors marched to Arabia, worked to death, eaten, or some combination thereof) was some awful sin which can never be atoned for, and oh yes we must do something about our "horribly racist society" and pay "reparations" on top of literally trillions in various forms of subsidies and preferences already legislated and pocketed with zero gratitude whatsoever from you.

    Remaining here is tacit admission that Whites make better societies than you do; it is what's known as "revealed preference".  It should be a legally binding admission, and if you hate White people and the society we've built despite all the benefits you receive from us, you should be kicked out.  You have no business leeching off us for one more second.
  82. “Gross misuse of “assail” is an indicator that you are a typical low-IQ specimen attempting to sound sophisticated by using words you don’t understand. You’re not even bright enough to look them up or use one of the several good on-line thesauruses to avoid looking foolish.”

    Here are some definitions of the term,


    as·sail
    /əˈsāl/
    verb
    make a concerted or violent attack on.
    “the Scots army assailed Edward’s army from the rear”

    synonyms: attack, assault, make an assault on, launch an attack on, pounce on, set upon, set about, launch oneself at, weigh into, fly at, let fly at, turn on, round on, lash out at, hit out at, beset, belabor, fall on, accost, mug, charge, rush, storm, besiege; More

    (of an unpleasant feeling or physical sensation) come upon (someone) suddenly and strongly.
    “she was assailed by doubts and regrets”

    synonyms: trouble, disturb, worry, plague, beset, torture, torment, rack, bedevil, nag, vex, harass, pester, dog; More
    criticize (someone) strongly.

    synonyms: criticize, censure, attack, condemn, castigate, chastise, berate, lambaste, lash, pillory, find fault with, abuse, revile, give someone a bad press”

    and its clear that I know exactly what the term means. For your sensitive soul, the first one should be sufficient. However, here are some synonyms:

    https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/assail

    choose at will.

    As my dumbness and lo IQ,

    opinions vary.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Yes, you clown.  "Assail" is a verb.  You used it in place of a noun where you should have used something like "claim", "charge" or "slander".

    You do not even have the wits to grasp such things despite having them pointed out to you by multiple people.  As I said, you are a low-IQ specimen using a word you do not understand in an attempt to appear sophisticated, and failing utterly even after reading and quoting a dictionary entry on it.
  83. correction: That’s a retort to the demand that blacks need to go back to Africa. There is no replacement attempt.

    I get the reason why you want pin the an ethos of such retorts, myopia can cause one to miss the point. For more than 100 years whites have made that as a general position and even have attempted to enact such policies. There is nothing by way of magnitude that resembles that positioning by blacks.

    laughing.

    You are of course welcome to hang your hat as you will.

    Compare say:

    the alt right. white supremacists, and white nationalist communities, and others who embrace as a an ethos — go back to Africa verses, even the Black Muslims who have to such positioning as an organization.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    correction: go back to Africa verses, even the Black Muslims who have no such positioning as an organization.
  84. @SunBakedSuburb
    Kamala is a total mediocrity, but she has the interest of the globalist witch cult. Stacey Abrams really is the black woman of choice for self-loathing white progressives who believe that only a black woman can save us. Abrams is smart, ambitious, and vengeful. White female progressives will be required to shave off all of their Becky hair to satiate President Stacey's racial vengeance. And the WFPs will willingly do this because they are good people and Oprah told them to do it.

    “Smart, ambitious and vengful”

    Okay I’ll give you the “ambitious” and “vengful” aspects, however “smart” is nothing more than a figment of your deranged leftist mind-set, simpleton is the appropriate expression regarding her.

    There has never been, and never will be a so-called “smart” person within the ranks of Democrats and their lunatic buddies the greens.

    It doesn’t require “smartness” or an astronomical IQ , rather simply a relentless drive to accumulate huge amounts of money and power, by hook or crook, and this comprises the total biography of each and every democrat politico.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro jazz artist

  85. @Mr. Rational

    I will address the issue of whether blacks have a disproportionate rate of crime ownership when compared to blacks.

    https://blackamericaweb.com/2017/10/24/black-on-black-crime-rate-is-far-lower-than-white-on-white-crime/

     
    You are probably just trolling, but your position is not merely wrong.  It is insane.

    My position is very simple,

    even if wanted to lean on the proportional position. That number represents a very small number of the black population, maybe 5%.

    Hardly reflects a sample of how most blacks behave.

    I would consider anyone who fears 5% of a population they most likely will never engage as bordering on paranoia. But I certainly get the value of promoting the 5% and ignoring the other 90% plus that rebuts the assail, the argument, the contend, the complaint, the attack, the concern, the charge . . .

    l’est there be any suggestion that I don’t comprehend the meaning of the term assail.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    even if wanted to lean on the proportional position. That number represents a very small number of the black population, maybe 5%.Hardly reflects a sample of how most blacks behave.
     
    5% of 40 million of you is 2 million.  That is a lot of dangerous actors.  Why won't YOU do us ALL a favor and call for PREVENTING that 5% from being a hazard to anyone else, us OR you?  In prison or expelled to Liberia would do it.  But no, you won't hear of it; "too many black men in prison" aka "das rayciss!"

    You won't allow a solution on terms acceptable to you, so you don't get a say.

    I certainly get the value of promoting the 5% and ignoring the other 90% plus that rebuts the assail, the argument, the contend, the complaint, the attack, the concern, the charge . . .
     
    There you go again, unable to distinguish between nouns and verbs.  "Contend" is a verb.  "Contention" is a noun.  You are so stupid you literally do not know the difference even after looking up and copy-pasting dictionary entries; you cannot understand what the plain English text means.

    l’est there be any suggestion that I don’t comprehend the meaning of the term assail.
     
    And you did it again, trying to appear sophisticated and making an utter fool of yourself.

    l'est is a French modifier meaning "east".  The English word has no apostrophe:  lest:  for fear that; so that (one) should not.

    You fail at basic literacy.  You're nothing but a burden to the USA, but I bet Ghana would be happy to have you.  You'd be well above average there.
  86. @EliteCommInc.
    correction: That’s a retort to the demand that blacks need to go back to Africa. There is no replacement attempt.


    I get the reason why you want pin the an ethos of such retorts, myopia can cause one to miss the point. For more than 100 years whites have made that as a general position and even have attempted to enact such policies. There is nothing by way of magnitude that resembles that positioning by blacks.

    laughing.

    You are of course welcome to hang your hat as you will.

    Compare say:

    the alt right. white supremacists, and white nationalist communities, and others who embrace as a an ethos -- go back to Africa verses, even the Black Muslims who have to such positioning as an organization.

    correction: go back to Africa verses, even the Black Muslims who have no such positioning as an organization.

  87. @Audacious Epigone
    Treating "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" as synonyms is almost as dumb as treating "nationalism" and "globalism" as synonyms.

    Treating “white nationalism” and “white supremacy” as synonyms is almost as dumb

    I claim the dumb position. Whether one calls it white nationalism, white supremacy or white separatism, the effect is the same. It is tedious nonsense to claim otherwise.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    How so? Wanting separation from a group and wanting dominion over a group are two entirely different things. To treat them as synonymous is to assail the utility of language itself!
  88. @Audacious Epigone
    It's not particularly imaginative but as bad as Beto is at the top of the ticket, he's a perfect VP for her. Texas should from now on be considered competitive. He's a softer, friendly counterweight to Harris' harder edge, and he implicitly lets white men who want to vote D know that while they are now to go to the back of the bus, they're still allowed to ride on it.

    Texas should from now on be considered competitive.

    You are discounting the personal distastefulness of Ted Cruz. We have a few more years before Texas goes purple. Same for Georgia, but we should consult the immigration stats for Georgia (and Texas) to be sure.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Abrams lost Georgia by less than 1%. I think Georgia will definitely be competitive in 2020. You're probably right about Texas taking another cycle or so. I'd guess it'll really be competitive in 2028 or so.
  89. @EliteCommInc.
    Get grip. That's are tort to the demand that blacks need to go back to Africa. There is no replacement attempt. I get the reason why you want pin the an ethos of such retorts, myopia can cause one to miss the point.

    That’s a retort to the demand that blacks need to go back to Africa.

    Which is a retort to the claims that bringing blacks here from Africa (instead of leaving them to be emasculated and the survivors marched to Arabia, worked to death, eaten, or some combination thereof) was some awful sin which can never be atoned for, and oh yes we must do something about our “horribly racist society” and pay “reparations” on top of literally trillions in various forms of subsidies and preferences already legislated and pocketed with zero gratitude whatsoever from you.

    Remaining here is tacit admission that Whites make better societies than you do; it is what’s known as “revealed preference”.  It should be a legally binding admission, and if you hate White people and the society we’ve built despite all the benefits you receive from us, you should be kicked out.  You have no business leeching off us for one more second.

  90. @EliteCommInc.
    "Gross misuse of “assail” is an indicator that you are a typical low-IQ specimen attempting to sound sophisticated by using words you don’t understand. You’re not even bright enough to look them up or use one of the several good on-line thesauruses to avoid looking foolish."

    Here are some definitions of the term,

    "
    as·sail
    /əˈsāl/
    verb
    make a concerted or violent attack on.
    "the Scots army assailed Edward's army from the rear"

    synonyms: attack, assault, make an assault on, launch an attack on, pounce on, set upon, set about, launch oneself at, weigh into, fly at, let fly at, turn on, round on, lash out at, hit out at, beset, belabor, fall on, accost, mug, charge, rush, storm, besiege; More

    (of an unpleasant feeling or physical sensation) come upon (someone) suddenly and strongly.
    "she was assailed by doubts and regrets"

    synonyms: trouble, disturb, worry, plague, beset, torture, torment, rack, bedevil, nag, vex, harass, pester, dog; More
    criticize (someone) strongly.

    synonyms: criticize, censure, attack, condemn, castigate, chastise, berate, lambaste, lash, pillory, find fault with, abuse, revile, give someone a bad press"


    and its clear that I know exactly what the term means. For your sensitive soul, the first one should be sufficient. However, here are some synonyms:

    https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/assail

    choose at will.

    As my dumbness and lo IQ,


    opinions vary.

    Yes, you clown.  “Assail” is a verb.  You used it in place of a noun where you should have used something like “claim”, “charge” or “slander”.

    You do not even have the wits to grasp such things despite having them pointed out to you by multiple people.  As I said, you are a low-IQ specimen using a word you do not understand in an attempt to appear sophisticated, and failing utterly even after reading and quoting a dictionary entry on it.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    As I noted,

    your assail simply fails.

    I think the population of blacks is closer 44 million, but I am comfortable with the number.

  91. @EliteCommInc.
    My position is very simple,


    even if wanted to lean on the proportional position. That number represents a very small number of the black population, maybe 5%.

    Hardly reflects a sample of how most blacks behave.

    I would consider anyone who fears 5% of a population they most likely will never engage as bordering on paranoia. But I certainly get the value of promoting the 5% and ignoring the other 90% plus that rebuts the assail, the argument, the contend, the complaint, the attack, the concern, the charge . . .



    l'est there be any suggestion that I don't comprehend the meaning of the term assail.

    even if wanted to lean on the proportional position. That number represents a very small number of the black population, maybe 5%.Hardly reflects a sample of how most blacks behave.

    5% of 40 million of you is 2 million.  That is a lot of dangerous actors.  Why won’t YOU do us ALL a favor and call for PREVENTING that 5% from being a hazard to anyone else, us OR you?  In prison or expelled to Liberia would do it.  But no, you won’t hear of it; “too many black men in prison” aka “das rayciss!”

    You won’t allow a solution on terms acceptable to you, so you don’t get a say.

    I certainly get the value of promoting the 5% and ignoring the other 90% plus that rebuts the assail, the argument, the contend, the complaint, the attack, the concern, the charge . . .

    There you go again, unable to distinguish between nouns and verbs.  “Contend” is a verb.  “Contention” is a noun.  You are so stupid you literally do not know the difference even after looking up and copy-pasting dictionary entries; you cannot understand what the plain English text means.

    l’est there be any suggestion that I don’t comprehend the meaning of the term assail.

    And you did it again, trying to appear sophisticated and making an utter fool of yourself.

    l’est is a French modifier meaning “east”.  The English word has no apostrophe:  lest:  for fear that; so that (one) should not.

    You fail at basic literacy.  You’re nothing but a burden to the USA, but I bet Ghana would be happy to have you.  You’d be well above average there.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Laughing.


    Appreciate you attending to the grammar.


    That about right. I have played this record before. That hardly indicates that the black population as a whole is a run amuck involved in crime. That is 2 million of a very particular population. That is generally limited to very specific neighborhoods and very specific environments. And those environments world wide past and present, white, black brown, green or blue tended suck behavior.


    As I say the proportional contend simply does not rise to an epidemic such that blacks as a population represent a unique threat.

    Well, my opinions on my stupidity vary. However, the information provided copied and pasted have a variety of appropriate understandings of the word, "assail" and several of them are very appropriate. Your complaint simply has no weight, regardless how many times and no matter how many variations you choose to state it.

    Your lean on the personal just does not get you where you wish to go. I think the article and my response rest quite nicely on a log you will be unable to dislodge regardless of how many technical errors you attend to. I take it you have moved on from your "assail" hurdle.

    Be sure to let me know about Ghana.
  92. @Feryl
    The Rust-Belt and Appalaicha will continue to tack to the GOP if the Dems keep failing to run populist candidates. The Sun-Belt has made greater and greater gains since the 1950's, generally at the expense of the industrial North.

    Texas doesn't feel as desperate as Ohio. Trump increased the GOP's popularity (if in some cases only briefly) in the Midwest, Northeast, and Upper South, precisely because campaign Trump focused on restoring American industry and didn't give us the usual happy-talk GOP bullshit that plays better in the Sun-belt and interior West.

    Bernie or Yang would clean up in most of the Midwest, and still be able to appeal to a good number of dissafected Trump voters in the Northeast (but culturally speaking, Bernie and Yang would probably be a big turn off for Southern voters, who detest anything that is seen to be pandering to Millennials and Gen Z; remember that the South is the most reactionary region of the country).

    If the GOP ran a generic stooge like Rubio, it would be interesting to see how Ohio/Indiana vote. There's no way in hell Rubio would win a Upper Midwestern state, provided the Dems run anyone who clears the low appeal bar of Hilary.

    One thing's for sure: The GOP's Sun-belt and interior Western base of rural, older, white, Protestant, and patriotic Americans is dwindling by the day. Putting it in strictly racial terms doesn't quite make sense, because religion (or lack thereof) leads to a lot of cultural differences between whites, while younger whites have much different needs (can't afford a car, can't afford a house, can't get married, etc.) than Boomers who grew up with in incredibly low cost of living in the 1960's-80's. To the extent that the GOP can maintain a grip on younger (and often broke) whites, it's only due to the Dems being stupid enough to not renounce things that have destroyed the middle class (e.g., off-shoring, high immigration levels, the destruction of heavy industry unions, etc.). Frankly I think both parties are, at the moment, so FUBAR'd that most whites under the age of 40 are just plain depressed and alienated from politics. Only do the aspiring young white elites invest that much into partisan politics (and if you think I'm wrong, show me the voting stats which indicate young people voting in state and local elections). Party ID affilation gets weak the younger the generation is, from what I understand (and weakness of affiliation tends to be stable as you age, thus Silents are much more partisan than later Gen X-ers to this day).

    I've heard the GOP "coroners" focus on both race and generation, when it comes to "autopsies". Neither is off-base, because the GOP is running the risk of dwindling into utter irrelvance outside of the militaristic and non-yuppiefied South, rural areas and the most lightly populated states of the Plains and interior West. That's because catering to comfortable Protestant retirees and those with military service is not a viable long-term election strategy, provided the other party can offer the barest minimum of services and respect to a larger chunk of the electorate. Each generation is less likely to own a gun than the last, for example (as per the GSS, with Silents being the most well-armed). Single issue culture voters (on religion, abortion, guns, big gov.) dominated mainstream politics in the 80's and 90's, but these voters typically were Silents and Boomers who came of age in the New Deal era and took prosperity for granted. We've now shifted to a climate where candidates are judged based on their economic populism, thereby enhancing the influence of X-ers and Millennials who just want a fair shake, and are tired of the Me Generation's bullshit.

    It’s immoral to deny the GOPs base self-determination, in perpetuity. You cannot rightfully change the control of territory by any means other than war.

    That’s what mass immigration does. That’s what denial of representation in academia does.

    Shifting everything down to an elities/economics paradigm isn’t going to work. This is a moral arguement about whether or not we have a “right to exist”, versus the competing claim that the Third World is entitled to the First World as compensation for centuries of imperialism.

    The left can engage in openly anti-white policies, but pays no price for it. No journalists are calling them anti-white, while every single GOP candidate has a detail of VICE/Vox etc people combing through everything they’ve done singe age 5.

    It’s about Self-Determination, that’s what Wilson told us when were dragged into that war.

    And its time to cash the check.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Feryl
    That dodges the matter of who the GOP base is, in the first place. People like you (young nationalists and isolationists) are but a minority of the GOP base, in the first place. The GOP is still catering primarily to affluent retirees (or near retirees) and business owners in sectors that despise red-tape (like agriculture and construction). The GOP offers pitiful breadcrumbs on cultural issues and immigration, but the cumulative impact of GOP policies is to do nothing to halt America's slide into a Dickensian dystopia+failed empire. And so long as the GOP is fueled by privatization, taxes are a penalty for hard work, and business owners are an oppressed minority (Reaganism in a nut-shell), our country won't make any progress at digging itself out of a major hole. The trend since Reagan has been to off-shore, haul in tons of immigrants for business owners to save money, keep taxes on rich people low (by first world standards), and baloon the deficit by operating the most expensive military infrastructure in world history. A good summation of post-1980 America is that doing and saying things that feel good, or comforting, have taken precendence over paying attention to material reality. Ironically, the Reaganites are guilty of the very thing they always blamed New Dealers for (being naive dreamers instead of realists). What's "realistic" about sponsoring policies that have objectively made America worse, compared to what it was in the 1930's-1970's?

    See also the bizarre meme that America was transformed overnight in 1965 by hordes of immigrants (in reality, immigration levels only went up relatively big for a couple years in the late 60's, then went back down in the earlier 70's, then spiked under corporate Democrat Carter, then surged massively under Reagan and GHW Bush who wanted to please the by then greedy agriculture/construction/textile industry. Also, the vast majority of people in America in 1980 consisted of white and black Americans; the biggest exceptions were Texas and CA, who effectively took control of the GOP in the 1970's, by the 1990's the Northeast GOP was virtually DOA. Hell, I lived in an outer suburb of MPLS in the early 1990's, and I remember one Mexican dad (w/ white mother) in the neighborhood. That was about it for "diversity", at that time (Midwesterners like us all know that immigrants were practically non-existent in the region before the mid-1990's; where this idea comes from that 1965 is when everything changed is beyond me (well, actually it's idiot Republicans blaming Ted Kennedy for the dystopia that non-New Deal presidents like Reagan and Clinton allowed to happen). Oh, and what was to stop the GOP (who came to possess major power in the 90', 00's, and early 2010's) from slamming the gates shut again, and reviving New Deal era pressures to evict aliens and mandate assimilation? $$$$$$$. The only thing that the Reaganites ever cared about was money, and pretending to stand for "family values". And hey, I seem to remember Republicans doing nothing but bitching about FDR "ruining everything".
  93. @Mr. Rational

    even if wanted to lean on the proportional position. That number represents a very small number of the black population, maybe 5%.Hardly reflects a sample of how most blacks behave.
     
    5% of 40 million of you is 2 million.  That is a lot of dangerous actors.  Why won't YOU do us ALL a favor and call for PREVENTING that 5% from being a hazard to anyone else, us OR you?  In prison or expelled to Liberia would do it.  But no, you won't hear of it; "too many black men in prison" aka "das rayciss!"

    You won't allow a solution on terms acceptable to you, so you don't get a say.

    I certainly get the value of promoting the 5% and ignoring the other 90% plus that rebuts the assail, the argument, the contend, the complaint, the attack, the concern, the charge . . .
     
    There you go again, unable to distinguish between nouns and verbs.  "Contend" is a verb.  "Contention" is a noun.  You are so stupid you literally do not know the difference even after looking up and copy-pasting dictionary entries; you cannot understand what the plain English text means.

    l’est there be any suggestion that I don’t comprehend the meaning of the term assail.
     
    And you did it again, trying to appear sophisticated and making an utter fool of yourself.

    l'est is a French modifier meaning "east".  The English word has no apostrophe:  lest:  for fear that; so that (one) should not.

    You fail at basic literacy.  You're nothing but a burden to the USA, but I bet Ghana would be happy to have you.  You'd be well above average there.

    Laughing.

    Appreciate you attending to the grammar.

    That about right. I have played this record before. That hardly indicates that the black population as a whole is a run amuck involved in crime. That is 2 million of a very particular population. That is generally limited to very specific neighborhoods and very specific environments. And those environments world wide past and present, white, black brown, green or blue tended suck behavior.

    As I say the proportional contend simply does not rise to an epidemic such that blacks as a population represent a unique threat.

    Well, my opinions on my stupidity vary. However, the information provided copied and pasted have a variety of appropriate understandings of the word, “assail” and several of them are very appropriate. Your complaint simply has no weight, regardless how many times and no matter how many variations you choose to state it.

    Your lean on the personal just does not get you where you wish to go. I think the article and my response rest quite nicely on a log you will be unable to dislodge regardless of how many technical errors you attend to. I take it you have moved on from your “assail” hurdle.

    Be sure to let me know about Ghana.

  94. @Mr. Rational
    Yes, you clown.  "Assail" is a verb.  You used it in place of a noun where you should have used something like "claim", "charge" or "slander".

    You do not even have the wits to grasp such things despite having them pointed out to you by multiple people.  As I said, you are a low-IQ specimen using a word you do not understand in an attempt to appear sophisticated, and failing utterly even after reading and quoting a dictionary entry on it.

    As I noted,

    your assail simply fails.

    I think the population of blacks is closer 44 million, but I am comfortable with the number.

  95. @Audacious Epigone
    This is why I see political dissolution as likely, and sooner than most people think, with a currency crisis the most likely event to set it off.

    My hope: Voluntary movement into countries that resemble Bluestans and Redstans now. The Bluestans will be wealthier, be characterized by large wealth disparities, and be more racially and culturally diverse. Redstans will be poorer, more equal, and more homogeneous.

    The strongest opposition to this won't come from totalitarian progressives who want to control deplorable behavior. It will come from the military-industrial complex, which will become far more difficult to maintain.

    Way, way, way, way, way too optimistic. If there is indeed a currency crisis and the trucks stop running, things will turn full Mad Max in less than a week. I would expect a stats guy to understand just how incredible fragile our JIT lifestyles are. Once the shelves are picked clean on the first day, it’s cannibalism by summer.

    By the way something, most of the Bluestans would be worse off, because their “wealth” is almost entirely paper-based fiction and their access to the real essentials of life are extremely limited. Just as an example, riddle me this: who ‘owns’ the water in Lake Mead?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    There's a chasm between a currency crisis and the trucks no longer running, I think. Assuming no massive dollar creation, I'd estimate a currency crisis will 'only' result in something like a doubling of consumer prices over a very short period of time. If a gallon of milk costs ten dollars, that's going to cause an enormous amount of economic pain but it's not going to be Mad Max.

    As a father of young children that is what I hope, anyway.
  96. @216
    It's immoral to deny the GOPs base self-determination, in perpetuity. You cannot rightfully change the control of territory by any means other than war.

    That's what mass immigration does. That's what denial of representation in academia does.

    Shifting everything down to an elities/economics paradigm isn't going to work. This is a moral arguement about whether or not we have a "right to exist", versus the competing claim that the Third World is entitled to the First World as compensation for centuries of imperialism.

    The left can engage in openly anti-white policies, but pays no price for it. No journalists are calling them anti-white, while every single GOP candidate has a detail of VICE/Vox etc people combing through everything they've done singe age 5.

    It's about Self-Determination, that's what Wilson told us when were dragged into that war.

    And its time to cash the check.

    That dodges the matter of who the GOP base is, in the first place. People like you (young nationalists and isolationists) are but a minority of the GOP base, in the first place. The GOP is still catering primarily to affluent retirees (or near retirees) and business owners in sectors that despise red-tape (like agriculture and construction). The GOP offers pitiful breadcrumbs on cultural issues and immigration, but the cumulative impact of GOP policies is to do nothing to halt America’s slide into a Dickensian dystopia+failed empire. And so long as the GOP is fueled by privatization, taxes are a penalty for hard work, and business owners are an oppressed minority (Reaganism in a nut-shell), our country won’t make any progress at digging itself out of a major hole. The trend since Reagan has been to off-shore, haul in tons of immigrants for business owners to save money, keep taxes on rich people low (by first world standards), and baloon the deficit by operating the most expensive military infrastructure in world history. A good summation of post-1980 America is that doing and saying things that feel good, or comforting, have taken precendence over paying attention to material reality. Ironically, the Reaganites are guilty of the very thing they always blamed New Dealers for (being naive dreamers instead of realists). What’s “realistic” about sponsoring policies that have objectively made America worse, compared to what it was in the 1930’s-1970’s?

    See also the bizarre meme that America was transformed overnight in 1965 by hordes of immigrants (in reality, immigration levels only went up relatively big for a couple years in the late 60’s, then went back down in the earlier 70’s, then spiked under corporate Democrat Carter, then surged massively under Reagan and GHW Bush who wanted to please the by then greedy agriculture/construction/textile industry. Also, the vast majority of people in America in 1980 consisted of white and black Americans; the biggest exceptions were Texas and CA, who effectively took control of the GOP in the 1970’s, by the 1990’s the Northeast GOP was virtually DOA. Hell, I lived in an outer suburb of MPLS in the early 1990’s, and I remember one Mexican dad (w/ white mother) in the neighborhood. That was about it for “diversity”, at that time (Midwesterners like us all know that immigrants were practically non-existent in the region before the mid-1990’s; where this idea comes from that 1965 is when everything changed is beyond me (well, actually it’s idiot Republicans blaming Ted Kennedy for the dystopia that non-New Deal presidents like Reagan and Clinton allowed to happen). Oh, and what was to stop the GOP (who came to possess major power in the 90′, 00’s, and early 2010’s) from slamming the gates shut again, and reviving New Deal era pressures to evict aliens and mandate assimilation? $$$$$$$. The only thing that the Reaganites ever cared about was money, and pretending to stand for “family values”. And hey, I seem to remember Republicans doing nothing but bitching about FDR “ruining everything”.

  97. @Priss Factor
    I can accept that black nationalism was a reaction to white imperialism that conquered the Americas and brought over slaves from Africa.

    Nationalism has been a reaction to Imperialism, and for most of modern history, whites were the leading imperialists. Granted, white imperialism made great discoveries, connected the entire world, spread knowledge, inspired revolutions, and created vast new wealth & opportunities.
    But it was also destructive and devastating to many peoples around the world. Naturally, the weaker peoples whose lands, cultures, and autonomy are threatened or crushed by an imperialist power are going to move into nationalist mode.

    As blacks were under white imperialist domination in the US, it's understandable that there was a movement to define, preserve, and protect blackness. This was black nationalism.

    But times change. White Imperialism was usurped by Jews. In time, the US became less a superpower nation than a super-colony or super-puppet of an even greater power, the Empire of Judea, a worldwide network. And this Jewish supremacist imperialist power is making white people participate in Judeo-centric ventures to destroy Russia & Iran, wage Wars for Israel, support Israel's eradication of all vestiges of Palestinian nationhood, and etc.

    Because the dominant world power is now Jewish Imperialism, we need white nationalism or white national liberation movement to break free of this supremacism.

    Rule of History. Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). British Empire promoted British nationalism and patriotism but crushed the nationalist aspirations of subject peoples. It said NO to Indian nationalism, even resorting to ruthless means on occasion to suppress it. French empire suppressed Vietnamese and Algerian nationalisms.
    Japan was in nationalist mode when threatened by British and American imperialism, but as it modernized and grew into a major power(and was accepted into the imperialist club as 'honorary whites'), the Japanese made imperialist moves on continental Asia. Japanese empire did all it could do to suppress Chinese and Korean nationalism(and then Filipino and Vietnamese nationalism as the empire expanded). Nazi Empire trampled on Polish and Czech nationalism and sought to crush Russia nationalism. Soviet Imperialism suppressed Polish and Hungarian nationalism.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Roman imperialists ruthlessly suppressed Jewish nationalism. Of course, Romans could take pride of Roman power and glory, but non-Romans had to suppress their own pride of identity to serve and honor Rome. Soviet Empire was somewhat different because it suppressed Russian nationalism along with other nationalism... though, over time, Russian national component of the empire did resurface.

    Why do Jews hate white nationalism? Jews often conflate white nationalism with white supremacism, but that's mostly BS. White nationalism was actually far less aggressive than White imperialist Liberalism. Throughout American history, white nationalism emphasized America's need to take care of its own affairs. It was white liberalism and white progressivism that wanted to expand and rule the world. Since late 19th century, US began to move more into imperialist mode as all the US continent was united and settled. White Imperialism came to dominate over white nationalism. But because the world was dominated by great European empires, American imperialism pretended to be for self-determination of nations. But American imperialism was only trying to invalidate existing empires so that it would gain hegemony over the 'liberated' nations.
    But sour feelings after WWI made Americans look inward. But the double whammy of WWII and the Cold War turned the US into a full-fledged world empire, though in counterbalance against another empire, an 'evil' one of Soviets.
    With the end of the Cold War, US could have retreated from imperialism and minded its own business, but the business opportunities of Free Trade and spectacular rise of Jewish power changed all that. Jews preferred expanded imperialist-globalism over nationalism because Jewish power owes more to horizontal networks around the world than vertical elite-mass unity in any nation(except in Israel). So, Jews were mainly loyal to the Network, the Empire of Judea, than to the US or any particular nation. As Jews gained dominant power in the US, the so-called lone superpower essentially became a colony of the Jewish Empire. The Jewel in the Crown. And because Jews don't have the numbers, they need gentile support and obedience to Jewish supremacist imperialist power. And among all the goyim, whites are most crucial because they are most numerous, capable, and talented. Jews may be the overlords, but they need white managers, engineers, generals, negotiators, lawmen, and etc. to do the heavy lifting. But the ONLY WAY the whites are going to do as told is IF they are denied white identity and white nationalism. After all, if whites think as white nationalists, they will focus on 'what is good for whites in our white nation'. They will be less likely to support Jewish supremacist agendas around the world like hatred toward Russia, Iran, Syria, and endless Wars for Israel. And this is why Jewish Imperialism must suppress white nationalism. Nationalism tends to be rebellious, defiant, and uppity against the empire, especially if it's of an alien people.
    Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Jews love Zionism and Israeli nationalism. Jews love to promote and glorify Jewish identity. Jews, who'd once been nationalist resisters against Roman imperialism, are now the New Romans, and they regard whites as the 'new Jews' to suppress and control(or destroy and scatter to the winds if they disobey Jewish Neo-Roman power). Just like Jewish Imperialism can't abide Palestinian nationalism, it can't tolerate white nationalism. Both threaten Jewish imperialist hegemony. Palestinians in W. Bank demand independence. And white nationalists want white liberation and emancipation from Jewish imperialist globalism. White national liberationists want OUT from the globo-homo empire and more Wars for Israel. This is what Jews fear. This is why Jews smear white nationalism as 'white supremacism' when, if anything, it is anti-supremacist against Jewish Imperialism. What Jews really want is for white cuck-collaborators to keep supporting Jewish imperialist hegemony around the world. Jews are projecting their own supremacism onto white nationalists. But then, Jews who created Israel through use of terror blame Palestinians as a race of terrorists.

    Why are Jews okay with black nationalism in the US? Because they don't really see it as a threat. Besides, Jewish Empire relies far less on black ability and talent. While black talent in sports and music is very profitable to Jews, it is white talent that is crucial in managing and running the Empire as an engine and warship. So, it is far more important for Jews to make whites submit and obey.
    Also, black nationalism can be used to guilt-bait whites. Indeed, even as imperialism generally hates nationalisms, it may support one nationalism against another nationalism(seen as bigger threat) or a rival empire. It's like the Empire of Judea is supportive of Ukrainian nationalism against Russian nationalism(which is seen as a bigger obstacle to total Jewish world hegemony). So, Jews see black nationalism the way they see Ukrainian nationalism. A useful tool for the moment.

    Now, was there a history of white nationalism that was supremacist? In a way, yes, but it was still less belligerent and dangerous than white imperialism and Jewish imperialism. White nationalist rule in the past did treat non-whites as second-class citizens or worse, BUT white nationalism had a limiting effect on the despoilment of America by the world. By allowing mostly only white immigration, American Indians lost their land only to Europeans mostly. Had America not been white nationalist and allowed open door immigration from the beginning, American Indians would have lost all their land to all the world in no time. And much of nature would have been destroyed. White nationalists did defeat and conquer the indigenous folks, but their great and noble race-ism still allowed some space for Indians and their narrative. Also, white nationalist race-ism served as a check on black biological supremacism and imperialism. As blacks were brought as slaves, they were socially oppressed by whites. But because of their superior muscle power, greater natural aggression, rowdier butt energy,and bigger dongs, they could easily become biological imperialists and supremacists over the weaker white race. In a state of nature, blacks will dominate over whites. If you take 200 whites and 200 blacks and strip them naked and put them on an island, blacks will beat up white guys and hump white girls. So, white race-ism and nationalism against blacks were both supremacist and defensive against black natural supremacism.

    Anyway, the most destructive, evil, and venal power in the world today is Jewish Imperialism. Look what it did to Russia in the 90s. Look at its spread of demented globo-homomania. Look at its Wars that leveled so many nations in Mid East and North Africa. Look at its economic destruction of Iran. Look at its demographic policies against US and EU. Look at how it makes white soldiers wreck Muslim nations and then pushes Muslims into the West. Look at how it spreads anti-white hatred in media and academia and Hollywood. Look at how the Sacklers acted like Sassoons who sold opium to the Chinese.

    Indeed, if white nationalists could pry themselves from Jewish imperialism, the world would be a much nicer place. After all, without white cuck-collaboration with Jewish imperialist power, Jews would do far less harm to the world.
    Suppose if whites(in national liberationist mode) had said NO to all these Wars for Israel. Middle East would be in one piece and millions wouldn't be dead or displaced and pushed into white nations. There would be justice for Palestinians finally. US would not be in another stupid 'cold war' with Russia. And in the 90s, the US might have been constructive and helpful toward Russia than merely rapacious as the 'shock doctrine' turned out to be the shylock doctrine of looting the entire economy to enrich the Tribe. The world should welcome white nationalist liberation from Jewish Globalist Imperialism like the world greeted the national liberation of India from the British Empire. To Jews, a white national liberationist who says NO to being conscripted into the Jewish Empire is like an uppity slave who says NO. He must be whipped. White National Liberationists must say "Hell No, We won't go" and "Globalists suck, we won't cuck."

    But then, the reason why so many in the non-white world participate with Jewish Imperialism against white nationalism is because white nationalism says "We want our white nations to remain white", whereas Jewish imperialism says, "We will hand you free tickets to white nations IF you support our agenda as 'new Europeans' or 'new Americans'." Non-whites will do ANYTHING to come to richer and nicer white nations.
    Imperialism has its resisters but also collaborators. When the British empire existed, many Hindus and Chinese took advantage to spread out across the world for opportunities for profit. Most people will do ANYTHING for whatever improves their lives materially.

    There’s a lot of good in this, but it can stand w/ a little Albion’s seed along with some “divide and conquer” practiced by ruling (((elite))) to stop, say, the Bernie whites and the MAGA whites from understanding who the true enemy is.

    In addition, how whites are divided matters. E Michael Jones will tell you – there are no white people. There will never be “white nationalism”. It will always be “racist” – the brand has been poisoned beyond repair. Looking back to the past, the Protestants and the Jews came together to “slaughter” Catholic strongholds in major urban centers in the 40s and 50s…and the Jews replaced the Protestants as the elite. The only way to unite against the Jewish rule, he would argue, is under the banner of the Catholic church, which by definition can never be Jewish. I find that position to be interestingly persuasive. But you want to talk about buying low on a brand, the Catholic Church is like buying WaPo for $250M….

    Ralph Nader kind of got it when he recommended the two merge together in an AmCon article in the 2014 time frame about nationalist conservatism in the 1930s using “anti-corporatism” as the uniting banner…

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/who-owns-america/

    And here’s Michael Tracey on Nader’s affection for Ron Paul as a grand uniter back in 2011…

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/ralph-naders-grand-alliance/

    But unless we secure the border and reverse the demographic decline, all of this remains moot.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The 1930's anti-corporatist movement was part of the renewed localist movement, which began in the Progressive era and peaked in the New Deal era. Unfortunately, some dictators like Hitler took advantage of the populist mood for malign ends. The traditional Anglo right has always hated the New Deal era for how it strengthened workers (via low immigration, progressive taxes, and greater labor rights), while the modern neo-lib Left acts like every country in the world was a "racist" hell-hole in the 1930's-1950's. Nader, who still is a New Deal liberal, is capable of being complimentary to the 1930's-1950's. But the New Deal Left died in the early 1990's (when Pat Buchanan and Perot were bigger New Dealers than Bush or Clinton), and has since been totally replaced by neo-libs who are effectively Reaganite on economic issues, while being far to the Left on social issues.

    "But unless we secure the border and reverse the demographic decline, all of this remains moot."

    Africans, Asians, and Muslims mostly come here via plane. In the upper Midwest, most immigrants are legal (or at least initially legal arrivals), not border jumpers. If you live in the Sun Belt, I guess the border really is that important. But for the US as a whole, legal immigration is just as important as "illegal". After all, we first imported over one million legal migrants in 1989. Then compound that with 700 thousand-one million legally registered arrivals every year thereafter, +the children they've had +the illegals. Immigration experts say that a massive % of the arrivals came via family sponsored "chain" migration, possibly the worst immigration idea in this country's history which originates from Bush's 1990 immigration act. America has a highly volatile history, from a demographic standpoint. Much of the South is a lot whiter than it was during the 19th century. Colonial WASPs and Dutch resented the arrival of Germans in moderate numbers, eventually joined by French and Irish Protestants. Later on, Catholic Irish settled here to even greater controversy, eventually joined by Swedes, Jews, Italians, Poles, etc. End result being that much of the Northeastern United states hardly resembles the colonial stock. Millennials and Gen Z whites don't appreciate that before circa 1990, "diversity" in the united states often meant distinctions between white ethnic groups here. But us younger generations grew up around Mexicans, Asians, etc. So to us "diverse" means non-white.

    The US is not, and has never been, an ethno-state. The US has always prided itself on "openness", it's just that how open depends on whether elites are trying to respect what the average person wants (e.g., usually ordinary people don't want to compete with hordes of aliens). The last time we had so much political dysfunction (the mid-late 19th century), it wasn't until the 1920's that elites did the sensible thing and slammed the borders shut; recorded immigration (and border jumps) was generally quite low from 1925-1976. As political dysfunction has intensified since the 80's and 90's, it looks as if we're returning to the late 19th century norm of high immigration levels (with the only way stop it being a major economic collapse that would bring America to borderline third world status).
  98. @Feryl
    Hate to be a broken record, but I still standby the conviction that vice president is utterly irrelevant. Nobody cares.

    Hard-ass prosecutor Kamala isn't going to let anyone call the shots in her campaign or her admin., let alone beta Beto. Hilary is a F*g hag whose campaign manager was a fairy. And Tim Kaine is closeted, too.

    VPs are typically going to be either yes-men, or if the candidate is considered to be a radical departure from the norm (like Reagan in 1980, and Trump in '16), a blase establishment figure is given the VP position to help babysit the would-be president (Rockefeller moderate GHW. Bush keeping Reagan in line, globalist Christian fundamentalist Pence keeping Trump in line). What does it say about how screwed we are that Mike Pence is now considered the GOP norm? It's our "Christian" duty to bomb countries to smithereens, provided we accept the ensuing refugees and teach them about Jesus. Thanks a lot Boomers, for how you trash-talked the GI Gen New Dealers as being naive dreamers. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    From 1930-1980, we largely didn't mount protracted military campaigns all over the world, nor did we accept that much of the world's wretched masses (in fact, not until the early 1980's did the American establishment began to codify our "refugee" program in such a way as to be easily taken advantage of by cynical foreigners, while the 1990 immigration act completely annihilated what was left of our standards). While older generations helped make some of these mistakes, our ability to bounce back from mistakes, to correct them, has waned as the generations have turned over, w/Reagan and Bush 1's foreign engagements, for example, being relatively brief and inexpensive in comparison to the Boomer dominated foreign policy of the post-9/11 era. Besides, it's the Silents (and especially the Boomers) who demanded greater freedom to gamble, have sex, do drugs, etc. If every generation had the cultural mores of the GIs, than the New Deal era restrictions on corrupting behavior never would have been lifted.

    Isn’t Beto the perfectly affable yes-man who eases worries among dwindling WWC Dem voters that the party isn’t full-throttle racialist yet (the way a Harris/Abrams ticket would appear to be)?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Since Kamala is a neo-lib, she is free of restraints imposed by Dem leaders/major donors. Whereas Bernie and Yang are going to constantly get pelted with accusations of "you want us to go back to the 1950's", delivered by SJWs who are the useful idiots of the corporate Left.

    Anomalous candidates (at least upon their initial arrival) like Reagan and Trump get babysat by party runners, who will impose an establishment VP on them (like Bush for Reagan, and Pence for Trump).

    Since someone like Kamala is such a generic product of what the modern ruling class wants, it isn't going to make any difference who the VP is (and Beto is a generic modern Democrat anyway, should he be given VP on a Kamala ticket that would confirm my point that conformist candidates get ideological duplicate VPs). In the 1992 election, Buchanan and Perot were hated by the establishment. On the other hand, Bush/Quayle and Clinton/Gore were both tickets who hated the New Deal and the mid-century; party elites permitted them to be a double dose of what America's elites wanted at the time (the total annihilation of the New Deal, which would occur after NAFTA passed and Clinton reformed welfare). Race and gender are irrelevant at this point, BTW, while region still matters (being from the South or interior West is a negative at this point, since the New Deal was destroyed mainly by Southern politicians, and Goldwater and McCain were two of the worst candidates ever). Yang has Chinese parents and is from NYC, but if he talks up policy that favors working class voters he'll at least garner some support. If Yang had spouted BAU crap, nobody would be talking about him. The lesson from the 2016 election is that new ideas get people excited. Whether either party "allows" a visionary candidate to win the primary remains to be seen.

    Aud, if you think race or gender is that important than you need to realize just why Bernie and Yang are notable; neither of them believes in BAU on economic or foreign policy, thus they are threats to a stubborn establishment. Shallow ID politics are mainly for elites and aspiring elites, meanwhile people under 45 are generally not invested in either party because these parties didn't allow younger generations to grow up in a middle class paradise. Many black Millennials voted for Bernie in 2016 (he won the Michigan primary), then some of them didn't vote at all in the general. "Millennial media" (as Limbaugh calls it) is bankrolled by wealthy corporate libs who use SJWs to attack populism, while New Deal Leftism is entirely underground, represented by "Bernie bros" and the dwindling "sixties generation" who didn't sell out. The establishment of both parties is desperate to stop Bernie and Yang, because they actually have legit reform ideas which could imperil corporate profits (or cause taxes on rich people to go higher).

    As a Millennial I'm sick and tired of my generation being blamed for shallow neo-liberal bullshit that Silents and Boomers used to make huge profits at the expense of younger generation's future earnings and savings. And the first serious surge of PC was in the late 1980's, when Silents and Boomers wanted to keep the racial peace so that turbo-capitalism could run smoothly.
    , @Feryl
    It's actually the Dems who would assuage voters by avoiding a ticket with two (!) black women, neither of whom is going to be mistaken for Barbara Jordan any time soon (Jordan essentially said, back in the 90's, that we needed to go back to New Deal era immigration policy, which would make her quite popular to the Alt-Right these days).

    The GOP I think would be able to demolish a Dem ticket with two women (of any race) who aren't avowed populists with broad appeal. Liz Warren, Kamala, Abrams etc. fail on the account of ideology and/or appeal. There is widespread alienation right now from the arrogant, gaffe-prone, and off-putting style that Hillary and Trump displayed in 2016. Bernie is a bit more likable, albeit his "revolutionary" rhetoric annoys older voters. Yang has the right package of new ideas, and a polished personality without much bombast. But Bernie and Yang would probably do rather poorly in most of the interior West and South, the two regions most opposed to progressive working class populism

    Biden is being Me-Too'ed by SJWs who don't want an elderly white guy with stale ideas taking the spotlight away from more "interesting" candidates. If Biden had slunk away, he would've been left alone. But Biden is still pressing forward, daring them to finally toss him overboard.
  99. @iffen
    Treating “white nationalism” and “white supremacy” as synonyms is almost as dumb

    I claim the dumb position. Whether one calls it white nationalism, white supremacy or white separatism, the effect is the same. It is tedious nonsense to claim otherwise.

    How so? Wanting separation from a group and wanting dominion over a group are two entirely different things. To treat them as synonymous is to assail the utility of language itself!

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Talha
    He said - "...the effect is the same". I think you misunderstood his argument...

    He is not saying they are the same, he is saying the end result is the same whichever ideology one claims to espouse. At least, that's what I gather from his comment.

    Peace.
    , @iffen
    Wanting separation from a group and wanting dominion

    True enough, but the practical differences of dealing with black "Singapores" and Haitis as external polities as opposed to internal polities would be small.
    , @iffen
    There is a Congressional Black Caucus and a Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Do you know the rationale for not having a Congressional White Caucus? (The CCC: Congressional Caucasian Caucus) :)
  100. @iffen
    Texas should from now on be considered competitive.

    You are discounting the personal distastefulness of Ted Cruz. We have a few more years before Texas goes purple. Same for Georgia, but we should consult the immigration stats for Georgia (and Texas) to be sure.

    Abrams lost Georgia by less than 1%. I think Georgia will definitely be competitive in 2020. You’re probably right about Texas taking another cycle or so. I’d guess it’ll really be competitive in 2028 or so.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    "Abrams lost Georgia by less than 1%"

    Dead wrong. First you must subtract her illegal voters and then you can come up with a more realistic accessment of the election results.
    Democrats do not win elections, ever, without huge amounts of illegal votes.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
  101. @Oleaginous Outrager
    Way, way, way, way, way too optimistic. If there is indeed a currency crisis and the trucks stop running, things will turn full Mad Max in less than a week. I would expect a stats guy to understand just how incredible fragile our JIT lifestyles are. Once the shelves are picked clean on the first day, it's cannibalism by summer.

    By the way something, most of the Bluestans would be worse off, because their "wealth" is almost entirely paper-based fiction and their access to the real essentials of life are extremely limited. Just as an example, riddle me this: who 'owns' the water in Lake Mead?

    There’s a chasm between a currency crisis and the trucks no longer running, I think. Assuming no massive dollar creation, I’d estimate a currency crisis will ‘only’ result in something like a doubling of consumer prices over a very short period of time. If a gallon of milk costs ten dollars, that’s going to cause an enormous amount of economic pain but it’s not going to be Mad Max.

    As a father of young children that is what I hope, anyway.

  102. @Audacious Epigone
    How so? Wanting separation from a group and wanting dominion over a group are two entirely different things. To treat them as synonymous is to assail the utility of language itself!

    He said – “…the effect is the same”. I think you misunderstood his argument…

    He is not saying they are the same, he is saying the end result is the same whichever ideology one claims to espouse. At least, that’s what I gather from his comment.

    Peace.

  103. @216
    Contrarianpost

    https://twitter.com/TomlinsonCJ/status/1111006040307519489

    If you keep getting in trouble with the law, your support base will dry up. Sellner has been a comedy of errors, and painted himself into this box.

    https://twitter.com/TomlinsonCJ/status/1111262273543258117

    The narrative of "international terrorist networks" is WineAunt bait, but those people vote.

    Once you've been rendered toxic, the only thing to do is to be thrown under the bus.

    emily g – you are a moron. A pure programmed npc who is o out of touch with reality that it would be comical were it not so sad.
    The threat to the world is the far left, funded and propagandised by the jew. THEY start wars, THEY force ‘migrations’ , THEY displace whites from their own lands, THEY demonise whites and Christians thru their stranglehold on media. THEY are the issue.
    believe me, if those of us on the right had the labyrinth of organisation that clowns like you claim, these issues would not exist – it would all be straightened up. I pray for that time to come.

  104. @Audacious Epigone
    How so? Wanting separation from a group and wanting dominion over a group are two entirely different things. To treat them as synonymous is to assail the utility of language itself!

    Wanting separation from a group and wanting dominion

    True enough, but the practical differences of dealing with black “Singapores” and Haitis as external polities as opposed to internal polities would be small.

  105. @Audacious Epigone
    How so? Wanting separation from a group and wanting dominion over a group are two entirely different things. To treat them as synonymous is to assail the utility of language itself!

    There is a Congressional Black Caucus and a Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Do you know the rationale for not having a Congressional White Caucus? (The CCC: Congressional Caucasian Caucus) 🙂

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    The white congressional delegation is everyone else. Said Congress having been in existence for more than 200 years.
  106. @Audacious Epigone
    Abrams lost Georgia by less than 1%. I think Georgia will definitely be competitive in 2020. You're probably right about Texas taking another cycle or so. I'd guess it'll really be competitive in 2028 or so.

    “Abrams lost Georgia by less than 1%”

    Dead wrong. First you must subtract her illegal voters and then you can come up with a more realistic accessment of the election results.
    Democrats do not win elections, ever, without huge amounts of illegal votes.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @iffen
    First you must subtract her illegal voters

    You cheated on that Mensa test.
  107. @DCThrowback
    There's a lot of good in this, but it can stand w/ a little Albion's seed along with some "divide and conquer" practiced by ruling (((elite))) to stop, say, the Bernie whites and the MAGA whites from understanding who the true enemy is.

    In addition, how whites are divided matters. E Michael Jones will tell you - there are no white people. There will never be "white nationalism". It will always be "racist" - the brand has been poisoned beyond repair. Looking back to the past, the Protestants and the Jews came together to "slaughter" Catholic strongholds in major urban centers in the 40s and 50s...and the Jews replaced the Protestants as the elite. The only way to unite against the Jewish rule, he would argue, is under the banner of the Catholic church, which by definition can never be Jewish. I find that position to be interestingly persuasive. But you want to talk about buying low on a brand, the Catholic Church is like buying WaPo for $250M....

    Ralph Nader kind of got it when he recommended the two merge together in an AmCon article in the 2014 time frame about nationalist conservatism in the 1930s using "anti-corporatism" as the uniting banner...

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/who-owns-america/

    And here's Michael Tracey on Nader's affection for Ron Paul as a grand uniter back in 2011...

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/ralph-naders-grand-alliance/

    But unless we secure the border and reverse the demographic decline, all of this remains moot.

    The 1930’s anti-corporatist movement was part of the renewed localist movement, which began in the Progressive era and peaked in the New Deal era. Unfortunately, some dictators like Hitler took advantage of the populist mood for malign ends. The traditional Anglo right has always hated the New Deal era for how it strengthened workers (via low immigration, progressive taxes, and greater labor rights), while the modern neo-lib Left acts like every country in the world was a “racist” hell-hole in the 1930’s-1950’s. Nader, who still is a New Deal liberal, is capable of being complimentary to the 1930’s-1950’s. But the New Deal Left died in the early 1990’s (when Pat Buchanan and Perot were bigger New Dealers than Bush or Clinton), and has since been totally replaced by neo-libs who are effectively Reaganite on economic issues, while being far to the Left on social issues.

    “But unless we secure the border and reverse the demographic decline, all of this remains moot.”

    Africans, Asians, and Muslims mostly come here via plane. In the upper Midwest, most immigrants are legal (or at least initially legal arrivals), not border jumpers. If you live in the Sun Belt, I guess the border really is that important. But for the US as a whole, legal immigration is just as important as “illegal”. After all, we first imported over one million legal migrants in 1989. Then compound that with 700 thousand-one million legally registered arrivals every year thereafter, +the children they’ve had +the illegals. Immigration experts say that a massive % of the arrivals came via family sponsored “chain” migration, possibly the worst immigration idea in this country’s history which originates from Bush’s 1990 immigration act. America has a highly volatile history, from a demographic standpoint. Much of the South is a lot whiter than it was during the 19th century. Colonial WASPs and Dutch resented the arrival of Germans in moderate numbers, eventually joined by French and Irish Protestants. Later on, Catholic Irish settled here to even greater controversy, eventually joined by Swedes, Jews, Italians, Poles, etc. End result being that much of the Northeastern United states hardly resembles the colonial stock. Millennials and Gen Z whites don’t appreciate that before circa 1990, “diversity” in the united states often meant distinctions between white ethnic groups here. But us younger generations grew up around Mexicans, Asians, etc. So to us “diverse” means non-white.

    The US is not, and has never been, an ethno-state. The US has always prided itself on “openness”, it’s just that how open depends on whether elites are trying to respect what the average person wants (e.g., usually ordinary people don’t want to compete with hordes of aliens). The last time we had so much political dysfunction (the mid-late 19th century), it wasn’t until the 1920’s that elites did the sensible thing and slammed the borders shut; recorded immigration (and border jumps) was generally quite low from 1925-1976. As political dysfunction has intensified since the 80’s and 90’s, it looks as if we’re returning to the late 19th century norm of high immigration levels (with the only way stop it being a major economic collapse that would bring America to borderline third world status).

  108. @Audacious Epigone
    Isn't Beto the perfectly affable yes-man who eases worries among dwindling WWC Dem voters that the party isn't full-throttle racialist yet (the way a Harris/Abrams ticket would appear to be)?

    Since Kamala is a neo-lib, she is free of restraints imposed by Dem leaders/major donors. Whereas Bernie and Yang are going to constantly get pelted with accusations of “you want us to go back to the 1950’s”, delivered by SJWs who are the useful idiots of the corporate Left.

    Anomalous candidates (at least upon their initial arrival) like Reagan and Trump get babysat by party runners, who will impose an establishment VP on them (like Bush for Reagan, and Pence for Trump).

    Since someone like Kamala is such a generic product of what the modern ruling class wants, it isn’t going to make any difference who the VP is (and Beto is a generic modern Democrat anyway, should he be given VP on a Kamala ticket that would confirm my point that conformist candidates get ideological duplicate VPs). In the 1992 election, Buchanan and Perot were hated by the establishment. On the other hand, Bush/Quayle and Clinton/Gore were both tickets who hated the New Deal and the mid-century; party elites permitted them to be a double dose of what America’s elites wanted at the time (the total annihilation of the New Deal, which would occur after NAFTA passed and Clinton reformed welfare). Race and gender are irrelevant at this point, BTW, while region still matters (being from the South or interior West is a negative at this point, since the New Deal was destroyed mainly by Southern politicians, and Goldwater and McCain were two of the worst candidates ever). Yang has Chinese parents and is from NYC, but if he talks up policy that favors working class voters he’ll at least garner some support. If Yang had spouted BAU crap, nobody would be talking about him. The lesson from the 2016 election is that new ideas get people excited. Whether either party “allows” a visionary candidate to win the primary remains to be seen.

    Aud, if you think race or gender is that important than you need to realize just why Bernie and Yang are notable; neither of them believes in BAU on economic or foreign policy, thus they are threats to a stubborn establishment. Shallow ID politics are mainly for elites and aspiring elites, meanwhile people under 45 are generally not invested in either party because these parties didn’t allow younger generations to grow up in a middle class paradise. Many black Millennials voted for Bernie in 2016 (he won the Michigan primary), then some of them didn’t vote at all in the general. “Millennial media” (as Limbaugh calls it) is bankrolled by wealthy corporate libs who use SJWs to attack populism, while New Deal Leftism is entirely underground, represented by “Bernie bros” and the dwindling “sixties generation” who didn’t sell out. The establishment of both parties is desperate to stop Bernie and Yang, because they actually have legit reform ideas which could imperil corporate profits (or cause taxes on rich people to go higher).

    As a Millennial I’m sick and tired of my generation being blamed for shallow neo-liberal bullshit that Silents and Boomers used to make huge profits at the expense of younger generation’s future earnings and savings. And the first serious surge of PC was in the late 1980’s, when Silents and Boomers wanted to keep the racial peace so that turbo-capitalism could run smoothly.

  109. @Audacious Epigone
    Isn't Beto the perfectly affable yes-man who eases worries among dwindling WWC Dem voters that the party isn't full-throttle racialist yet (the way a Harris/Abrams ticket would appear to be)?

    It’s actually the Dems who would assuage voters by avoiding a ticket with two (!) black women, neither of whom is going to be mistaken for Barbara Jordan any time soon (Jordan essentially said, back in the 90’s, that we needed to go back to New Deal era immigration policy, which would make her quite popular to the Alt-Right these days).

    The GOP I think would be able to demolish a Dem ticket with two women (of any race) who aren’t avowed populists with broad appeal. Liz Warren, Kamala, Abrams etc. fail on the account of ideology and/or appeal. There is widespread alienation right now from the arrogant, gaffe-prone, and off-putting style that Hillary and Trump displayed in 2016. Bernie is a bit more likable, albeit his “revolutionary” rhetoric annoys older voters. Yang has the right package of new ideas, and a polished personality without much bombast. But Bernie and Yang would probably do rather poorly in most of the interior West and South, the two regions most opposed to progressive working class populism

    Biden is being Me-Too’ed by SJWs who don’t want an elderly white guy with stale ideas taking the spotlight away from more “interesting” candidates. If Biden had slunk away, he would’ve been left alone. But Biden is still pressing forward, daring them to finally toss him overboard.

  110. @Authenticjazzman
    "Abrams lost Georgia by less than 1%"

    Dead wrong. First you must subtract her illegal voters and then you can come up with a more realistic accessment of the election results.
    Democrats do not win elections, ever, without huge amounts of illegal votes.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    First you must subtract her illegal voters

    You cheated on that Mensa test.

  111. @iffen
    There is a Congressional Black Caucus and a Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Do you know the rationale for not having a Congressional White Caucus? (The CCC: Congressional Caucasian Caucus) :)

    The white congressional delegation is everyone else. Said Congress having been in existence for more than 200 years.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Do you know the rationale for not having a Congressional White Caucus?

    I want to know why we can't have a CCC. You are telling me that you think that we already have one.

  112. @EliteCommInc.
    The white congressional delegation is everyone else. Said Congress having been in existence for more than 200 years.

    Do you know the rationale for not having a Congressional White Caucus?

    I want to know why we can’t have a CCC. You are telling me that you think that we already have one.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS