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
Removing Politics from Politics
🔊 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Comment of the week via dfordoom, in response to lamentations over how much public sentiment has shifted away from reducing immigration levels in the US over the last 15 years:

The shift is equally dramatic on all social and cultural issues. Plus support for freedom of speech is declining rapidly.

What’s really interesting is that there is pretty much no debate or discussion at all on economic issues. Economic issues are now things that you simply don’t talk about.

There is no actual political debate at all. We live in a post-politics age. Everything now is a moral issue. Opposing immigration is morally wicked. Questioning feminism is morally wicked. Expressing doubts about the tranny stuff is morally wicked. Expressing anything less than absolute support for homosexuals is morally wicked. Questioning affirmative action is morally wicked. Expressing even mild scepticism about racial oppression is morally wicked.

But questioning the current neoliberal economic order is something that cannot even be imagined. It would be like questioning the existence of gravity.

The real achievement of the neoliberals has been to remove politics entirely from politics.

 
• Tags: COTW 
Hide 195 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The real achievement of the neoliberals has been to remove politics entirely from politics.

    …Then how do you explain the election of GEOTUS?

    • Replies: @216
    , @John Gruskos
  2. >Listening to the (((polls)))

    Jesus had a low approval rating at first, too.

  3. Thanks for recognizing this brilliant comment from dfordoom.

    Dfordoom has perfectly nailed the cultic age we now live in.

    • Agree: Dissident, Talha, Bill, reiner Tor, Lot
  4. 216 says: • Website
    @Ash Williams

    The Regime didn’t campaign in Wisconsin

    The Florida political establishment didn’t consolidate behind either Jeb or Rubio.

    Trump got lots of free media coverage from people that thought he’d cause the GOP to lose.

    He also trolled Obama into releasing the birth certificate, the only time he was arguably forced to concede something.

    • Replies: @Sean
  5. SFG says:

    Warren and Sanders have criticized neoliberalism to varying degrees. This is part of the reason Bloomberg has entered the race–he’s afraid they’ll go after his billions.

    I’m not saying vote for either of them unless you want open borders. But give the devil his (or her) due.

  6. gman says:

    Excellent comment by dfordoom

    I might add that we have the “Nate Silverification” of our politics. This shows up in the following ways:

    *Poll taking becomes dominant.
    *Voters (not just pundits) focus on “electability”
    *Thus it is more like a sports team. The Dem’s fundraising platform is “Act Blue” and GOP’s “Win Red”
    *AOC seems to get this could be bad for socialism. In an Iowa rally for Sanders she says, “We don’t watch the polls, we change the polls”

    I am guilty of this (I do like prediction markets)

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  7. Waning support of freedom of speech is much more a factor of social media and the internet than any other factor.

    This due to two key qualities of the current social media/internet environment: 1) it allows all people to circumvent the traditional gatekeepers (publishers, newspaper editors, TV and Radio programmers, etc), thus all kinds of free speech has come out, and 2) the attempt to centralize and thus install new gatekeepers by the social media monopolies.

    A 2nd factor would most certainly be the attempts by Zionists to outlaw speech about all things Israel.

    The solution is obvious: a decentralized and anonymized internet. Which is coming. Sooner or later. We can only hope sooner.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  8. neutral says:

    It all comes down to racial changes, nothing else. People like dfordoom have deluded themselves into thinking that there can be a multiracial utopia where people don’t think race matters but instead issues about tax rates and welfare levels will matter.

    One can observe politics in Africa and other third world places, in elections it all comes down to tribal headcounts, not some grand ideas about what is best for society. All those that truly believe that the constitution will be adhered to by the non white demographic are simply moronic.

  9. We were already in Post-Constitutional America, so what was the point of politics anyway?

    I am humbled: dfordoom’s insight here is top-drawer.

  10. dfordoom says: • Website
    @neutral

    It all comes down to racial changes, nothing else.

    The point you’re missing is that the demographic changes have happened because any actual political debate has been shut down in favour of identity politics. The demographic changes have not been debated because no-one wants to, or is allowed to, talk about the economic consequences. Or the fact that the demographic changes have been driven by economic motives – to keep wages down, keep the proles divided, keep unions weak.

    The Powers That Be want the immigration issue to be discussed purely in terms of race because that’s a debate they are sure to win. They can paint any opposition to mass immigration as being motivated by racism. They do not want the debate framed in economic terms because that’s a debate they might not win.

    If dissident rightists insist on making immigration a racial issue then they are fighting the battle their enemies want them to fight, on ground of their enemies’ choosing. That’s dumb. But they keep on doing it.

  11. iffen says:

    And we will be going to the next stage which is, “Comrade, where is your greengrocer sign?”

  12. Nodwink says:

    What’s really interesting is that there is pretty much no debate or discussion at all on economic issues. Economic issues are now things that you simply don’t talk about.

    Bernie is. Corbyn is.

    I haven’t watched the full documentary, but this from Adam Curtis sums up much of our age:

  13. If you knew that if you looked too closely at the source of your wealth, its providence would force you to reject it, would you look?

    Since the last bond bear market low of 1981, the US, the states, corporations, individuals and the entire world embarked on the largest borrowing-and-spending spree in recorded history.

    Thirty-eight years and counting(!!), putting the dining out (or the drive-through lane), the lavish parties, the stupendous vacations, the Lexus/Acura/Beemer/4-door F-150, free money for “the poor” and people over 65, free medical care for anyone who shows up in the ER, et. al. ALL on the Very Big MasterCard.

    The collective willingness to look away, LOOK AWAY! from this cannot be described.

    What happens when someday the herd finally realizes that the IOUs mandate payments that cannot be made? What happens to the ability to continue to borrow? What happens when spending that is enabled by borrowing cuts off, cold-turkey? What happens to all those industries and jobs?

  14. neutral says:
    @dfordoom

    Who has the power to shut down the debate in the first place? This pretty much happened after WW2 and the subsequent total domination of the jews. My enemy (the jews) don’t want people to talk about immigration because it is absolutely clear that immigration is a racial weapon to destroy whites, they really DO want the debate to made in economic terms because they know this is not really what it is about.

    This theory that they want whites to talk about race over economics is perplexing, the opposite is the case. I don’t see any countries banning talk about economic systems, nobody can say the same regarding race talk.

  15. dfordoom says: • Website
    @neutral

    People like dfordoom have deluded themselves into thinking that there can be a multiracial utopia where people don’t think race matters but instead issues about tax rates and welfare levels will matter.

    I don’t believe in immigration or multi-culturalism. I just believe that they’re symptoms rather than causes of our current woes. I’m very sceptical as to whether we can do anything about those problems without addressing the root causes, and the major root cause is that the plutocrats have successfully distracted us into fighting unwinnable battles over identity politics. We need to attack the plutocracy itself.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @John Gruskos
  16. I don’t give a fig about no filthy polls.

    Give me control of the corporate mass media for two weeks and I’ll have them dogs howling like bastards for illegal alien deportations and citizenship revocations and bringing the population in the USA back to 220 million, like it was in the 1970s.

    The PEW trust fund scam artists and all the other polling outfits are full of beans and they’re looking at numbers created by corporate propaganda whores and sneaky scoundrels. PEW is a tax dodge scam posing as an opinion survey group.

    White Core America must focus like a bastard on taking control of the mass media and the internet and the newspapers and every other form of mass communication.

    The American Empire is not an empire of bases like that high IQ moron Chalmers Johnson said, the American Empire is an electronic empire. Electronic currency, electronic propaganda, electronic command and control of the military arsenal, including nukes and electronic banking and the like.

    The Republican Party must be destroyed, and the 2020 election is the perfect time to win the allegiance of 10 to 15 percent of White Core Americans in each and every state to completely and totally destroy the evil and demonic Republican Party. That guy in Alabama running for US Senate is excepted, of course.

    White Core America must tell the voters that the Republican Party is in bed with the anti-White, nation-wrecker globalizers who control the corporate mass media and the Federal Reserve Bank.

    White Core America Policy Plans:

    Immigration Moratorium Now!

    Deport All Illegal Alien Invaders Now!

    Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank Now!

    Nationalize The Corporate Mass Media And The Internet Now!

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING!

    Tweets from 2015:

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  17. The corporate propaganda apparatus must be destroyed and that must be repeated over and over.

    The repetitive crud being slopped out by the corporate mass media must be replaced with patriotic and honorable messages that strengthen and bolster White Core America.

    White Core America is currently under attack from the anti-White and anti-Christian totalitarian globalizers who control the mass media.

    Comcast and Viacom and Disney and Alphabet and Google and Twitter and Facebook and Fox News and the Murdoch Media Mob and many other anti-White mass media outlets must be stopped before they do anymore damage to the historic American nation.

    The Republican Party is in bed with the corporate media. The Republican Party and Conservative Inc. rely on the corporate media to silence debate and to censor White Core Americans who want ALL issues fully discussed.

    Tweets from 2015:

  18. @Charles Pewitt

    Did you not find it astonishing that after his stint running Israel’s central bank, Stanley Fischer was added to the Board of Governors of the US Federal Reserve bank (he was, IIRC, thought to be a shoe-in for Chairman for a period of time?)

    If I wanted to create a situation where Jews worldwide were deemed responsible for the largest global economic cataclysm in history, I’d make sure that they were vastly over-represented in decision-making roles during the largest buildup of excess credit and debt in recorded history (raised to the power of 20.)

    Graph the US Dow Jones Industrial Average, monthly, for the last 91 years. Match it to the data available at the St. Louis Fed on total credit market debt outstanding (data only goes back to 1953.)

    It is beyond obvious that the world (especially the USA) has behaved like a family used to living like the Rockefellers, who by 1981 started to put their still-rising opulent lifestyle on a seemingly No-Limit MasterCard.

    When this long, long, long period of Rip Van Winkle somnolence ends, and people realize that the galaxy of IOU’s promising them Nirvana-forever is actually an empty cupboard, the rage will be as a thousand Mount St. Helens, all erupting at once.

    Those for whom North America (north of the Rio Grande) is not deemed “home” will likely be targeted for a fury beyond current imagination.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  19. @neutral

    People like dfordoom have deluded themselves into thinking that there can be a multiracial utopia where people don’t think race matters but instead issues about tax rates and welfare levels will matter.

    This is worthy of a slogan.

    Here it is: In politics there is no need for accountants–the only number that matters is racial headcount.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  20. dfordoom’s comment is the perfect plan – if you want to lose again. Conservatives always lose because they follow this sort of advice. It’s what Zman calls Buckley Conservatism. Arguments over economics do not win over hearts and minds.

    It’s true that those of us who are in the Dissident Right, believe in the scientific realities of Human Bio Diversity. We reject the blank slate theory of Pinker and his fellow left-wing university quacks. We base our worldview from the understanding the people have biological differences that inform their choices, their culture and society. The reason the islands of Japan have a uniquely functioning society and a structured social order is not because of some magic dirt – it’s is because it’s full of Japanese people.

    That said, our movement is not just about race realism. History can provide a great study to those who take thoughtful reflection on the rhyming nature of the past. From the very founding of Western Civilization the use of morality and civic virtue have been used as THE trump cards in politics. It’s why the left has swept across the political and cultural spectrum in the US and taken charge of the weak, failing institutions not grounded in a strong cultural and moral identity.

    To say we can only debate immigration strictly on economic or racial terms is disingenuous. To win on immigration (or any other issue) one must debate on the terms of morality. Should race be used in the immigration debate? Absolutely. Studies have shown that increased immigration into the US harms minority communities the most. Is it wrong that an American Citizen (black, brown, or white) be looked over in favor of foreign visa applicants in Stem fields or even a regular, hourly-paid part-time job? Of course it is. But Democrats have argued for immigration on the basis of morality and the GOP on the terms of economics (both parties betraying their base in the process). In any case, race will be used with increased frequency in politics given the irreversible and radical demographic change that has taken place in the US over the past 50 years. The only people who seem fearful and unwilling to look at this reality are White Americans.

  21. anonymous[288] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG

    Yes, I actually don’t understand the claim here:

    But questioning the current neoliberal economic order is something that cannot even be imagined. It would be like questioning the existence of gravity.

    To my ears neoliberalism is coming in for more of a political challenge than it has in decades. Warren is out there talking about breaking up the Silicon Valley mafia and the Wall Street banks, and implementing a (likely unconstitutional) tax on wealth up to 95% or whatever. Sanders is still Sanders, and many of the Democratic candidates are pushing socialized medicine of one form or another. From the other side, it looks like Brexit may actually happen and catapult the Conservatives to a parliamentary supermajority. The yellow vests, Orban, etc. There are more cracks in neoliberalism’s rhetorical hold than ever.

    Is the commenter’s contention that Warren et al. aren’t actually serious about implementing their rhetoric, and that it is just a tactic to harvest votes from the Democrats’ electoral base, then to be jettisoned when actually in charge? I actually believe that is likely*, but it still puts the lie to the notion that neoliberalism can’t be challenged rhetorically.

    (note I don’t support the current left wing challenges to economic neoliberalism in rhetoric or substance, because they are meaningless when combined with open borders, but they seem to be challenges nonetheless.)

    * and so do the tech companies who perhaps she has reassured in secret, although Wall Street is taking her seriously and trying to draft Bloomberg, Deval, etc.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  22. Those are fine observations, however, and excuse me for not backing off, it’s a whine. Liberals have rarely discussed issues on merit of actual content, they lose those battles. So the ground as it is with many of you in dealing with disagreement

    make it personal, find a flaw outside the lines and make that the issue. I am unclear where many of you have been. Of course liberals ultimately turn to something more seemingly malleable, they can dance around in the world of relativity willy nilly.

    Look if a liberal wants to talk morality then we should be able to talk morality. For example, the favorite pet whipping boy around here

    affirmative action a program never intended to lower standard but just the opposite and meant to redress an actual objective real wrong —– if affirmative action was intende to repair the damage supposed whitey caused — explain the morality of whites being the primary benefactors of the program. Seems deeply immoral that the targets are being ripped off by white liberals

    Diversity of a strength why is the US despite being one of the most diverse countries on the planet in a state of social decline, increasing damaging dug use, faltering politics, income gap inflation, wall street corruption . . .

    Immigration is good, explain the morality of that goodness on millions of citizens who lose their jobs to cheaper labor, lose their schools to overcrowded underfunded programs because cheap labor means less in local taxes for school funding — explain the morality of denying citizens an education — explain the morality of why a mother and father with two children have to work three jobs in order to compete in an economy that fosters lower living standards from cheap labor of illegal immigrants

    The best way to fight oppression is by economic empowerment, it seems a very a dubious, moral claim that decreasing the wealth prospects of citizens is going to resolve any oppression you claim and the evidence is the income gap — which is fueled in part by the use of illegal labor.

    No point fighting same sex behavior — that’s a choice. But the morality of telling people that this is some manner of major civil rights issue when looking at the data sets homosexuals comprise the top tiers of the income and social ladder is hardly moral equinelent to the harm you are piggy backing on the history of blacks

    In my view there are ways to turn the moral, emotional, the personal complaint into fertile ground of response.

    Laugh. Though I have no easy answers for being physically assaulted or sabotaged . . . I admit that’s a tad hard er hurdle. But there is ground to had, but it will require a kind of self sacrifice from one’s pet peeves of sorts.

    And one never has to give up how much they hate blacks to turn the argument

    And then load the weight with data about how liberals violate their own moral standing.

  23. BlackFlag says:
    @neutral

    Tax debates are framed as what is good for the group. Pointless when you don’t know who belongs to the group.

  24. BlackFlag says:
    @neutral

    Yes, countries with low birthrate and strong economics which did not give in to the short-term fix of immigration, did so on racial grounds, not economic grounds. I’m thinking Japan and some Gulf states.

  25. Suggested article in the

    Atlantic

    “Left Behind” Jeffery Goldberg an interview with author Dr. Tara Westover’s book about Rural and Urban divide.

    Where injustice is being meted out as justice in my view – economics.

  26. @Justvisiting

    Here it is: In politics there is no need for accountants–the only number that matters is racial headcount.

    Agreed. There is no relevant precedent where groups of disparate people “got together” and created a “reasonable, rational compromise” over anything. The moment the polity begins to dictate public values (such as does the USA’s), and disallows any form of dissent at all (try exercising freedom of association by excluding a member of the Cargo Cult’s Icon Class), diversity = war.

    Belief comes before reason/logic/rationality, and IDENTITY informs belief.

    The War On White People is mostly about destroying IDENTITY, rendering whites atomized, disorganized and thus easily enslaved/milked/raped/murdered (whatever happens to be desired at that moment.) The Narrative surrounding us is parallel to that of Cambodia’s indescribably evil Khmer Rouge.

  27. @dfordoom

    If dissident rightists insist on making immigration a racial issue then they are fighting the battle their enemies want them to fight, on ground of their enemies’ choosing. That’s dumb. But they keep on doing it.

    Immigration is a RACIAL issue and the European Christian ancestral core of the American Empire will win total victory once the immigration debate is framed as a RACIAL issue. Any attempt to restrict or limit the framing of the immigration debate so as to avoid questions of race must be seen as sabotage from enemy forces or sabotage from anti-White globalizer stooges.

    White Identity Politics is the thing that dislodges the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire from power. Immigration is a RACIAL issue and the hirsute guy from England, Peter Brimelow, said this about race and the immigration issue in 2006:

    As immigration policy drives whites into a minority, this type of interest-group “white nationalism” will inexorably increase.

    You read it first on VDARE.COM—and if you don’t like it, let’s have an immigration moratorium now.

    https://vdare.com/articles/is-vdare-com-white-nationalist

    RACE SUFFUSES THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE

    RACE MUST BE DIRECTLY AND TOTALLY LINKED TO THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE

    RACE SUFFUSES THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE

    The USA is completely and totally a result of race and ancestry. Germans piling out of the continent 1500 years or so ago and landing on the island combined with Normans about a thousand years ago and then sailing out of England for the continent of America. Anglo-Saxon Expansionism. The problem is now the Jews and the WASP globalizers are Hell bent on expanding everything till it implodes, including American national identity — which is WHITE.

    Everything about the USA is a result of RACE and ANCESTRY, and the coming brawl to dislodge the evil and immoral JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire will be RACIAL.

    White Core America is the new political party that will explicitly advance the interests of Whites as Whites. Every aspect of the nation-wrecking effects of mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration will be used to win the battle. There will be some things emphasized more so than others, but none will be avoided, including RACE.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  28. @dc.sunsets

    Did you not find it astonishing that after his stint running Israel’s central bank, Stanley Fischer was added to the Board of Governors of the US Federal Reserve bank (he was, IIRC, thought to be a shoe-in for Chairman for a period of time?)

    Steve Sailer has gotten a big kick out of Stanley Fischer and the global central banker merry-go-round.

    White Core America will fully explain to the American people how globalized central banking is used to buy off certain voter cohorts with asset bubbles and how globalized central banking is run for the benefit of GLOBALIZED PLUTOCRATS — and not for the benefit of the American people as a whole.

    I once suggested replacing Janet Yellen with Peter Schiff, and replacing Stanley Fischer with David Hackett Fischer, but the globalized plutocrats wouldn’t go for that in a million centuries.

    From September 2017:

    President Trump has been made aware of my recommendation of Peter Schiff for chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank to replace Janet Yellen. Steve Sailer reports that Stanley Fischer is leaving his position of vice chairman at the Fed as well. I hereby recommend that President Trump install David Hackett Fischer as a replacement for Stanley Fischer.

    I have yet to read David Hackett Fischer’s “The Great Wave: Price Revolutions And The Rhythm Of History,” but I am quite sure Mr. David Hackett Fischer can give the orders to continue electronically conjuring up dollars out of thin air.

    We do not have global capitalism anymore, we have Globalized Central Bank Shysterism.

    Carney, the Canadian running the Bank of England, once said that mass immigration was lowering wages in England, but he only did it once, because I’m sure the demonic plutocrat globalizers in England told him to shut up about that.

    Tweets from 2014:

  29. “Everything about the USA is a result of RACE and ANCESTRY . . .”

    Even one granted this out as fact, you still haven’t responded to the issue presented. You say everything is race and ancestry the liberal agrees and then adds what a shame that race and ancestry have been so detsructively applied as racist opportunistic inhuman with tragic immoral consequences.

    A response that white are better on;y reinforces the moral dilemma. You need to develop a response, to the morality press which the comments I think note. You say white and your opponent points to every damaging scenario and says “whites” and their immoral nature. One has to move beyond the static

  30. @dfordoom

    If dissident rightists insist on making immigration a racial issue then they are fighting the battle their enemies want them to fight, on ground of their enemies’ choosing. That’s dumb. But they keep on doing it.

    The Globalizers and Plutocrats and Neoliberals and Leftists and Anti-White Treasonites and the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire say:

    WHITE NATIONALISM BAD

    White Core America And An English Guy With Lots Of Hair Say:

    WHITE NATIONALISM IS INEVITABLE

  31. It seems an interesting possibility that at the very same time leftism has been discredited as an objective ideological system it has become successfully reborn in a purely religious and aesthetic form.

    These are not unrelated things… as the religion becomes more pure and more of a complete faith based identity for its adherents it also goes further and further from its former need for explanatory power or empiricism. So it becomes less convincing for everyone but the true believers, who are a smaller and ever harder core.

    There are now almost no ideologically convinced adherents left and a very vocal and zealous community of coreligionists viewing the outside world as dangerous heretics and blasphemers.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  32. Bill says:
    @SFG

    Warren and Sanders have criticized neoliberalism to varying degrees. This is part of the reason Bloomberg has entered the race–he’s afraid they’ll go after his billions.

    I’m not saying vote for either of them unless you want open borders. But give the devil his (or her) due.

    It’s clear Sanders understands the trade-off between the welfare state and immigration, and I think Warren probably does as well. The question is the extent to which they are driven by ideology vs practicality. If they are driven by the former, then they won’t be open borders. But, if they sell out to get elected, they will be open borders (and will give up, tacitly at least, on the social welfare stuff).

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  33. nebulafox says:
    @SFG

    How do you honestly reconcile improving the position of your native working class with mass immigration-particularly non-high skilled immigration-on corporate demand, though?

    Answer, of course, is you can’t. At least not in a fiscally sustainable way. That’s not the whole story to what fuels the noxious neoliberal order deeply entrenched in US politics, much as some people here would like to believe it is, but it is a massive part of it. The fusing of corporate interests with the emotional drive of the hard-left to change American demographics was a masterstroke, and one that is only paying off more as more and more white liberals have gotten radicalized over the past decade.

    Now, I strongly suspect that Sanders (and Gabbard) know that a policy of asymptotically approaching open borders would devastate what is left of the American working and middle classes, whether they will admit this openly or not. But they are forced by party politics to nevertheless treat immigration as a religious ideal rather than a matter of practical state policy. It’s really no different than the GOP on tax cuts or a larger military. Warren is a different matter: she seems like the type of MSNBC-watching old white liberal who is capable of the doublethink (and indifference to things like fiscal solvency) needed here.

  34. @Charles Pewitt

    I do wonder if the Editors/Owners of the LA Times think that North America can be overrun by non-white migrants and have the same outcome as did South Africa via (mostly) birthrate differences, and over a much, much, much shorter time period (over a century vs a few decades?)

    My grandkids will remember what it was like to live in a first-world, majority-white nation-state. I strongly suspect that long before they’re reduced to living in squalor as do many whites now in South Africa, they will reject political warfare in favor of the real thing. A dirty war of geographic divorce is coming.

    The .mil is entirely dependent on white engineers and white-run manufacturing (to the extent they’re not getting their parts from the PRC, that is) and no matter how many hyphen-Americans the .mil adds to the Empire’s Legions, the .mil will not be capable of crushing rebellion.

    North America will no longer have two first-world countries. It will be smashed into a hundred hamlets and the cities will burn to the ground, not under aerial or missile bombardment but by a breakdown in city services combined with the end of the gibsmedat gravy train.

    If this was all planned by China’s rulers (something I’d not entirely discount), it’s brilliant. Nothing like pushing your competitor/adversary to cut his own Achilles tendons. And that’s what America has done these past 60 (or 105) years.

    When the debt insanity does finally end, and the productive backbone of American awakens to realize they were robbed blind, deaf and dumb while they allowed themselves to be entertained into oblivion, there’s going to be blood.

    This long period of credit-card purchased “peace” will not end well.

    • Replies: @Lot
  35. @Anonymousse

    Makes you think just how similar are the Left’s spokespeople to the cadre of the Khmer Rouge in the latter Killing Fields stages.

    Unlike in Cambodia, I think it’s possible that when this lurch into madness ends, its architects and apologists may be in for some real wood-chipper problems.

  36. @Bill

    Sanders stated explicitly that his “Medicare for All” will be for every person who can get inside the borders.

    Every.
    Single.
    One.

    He also left nice video evidence that to pay for it, he’ll exempt the first $29,000/yr income and hit everything above that with an additional 4% tax. The only people who won’t see this as a transfer of wealth from the working (poor, too) to the parasite class are parasites to begin with.

    Sorry, but if he or anyone who has left that kind of video laying around gets the D nomination, they’re as good as unelectable.

    The TV commercials will bury them.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  37. Audacious, My guess this shift is due to the fact that many White Liberals(and even White Conservatives) no longer believe in IQ differences between racial groups, where back in the 60s many did, even if they believed that it was due to environmental causes.

    If you don’t believe in Race and IQ, then there really is no cost to mass immigration, as the benefits will always outweigh the consquencies. After all, if importing more Hispanics mean more San Diegos and Los Angeles around America, then in the minds of our mainstream intellictuals, it is totally a net positive- even if the wage and overpopulation situation get worse.

    I think the biggest thing that occured in the last 40 years, is that the nonwhite population has grown yes, but that growth was concentrated in the relatively low crime and high-performing Mestizo Hispanics and the Asian population(Even Muslims do good in America). If you are an urban white, and the only minorities that can afford to live in your neighborhood are the Mestizos and the Asians, then your view on race will be that racial groups probably don’t differ much in intelligence.

    In addition, since so many anti-immigration commentators made their stakes on this issue of Mestizo crime, and they have gotten the facts totally incorrect, it has discredited any of their ideas from further germinating in the public concensus, especially when they discredit themselves in the minds of people who control the Media and Internet.

    The only way that this will end is if the further performance of immigration stops rising, and starts collapsing, or if the public can be “reenlightened” on the issue of Race and IQ.

    Trump had a golden hand during his campaign during the 2015 sharp rise in Black crime, to subtlely make these concerns mainstream again, but he blew it by attacking Hispanics with incorrect information while pandering to Blacks. I honestly think it would have been better if he had narrowly lost, because he really discredited any movement on preserving America’s high IQ population.

    P.S: I’m sure that the Policing Methods that Mayors Guilani and Bloomberg did that reduced the crime rate in NYC by such an extravagant amount probably played a role. Almost all of our intellictual elite live in NYC, and if the crime rate of minorities there is ultra low, then it is really hard to believe in Race and IQ and not believe in racial equality. So that is the message that is broadcast to the whole country.

  38. @dfordoom

    The issue is, the enemy is much more difficult to identify than that. Academics might be ahead of the plutocracy on the wokeness, and probably they somehow drag the plutocracy along. It’s basically a new religion, coopted by a plutocracy, and though the plutocrats benefit from it, it’s far from sure that there won’t ever be a clash. And it’s far from sure that the plutocrats will always win. Religions and ideologies have a habit of living independent lives. So for example the long established Catholic Church succumbed to some zealous reform movement, which introduced priest celibacy (which is not even based on the Bible), so similar outcomes could happen.

    The plutocracy is made significantly worse by this pseudo-religion (for example by embracing cosmopolitanism and anti-racism, elites tend to intermarry with foreign elites, they tend to move between countries, and even if they don’t, the fact that they could will already weaken their loyalty to their “original” ethnic groups and countries), so while plutocratic elites have never been very good (and they are difficult to avoid with capitalism), the problems are greatly exacerbated by the pseudo-religion.

    The problem with attacks on the oligarchy is that they are not by themselves necessarily going to destroy the pseudo-religion, as shown by the woke candidates like Bernie or Pocahontas. We might end up with a system where plutocratic elites are reigned in by some kind of Woke Guards, but it won’t necessarily be good for us.

    I’m not saying I know the solution, but we need to discuss both problems (plutocracy and woke pseudo-religion), intertwined as they are, and it’s probably not enough to say that it’s enough to attack one of them, and the other will just solve itself. They also support each other enormously, so removing one without the other might not even be possible. (Or desirable, as I wrote above.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  39. Lot says:
    @SFG

    “ Warren and Sanders have criticized neoliberalism to varying degrees.”

    Feels like they are just empty gestures. They aren’t going to pass massive tax increases, wealth taxes, and Medicare for all because they don’t have the Senate, and even if they make it to 50 or 51, they won’t get Manchin and Jones and possibly a couple more to vote for it.

    Passing the House isn’t a sure thing either, especially if the GOP takes back 5 or 6 seats net that were fluke narrow wins in 2018.

    A lot of the Dem 2018 gains were in very high income suburbs already hit by Trump’s SALT tax increase. Hard to see them supporting another tax increase on the working mass affluent class.

  40. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    “If dissident rightists insist on making immigration a racial issue then they are fighting the battle their enemies want them to fight, on ground of their enemies’ choosing.”

    I can’t agree with this piece of advice for several reasons.

    1. If you frame your argument solely in economic terms, you will be accused of dishonesty. Yes, mass immigration has economic costs, but there are also cultural and social costs as well. My impression is that people are most upset over the latter. In fact, many people would accept a reduction in their standard of living in exchange for a reduction in immigration.

    2. If you frame your argument solely in economic terms, the people doing the arguing will be economists. Unfortunately, most economists are in the pay of Chamber of Commerce types. So right from the start you’re shooting yourself in the foot.

    3. When in doubt, tell the truth. That way, you don’t have to remember so much. If you’re upset about social and cultural consequences, then argue about those consequences. Don’t talk about economics, if your concerns are elsewhere. Focus on the arguments that justify your concerns.

    4. When in doubt, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. If an issue can be dealt with on many levels, allow different people to focus on different levels. Don’t pressure them into focusing on one level in the belief that it is the enemy’s “weak spot.” During the last war, Churchill called Italy “the soft underbelly of Europe.” He was horribly wrong. The winning strategy was to hammer the enemy on all fronts and exploit any breakthroughs that might arise.

    5. Economic and social issues interact. The most successful economies are in countries that have a certain mix of social and psychological characteristics: high mean IQ, low levels of personal violence, high levels of trust in strangers, and high levels of empathy. “It’s the people stupid,” not the economy.

    6. Don’t delude yourself about the “enemy.” The “enemy” is the guy who owns the chicken processing plant down the road. The “enemy” is your local chamber of commerce. The “enemy” is your neighbor who wants to get the highest price for his house (so he can retire to a gated community in Florida). The enemy has lots of money but average intelligence.

    If you can stand up in public, talk lucidly, and refuse to be cowed, you’ve won half the battle.

  41. Lot says:

    On the Dem nomination, the superdelegates get to vote if there is no majority of earned delegates.

    They heavily favor Biden (538 tracks their endorsements), and electability in general.

    They probably don’t like that Bernie isn’t a registered Dem being Dem elected officials.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  42. Lot says:
    @dc.sunsets

    “ they will reject political warfare in favor of the real thing. A dirty war of geographic divorce is coming.”

    1. Most SA whites are not “living in squalor”

    2. Better models for white minority America are California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Mexico, and Brazil. Whites continue to dominate economically and to a lesser extent politically.

    3. Not quite as on point, but still relevant, is ethnic Chinese domination of Malaysia and AJ domination of Israel over the non-AJ Jews, Arabs, and mixed-blood Russians.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  43. @Lot

    I want Biden or Warren to win the Democrat Party presidential nomination so as to create a massive voter shift to the Green Party. Hillary Clinton is hinting at that outcome and darkly predicting it, and that’s what I want too.

    Biden or Warren will not be acceptable to many Bernie Sanders voters, and many other voters will vote Green Party to push policies that the Democrat Party avoids.

    There will also be a White Identitarian political party take shape, and the more support the Green Party gets, the more voters will go with the political party that explicitly advances the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA. The key is to use the GERMAN STRATEGY to get the votes of German Americans in the Great Lakes states to grab them away from the rancid Republican Party and Trump.

    White Core America Party

    Green Party

    Democrat Party

    Republican Party

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  44. Sean says:
    @216

    Robby Mook’s whole strategy assumed certain traditional Dem voters were in the bag, as Bill Clinton raised concerns about.

    Trump got media coverage for the same reason he had for decades previously, because always gives journalists something to quote that makes news editors happy, because it makes people read and watch the media outlet desperate for ratings. If they did not cover Trump how would they feed their families? Sleepy Jeb Bush?

    Obama was overconfident, for it was Obama who trolled Trump, at the correspondents’ dinner. Trolling is when you verbally assail under the impression that the person is a twerp who could not take a terrible revenge, even if they had the guts.

  45. iffen says:
    @Peter Frost

    many people would accept a reduction in their standard of living in exchange for a reduction in immigration.

    You and who else?

    2. If you frame your argument solely in economic terms

    It’s the economy, stupid!

    During the last war, Churchill called Italy “the soft underbelly of Europe.” He was horribly wrong.

    Yeah, all those decades and resources spent on the never ending slog through Tunsia, Sicily and Italy almost cost the Allies victory.

    “It’s the people stupid,” not the economy.

    But it’s the people that need to be convinced and mobilized.

    If you can stand up in public, talk lucidly, and refuse to be cowed, you’ve won half the battle.

    Perhaps, but that 2nd half is a mother.

    All doom is saying is that if racism is the ticket, then the racists would have won by now.

  46. @iffen

    many people would accept a reduction in their standard of living in exchange for a reduction in immigration.

    “Standard of living” is the wrong phrase. Most people would be happy with a bit less PURCHASING POWER and a much better quality of life. Most middle class (and lower!) people make this exact decision every single day when they decide to go home in the evenings instead of getting a second job in a warehouse.

    Certainly we would accept a smaller reduction to be able to live in a safe culturally cohesive and largely homogenous america.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  47. Tusk says:
    @iffen

    It is no more racism to want to live around my own people than it is xenophobia to only want family members to live in my house. By limiting the argument to solely economic you concede that you have no justification for other fronts. If it is fair, logical and true that cultural and social arguments are valid then there is no good reason to exclude them. Let them justify why you should import foreigners and accept them, don’t ignore it and let them reduce the argument to numbers and whoever has the best number wins. Soaring GDP figures mean nothing when you look outside and it’s New Somalia in your neighbourhood. If you want to focus solely on economics so be it but the concern-troll aspect of “guys if you want to win drop all that and focus on this one thing” is pointless. Many people can approach from many perspectives.

    Besides, the economic argument is wholly influenced by the cultural and social elements and is not isolated. For example:

    employment in Australia increased by 738,800 [2011-2016]. Immigrants accounted for 613,400 of the total increase

    http://www.australianpopulationstudies.org/index.php/aps/article/view/8

    How does this benefit me, my people? The economy is booming, GDP is up, job creation at all time high! But it doesn’t benefit “Australians” at all, 85% of economic growth doesn’t have anything to do with the natives but instead those rubber stamped by the Government to become “Australian.” And this is the problem with reducing everything to numbers, you cut out all the defining information and leave it as is this better or worse, but for who? This perception of economics being the greatest truth is absolutely idiotic. People don’t think about whether life is good, life is right, life is fun, life is important, but instead whether or not the chequebook balances.

    People can guzzle down cost-effective soylent to make meals easier and cheaper, live in tiny ‘cucksheds’ in order to minimise all the living they have to do to provide them with a better economic prospect, but the fact is what is the point? People don’t want to be souless drones just being a cog for economic advancement, and if people stopped trying to convince everyone that the right way to see things is the souless realm of economics than people might have a chance of having some spirit return to them. It doesn’t help that businesses and governments already harp on about this, but don’t do their job for them and try to convince others to accept this way of life.

    And I for one would rather be worse of economically than be forced to live amongst Indians, Africans and other non-whites en masse.

  48. Sean says:
    @iffen

    If China becomes the most powerful country in the world the the racists will have won, because they always, right back to Arthur de Gobineau, thought the Chinese to be not inferior to Westerners although different in character. China has ten time more people than Japan.

    Peter’s 5. “The most successful economies” is vital because the US can be overtaken by China while the economy of the US is apparently doing well, and some people are doing great.

    It’s the economy, stupid! … All doom is saying is that if racism is the ticket, then the racists would have won by now.

    People do not vote for war, even economic war. Wars happen because of the dictates of geopolitical realism. That is why the US twice went to war to stop Germany becoming world superpower.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
  49. iffen says:
    @Sean

    People do not vote for war

    “Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God help me, I do love it so.”

    ― George S. Patton Jr.

  50. 216 says: • Website

    O/T

    Why Cons Lose

    Replies are cringe

    Left was eager to punish Woke Starbucks when Howard Schultz made some vague centrist statements.

    We don’t.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  51. 216 says: • Website

    JewishHate

  52. @SFG

    Trump went after it as well. If they can break him, they can break Warren (obviously) and Sanders (just have a couple of black women do the breaking).

    • Replies: @SFG
  53. @neutral

    When dfordoom refers to “economics”, he’s not just talking about GDP.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  54. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Peter Frost

    In fact, many people would accept a reduction in their standard of living in exchange for a reduction in immigration.

    Do you have any evidence for that? I guess it depends on what you mean by many people – many Unz Review readers might feel that way.

    Yes, mass immigration has economic costs, but there are also cultural and social costs as well. My impression is that people are most upset over the latter

    That was undoubtedly true 30 years ago. I don’t think it’s true today.

    When in doubt, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

    There are plenty of other arguments against immigration aside from racial arguments. There are environmental arguments. There’s the issue of inadequate infrastructure. There’s the issue of overcrowding.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Peter Frost
    , @Anonymous
  55. @Charles Pewitt

    Immigration will continue to make whites more identitarian, but framing immigration in explicitly racial terms is a surefire loser at the moment (and probably ever). A majority of whites react extremely negatively to that.

  56. @Charles Pewitt

    South Africa is a strong counterpoiunt to the idea that white nationalism is inevitable, isn’t it?

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  57. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    All doom is saying is that if racism is the ticket, then the racists would have won by now.

    Another problem is that racialist arguments against immigration are getting less effective year by year. 40 years ago you might have gained some traction with such arguments. Maybe even 20 years ago. Today your chances of getting anyone under 40 to listen to such arguments are vanishingly small. 20 years from now you won’t get anybody at all to listen.

    • Replies: @Tusk
    , @MBlanc46
  58. @Ash Williams

    Trump is controlled opposition.

    • Replies: @Ash Williams
  59. Tusk says:
    @dfordoom

    Very clearly the assault on racialist perspectives was a coordinated attack to deracinate the Western population, and considering that Whites have the lowest rates of ethnocentrism it appears to have worked.

    So why then, considering all the attacks and the brainwashing that has made Whites forget this, should we give it up? The low numbers are the results of a war wages against White identity, and yet somehow the results of this effective campaign demonstrate that we should willingly give up what they’ve been trying to take from us?

  60. JackOH says:

    Thanks to AE for reposting dfordoom’s comment.

    I’ll mention again my belief that First Amendment liberty has been essentially vacated. Blame consensual censorship, the tacit agreement among the chattering classes to not talk about things except in certain narrowly confined and extremely distorted ways. Blame Madison Avenue, and the whole apparatus of visual, oral, and print manipulation. Blame mass media.

    There was an ICE bust of a meatpacking plant south of me. Large number of illegals, speakers of a non-Spanish Central American dialect. Can’t recall details, but the only theme that was developed in the local media was: How can we help them?

    There was not a peep from anyone publicly asking in the mildest tone how it happened that illegals from a distant country had ended up in a union (!) meatpacking plant in a mostly rural county where there are folks who already know how to slaughter hogs. Not a peep.

  61. Sean says:
    @dfordoom

    You cannot make Peters’s suggested honest social concern arguments without being buried in the media under a carpet calumny of being a racialist. But you cannot make those environmental and inadequate infrastructure and overcrowding arguments you suggest are oh so different and not racist, yet not be hit with exactly the same accusations of racism. The media will just doubledown to get the same effect.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  62. Color me unimpressed by this bit of sentimental naval gazing. The general theme – silencing of unpopular viewpoints, has been touched upon more creatively and entertainingly for 20 years by the likes of Sailer, Steyn, Derb, Coulter, Pat B, Taylor, Brimelow, etc, etc, etc.

    “The shift is equally dramatic on all social and cultural issues.”

    Dfordaft once again fails to make the connection – as the shift in demographics of the US goes, so do the social and cultural issues. Everything – that includes everything, is downstream from race.

    “Plus support for freedom of speech is declining rapidly.”

    Illustrated aptly on this very blog.

    “What’s really interesting is that there is pretty much no debate or discussion at all on economic issues. Economic issues are now things that you simply don’t talk about.”

    Again, as everything is downstream from race, and we currently live in an ever expanding multiracial state, economics is way down the list of priorities as racial groups compete for gaining maintaining power within the system. Inter minority alliances exist only as a need to compete with the primary enemy (that would be whitey for you blank slaters who aren’t keeping up).

    “The real achievement of the neoliberals has been to remove politics entirely from politics. ”

    There is probably a term for this type of phrasing; it’s meant to come across as clever and profound I suppose, but it is nonsense. The invoking of morality as applied to policy is nothing new. Suffrage and prohibition were real policies put in place in part by presenting the issues as morally irrefutable.
    The definition of morality has been mostly distorted anyway. Morality is now defined as what is best for one group of people over another based on current PC thinking (See Bloomberg’s recent apology for protecting black citizens of NYC from black criminals). That very idea is propagated on this very blog, by its proprietor and his sycophants. The application of false morality to politics hasn’t removed politics from politics, it has spiritualized politics by making politics a struggle between good and evil within the state. In a homogeneous state, politics might be used to advance a vision shared by the near entirety of its population. In a multi-culti cesspool, it can only be used to the advantage of one group against the next. How the fuck do you talk about economics, or healthcare, or social security, or infrastructure, or education, when you don’t even know what identity group is going to be holding the keys to the kingdom next election cycle.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    , @Sean
    , @Dissident
  63. Feryl says: • Website
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    One of Bill Clinton’s advisors from the 1990’s said in a recent interview that Trump won the 2016 election due to his stance on trade winning the votes of downscale whites in the Rust-Belt. Economic concerns still dominate, and they always will (with foreign policy issues also being potent during times of conflict). Do people care about affording their utilities, or about Roe V Wade?

    Evidently you must be pretty comfortable to glibly claim that economic issues don’t matter that much.

    Look, talking about cultural stuff (of which race is an element) lets people do lots of preening and moral judging, but at the end of the day what people really sense is…….Is life materially easy for me? Is it getting harder? The New Dealers (mostly Dems with some Republicans feeling obligated to tag along) from the 1930’s-1980’s were able to largely focus on the economic dimensions of stuff, and the results were mostly positive. Like Doom points out, the more that we obscure material discussion of the issues, the more we derail off the track of well-distributed prosperity and political stability. It all degenerates to pointless grandstanding, sentiment, about what’s “right or wrong”. Certainly, the 1990’s economic prosperity and Cold War dissolution seemed to annihilate the faculties of our “leaders”, and really, much of the middle class, who began to dither about and line their pockets instead of working toward a better society. We’ve now fractured into many different camps, who get caught in so many relatively inane issues and preening that we’ve lost sight of what our goals should be.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  64. Sean says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Morality is now defined as what is best for one group of people over another

    That has always been the essence of morality.We transcend our selfish interests for a larger interest, but the instinctive and unspoken motive for us banding together in a shared fate group is to represent out interests effectively over against another grouping. DS Wilson calls it multilevel selection.

    https://www.plutobooks.com/blog/bruno-latour-political-philosophy/

    There is a lazy tendency in our era to moralize every political issue, as if politics were merely the implementation of an already understood justice, rather than –as Latour holds– the place where the nature of justice is determined. Someone is always held to be morally at fault whenever a political situation goes wrong; politics becomes an actual knowledge of the morally right, whose truth is opposed only by those corrupted through inferior character or vested interests. Schmitt is certainly a good antidote to this customary excess: for Schmitt, the political begins only where the posturing over right and wrong ends. The enemy is declared, but the enemy is only to be defeated rather than dehumanized and annihilated. […] Socrates noted long ago in his response to Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, the distinction between friend and enemy is subordinate to knowledge of the good, since one should hope to defeat true enemies rather than merely apparent ones. As Strauss puts it, the question of the enemy owes its seriousness to the seriousness of the question of right and wrong. In this respect, policy can never just amount to a death match between competing and equally valid interests: one’s sense of these interests must be open to transformation by what transcends them.

    What transcends conflicts of interest between grouplets within the group is a higher level conflict. Namely, conflict between nation states.

    https://qz.com/1749512/whats-the-us-getting-out-of-trumps-china-trade-war-not-much/
    One recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggested that retaliatory tariffs cost Republican lawmakers five seats in the House during the 2018 election, when they had been in place for just a few months. Now, the tariffs reach more broadly: The next round of tariffs scheduled to go into effect on Dec. 15 focuses on consumer electronics like mobile phones and laptops, which could mean more public awareness about their costs than when the new taxes targeted bulk commodities.

    China is evil, and winning.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Dissident
  65. Feryl says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    Barbara Jordan’s immigration commission, which was spurred in large part by both GHW Bush’s atrocious 1990 immigration act as well as the economy souring in 1991-1992 (hey, wouldn’t ya know, economic anxiety promotes skepticism about immigration!), obviously was not the least bit concerned about the “cultural” impact of illegals. Why would a black Democrat risk alienating the non-whites who were a big leg of the Dem stool by that point?

    Instead, the commission focused on the economic impact of trying to absorb large numbers of immigrants, particularly in low-skilled jobs and during periods of “tight” unemployment for lower skilled workers. You can’t realistically call someone a “racist” for saying that immigrants of any color, if accepted in large numbers, will take lots of jobs and make it harder for the unemployed to find work. Also, immigrant willingness to work for low pay is an obvious way for greedy employers to make more money while hurting native worker’s wages. There’s nothing “racist” about correlating the low immigration period of the 1930’s-1960’s with rising worker pay. Ditto the rising union representation of workers from the 1930’s-1960’s.

    Of course, the Jordan report is a New Deal artifact that the 1990’s elite class and upper middle class completely ignored. When your society gets decadent, the upper middle class no longer are interested in material measures of over-all well being, and instead they get complacent and selfish.

    For the non-New Dealers out there, you really ought to study up on how analytical and thorough some of are leaders used to be. Yes, there was a time when we had leaders who weren’t full of cliches and horsecrap.

    • Replies: @Sean
  66. MBlanc46 says:
    @dfordoom

    Twenty years from now, a lot of white people will listen to racialist arguments. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.

    • Replies: @Anonymousse
  67. SFG says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    IMHO Trump was never serious–he was saying things to get elected. (Yes, I still recommend voting for him–he is better than the Dems who actively want more immigration.)

    Whatever you can say about Bernie (and I wouldn’t recommend voting for him–you will get open borders for sure), he is no friend of capitalism.

    • Agree: gman
  68. “The point you’re missing is that the demographic changes have happened because any actual political debate has been shut down in favour of identity politics.”

    Uh, not quite. And perhaps not even close. Economic opportunism is what has driven the shift as ell as whites having fewer children.

    I would that this is the current millenial trend, but that is relatively new.

    Brush up on the factors that relate to the book and interviews with the author of ”
    Hillbilly Elegy”

  69. @Marcus Traianus

    Good comment. AE and ddorrman definitely have some Jonah Goldberg in ’em. They are going to tell us how to lose nicely.

  70. Sean says:
    @Feryl

    The economists will nonetheless say immigration has overall nothing to do with indigenous wages or with productivity either. They are using a global equity perspective that ignores the existence of countries. But there is little argument about the fact that barring something CATASTROPHIC either financial or through popular unrest (both increasingly unlikely) under the dispensation they favour China will overtake the US.

    Meanwhile China is joining with the economists in targeting Trump to get back to the previous dispensation under which economist only see growth in international trade, but China slowly but surely will become the international ordering power.

    It won’t be the liberal individualist order that gets globalised, but the evil ethos of the Chinese Communist Party.

  71. @MBlanc46

    Since when has a large motivated and extremely capable plurality or minority been irrelevant and powerless? Because of some hypothetical election count?

    You really think counting votes is going to be a major issue in any post european period? Does anyone believe that’s how it works in the third world or in a collapsing empire?

    If whites ever develop the will to win, they’ll develop the means to win. It’s really that simple and it always has been. Democracy is just a phase, not a stable or inevitable end state. The limitations of democracy are temporary inconveniences only.

    • Replies: @Sean
  72. Sean says:
    @Anonymousse

    I disagree, democracy gives more leeway to the traditional people of a country against replacement immigration (and the treacherous elites that love it) than any other system could. The elites are the ones who want to get rid of democracy and become more like China on the pretext it is more efficient.

    Anyway the thing is big data and what can be done with it, not the ostensible system. With 5th gen, as Huawei is trying to foist on the world, it would be like being an inmate of a prison, where if they do not like your attitude there are a zillion ways to make life a torment without openly and explicitly punishing, such as your shower stops working or you don’t get meals until they are cold ect ect. With access to all an individual’s data the sky would be the limit for operant conditioning. Rob Spalding explains all this quite well.

  73. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    When dfordoom refers to “economics”, he’s not just talking about GDP.

    In fact I’m not talking about GDP at all. People don’t care about GDP.

    What they care about are things like having decent reasonably well-paid jobs, job security (something no-one has talked about for years), being able to buy a house, not facing financial ruin when they get sick, not having to fear being unable to pay the bills when they get old. On every single one of these basic bread-and-butter issues you can make overwhelmingly strong arguments that immigration has done economic hurt to ordinary people in their day-to-day lives.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    , @Dissident
  74. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Marcus Traianus

    Studies have shown that increased immigration into the US harms minority communities the most. Is it wrong that an American Citizen (black, brown, or white) be looked over in favor of foreign visa applicants in Stem fields or even a regular, hourly-paid part-time job?

    That’s exactly the kind of economic argument that I was suggesting.

    dfordoom’s comment is the perfect plan – if you want to lose again. Conservatives always lose because they follow this sort of advice.

    I’m not a conservative. And I’m not a liberal either.

    I’m putting forward Old School leftist arguments against immigration. I think you’d be surprised how much traction such arguments could get, especially among younger age groups.

    • Replies: @iffen
  75. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anonymous

    From the other side, it looks like Brexit may actually happen and catapult the Conservatives to a parliamentary supermajority.

    You do realise that Boris Johnson is an enthusiastic neoliberal don’t you? And he wants massive increases in immigration. If Brexit happens it will be a major victory for neoliberalism.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  76. dfordoom says: • Website
    @reiner Tor

    I’m not saying I know the solution, but we need to discuss both problems (plutocracy and woke pseudo-religion), intertwined as they are, and it’s probably not enough to say that it’s enough to attack one of them, and the other will just solve itself.

    True.

    My reason for thinking that the emphasis should be on attacking the plutocracy is that it’s a potentially winning strategy. If you tell people you’re against the bankers and billionaires you’ll find that most will agree with you, and they’ll agree very enthusiastically.

    Attacking the High Priests of Wokeness is necessary but I’m not sure how it can be done successfully. Unfortunately academics are not generally disliked quite as much as bankers and billionaires.

    I’m a social conservative so I’m all in favour of waging the Culture War, but it’s a much more difficult war to fight and you have to tread carefully. I think you have to attack Wokeness but without resorting to arguments that sound racist.

    • Agree: iffen
  77. Dissident says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    as the shift in demographics of the US goes, so do the social and cultural issues. Everything – that includes everything, is downstream from race.

    Everything? Wouldn’t that mean that non-Whites in the U.S. are more liberal than Whites on “LGBTQ issues” and feminism? That non-White men are more emasculated than White men? Is any of that the case?

  78. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sean

    But you cannot make those environmental and inadequate infrastructure and overcrowding arguments you suggest are oh so different and not racist, yet not be hit with exactly the same accusations of racism.

    At least those arguments give you a vaguely defensible position. You just have to keep hammering the point that the problem with immigration is numbers. Not race, not culture, just numbers.

    I’m not saying the chances of winning are good, they’re fairly low, but the chances of winning by making racialist arguments are zero. So the choice is between taking an approach with a small chance of success or adopting an approach that is absolutely 100% guaranteed to fail.

    I can’t help having the nagging suspicion that a lot of the people who want to make immigration a racial issue really don’t want to win. They just want to prove that they’re incredibly based. It’s like a weird status competition. Or they’re simply lashing out and they’re not interested in engaging in an actual political struggle.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Audacious Epigone
  79. Sean says:
    @dfordoom

    So the choice is between taking an approach with a small chance of success or adopting an approach that is absolutely 100% guaranteed to fail.

    I have never heard of anyone advocating a racialist immigration restriction policy,which would be something like “No negro can enter the US”. Immigration restriction is between political units called countries. Of course you can by the disparate impact criteria dub immigration restriction in Western countries thoroughly racist but that is merely a matter of definition.

    In fact, were the non-disparate impact standard of anti racist law not turned a blind eye to it would be necessary to abolish the concept 0f immigration control in every country of the West entirely as those without a right of entry and residence for Western countries are overwhelmingly unwhite and thus border controls most certainly do fail the disparate impact test now enshrined in Western legal jurisprudence.

    I can’t help having the nagging suspicion that a lot of the people who want to make immigration a racial issue really don’t want to win. They just want to prove that they’re incredibly based. It’s like a weird status competition. Or they’re simply lashing out and they’re not interested in engaging in an actual political struggle.

    Those who insist that any further restriction to immigration is racist most certainly do want to win a political struggle because they call immigration restriction racist as the best way of successfully opposing immigration restriction.

    You do realise that Boris Johnson is an enthusiastic neoliberal don’t you? And he wants massive increases in immigration.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-13/this-english-town-backed-brexit-now-the-poles-are-leaving

    You perhaps do not realise that Poles, Romanians ect were flooding into Britain endlessly with no intention of ever leaving or way to reduce the inflow as long as the UK was in the EU. They were in direct competition with indigenous workers and excluding them from whole sectors such as construction.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  80. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sean

    You perhaps do not realise that Poles, Romanians ect were flooding into Britain endlessly with no intention of ever leaving or way to reduce the inflow as long as the UK was in the EU. They were in direct competition with indigenous workers and excluding them from whole sectors such as construction.

    And Boris Johnson favours increased immigration. Brexit will do nothing to slow down immigration. If cheap labour cannot be imported from Poland it will be imported from outside the EU.

    If the British people want to stop or at least slow down immigration they will need to turn against globalist cheerleaders like Johnson. And they will have to address the greed and short-sightedness of corporate interests and small business. Brexit is an irrelevance. The upcoming British election is also an irrelevance as far as immigration is concerned – whichever side wins immigration will increase.

    • Replies: @Sean
  81. Sean says:
    @dfordoom

    Well in the same way it is difficult to lose weight unless you are depressed, it is difficult to reduce immigration in a boom. But though mini booms are necessary for the government to get reelected, they do not last forever. Boris will be in a good position to reduce immigration after Brexit. He will need to believe that is going to be popular though.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Feryl
  82. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    I’m putting forward Old School leftist arguments against immigration. I think you’d be surprised how much traction such arguments could get, especially among younger age groups.

    There is a simple solution to avoiding the racism charge against immigration restrictionists. We need to support an immediate across-the-board (except for Einsteins and beauty queens) immigration hiatus. This hiatus is needed to deal with a decades long backlog of social and economic problems. Leave the contours of future immigration policy in the future. A movement for a hiatus rather than a permanent change in policy would leave immigration restrictionists on one side and the open borders people on the other.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  83. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sean

    Boris will be in a good position to reduce immigration after Brexit.

    But Boris doesn’t want to reduce immigration. Boris is a true believer in globalism and immigration.

    The child-like faith that some people have in Boris is rather touching. It’s like Charlie Brown believing he can trust Lucy when she promises not to snatch the football away.

    • Replies: @Sean
  84. @Feryl

    “Evidently you must be pretty comfortable to glibly claim that economic issues don’t matter that much.”

    First I didn’t say they don’t matter, I said they matter less than race. Try to keep up. Second, Trump won because he appealed to issues most important to rural and working class whites. His strategy was identity politics – the economic issues were the carrot. You guys keep insisting on rowing up stream, but your wrong.

    I stopped reading at that quote. You’re too long winded and short on substance.

  85. Dissident says:
    @dfordoom

    On every single one of these basic bread-and-butter issues you can make overwhelmingly strong arguments that immigration has done economic hurt to ordinary people in their day-to-day lives.

    Anyone want to guess where the following quotes are from?

    Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans.

    That’s why it’s intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does,that immigrants do “jobs that Americans will not do.” The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

    Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

    Those, believe it or not, were excerpts from a 2006 Paul Krugman column entitled North of the Border. Someone posted the link and an excerpt or two in an iSteve thread some time back.

    Mentioned in Krugman’s column (and also in iSteve comments), is Harvard economics professor George J. Borjas. I had saved the following two links to posts at his blog. (I was able to access the links in the past but when attempting to do so now, I get a WordPress message informing me that the site is marked private by its owner and requires permission from to access.)

    https://gborjas.org/2017/06/19/the-new-narrative-less-immigration-is-bad/
    https://gborjas.org/2017/09/05/im-confused/

    Incidentally, Marxist economist Doug Henwood provides examples of what he claims is Krugman’s regularly regurgitating his (Henwood’s) writing without credit:
    http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/KrugmanAd.html

    • Agree: dc.sunsets
  86. iffen says:
    @Sean

    If China becomes the most powerful country in the world the the racists will have won

    Racists may well “win” in intra nation-state competion, but this argument is about inter state racism, and that is a sure loser in the US, the other settler states and I suspect most of Western Europe. Peter may be wrong about many things but he is not wrong about the Western world handicapping itself in the fight against “the others.”

  87. Dissident says:
    @dfordoom

    On every single one of these basic bread-and-butter issues you can make overwhelmingly strong arguments that immigration has done economic hurt to ordinary people in their day-to-day lives.

    Anyone want to guess where the following quotes are from?

    Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans.

    That’s why it’s intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does,that immigrants do “jobs that Americans will not do.” The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

    Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

    Those, believe it or not, were excerpts from a 2006 Paul Krugman column entitled North of the Border. Someone posted the link and an excerpt or two in an iSteve thread some time back.

    Mentioned in Krugman’s column (and also in iSteve comments), is Harvard economics professor George J. Borjas, who has a blog at gborjas DOT org. (I had saved two links to posts at Borjas’s blog but when atteming to access them now, I got a WordPress message informing me that the site is marked private by its owner and requires permission to access.)

    Incidentally, Marxist economist Doug Henwood provides examples of what he claims is Krugman’s regularly regurgitating his (Henwood’s) writing without credit:
    http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/KrugmanAd.html

    • Replies: @res
  88. @John Gruskos

    @216, @John Gruskos

    Y’all need to go deeper.

  89. Sean says:
    @dfordoom

    The British people not Boris got rid of the endless influx of Poles ect , even though that required leaving the EU, which no one thought possible. He has become PM because of the opposition to immigration in the English former industrial heartland. He was for Brexit because some of the City bankers were worried about EU regulation.

    https://www.breakingnews.ie/remote/content.assets.pressassociation.io/2019/01/14105835/b9e84327-4e21-4e3e-95b3-adfd31b66afa.jpg?width=600&s=bn-897432

    Boris is floundering right now saying the immigrants he lets in will not be allowed to live in the SE, and be limited to living north of Watford. That will never fly. He also has been caught out as ignorant about the high level of no EU immigration since Brexit.He is going to have to make promises to deal with with burgeoning non EU immigration or he will be beaten in the general election, or dumped by his party before the next one because he really is a south of Watford, City vulture capitalism bankers’ politician with little natural support in the majority of Britain. His choice is to be populist or be TWERPed

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  90. JackOH says:
    @iffen

    iffen, I agree, but you’d have to politically structure that hiatus so that it appears to favor neither side, which could be really difficult.

    If I were a big-time American globalist, I’d spike that hiatus with stuff like: “I’ve got crops rotting in the field, meat rotting in the slaughterhouses, and our Washington politicians just don’t care that Mr. and Mrs. America could soon be paying $10 a pound for hamburger!”

    If there were a legitimate American politics of national solidarity, or “communitarian” ideology, or something similar, well, maybe a different story. You could more clearly frame the issue as “cheap stuff” vs. “community”. We, of course, don’t have “community” in our politics.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Feryl
  91. @Lot

    “ they will reject political warfare in favor of the real thing. A dirty war of geographic divorce is coming.”

    1. Most SA whites are not “living in squalor”

    Fair enough. But is SA, a first-world country in the 1970’s, spiraling into destruction?

    2. Better models for white minority America are California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Mexico, and Brazil. Whites continue to dominate economically and to a lesser extent politically.

    Whites continue to dominate only insofar as they do so politically. If the brown rabble is pandered to enough, do you really think that productive whites will be left with enough incentive to produce? California is rapidly following Mexico, and if you think Mexico is a model of where I should wish to see my homeland go, you and I do not share the same language.

    3. Not quite as on point, but still relevant, is ethnic Chinese domination of Malaysia and AJ domination of Israel over the non-AJ Jews, Arabs, and mixed-blood Russians.

    Yes, and am I misinformed that occasionally the Chinese immigrants to Malaysia are the targets of organized violence? Or that Israel’s demographic situation is far, far, far from stable?

    I say again: All of the last 4 decades’ “stability” was put on a MasterCard. When that ends, a whole new world will emerge, and what people accepted (relatively) peacefully will no longer exist, and in its place will be inarticulate rage over what will be reframed as utterly unacceptable.

  92. @iffen

    All doom is saying is that if racism is the ticket, then the racists would have won by now.

    Do you really think everything is always the same? Do you really believe that trends last forever, and that “people” who behave in one way today will ALWAYS behave that way?

    I have a wonderful bridge to sell you; it’s right here on this picture-postcard. Make me an offer, cash only please.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Anonymousse
  93. @dfordoom

    We need to attack the plutocracy itself.

    OK, Karl Marx.

    Replacing woke plutocracy with woke socialism accomplishes exactly nothing.

    Bernie Sanders will plunder the white Christian working class and give the loot to the designated victim groups.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  94. @John Gruskos

    OK, Karl Marx.

    Replacing woke plutocracy with woke socialism accomplishes exactly nothing.

    Bernie Sanders will plunder the white Christian working class and give the loot to the designated victim groups.

    In the book-within-a-book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, we’re told (by Orwell) that there’s always been a High, a Middle and a Low, and that normally this is a stable arrangement. On occasion, the High gets destabilized and the Middle, seeing an opportunity to take the place of the High, enlists the aid of the Low in waging a war on the High.

    If the Middle is successful in replacing the High, the first thing they do is kick the Low right back into the gutter from where they got them.

    This is the way of the Socialist world. Bernie is, like Pelosi and the entire group of panderers-to-the-“poor,” just using the Low to stave off any attacks from the Middle. Panderers-to-the-“poor” need clients, they NEED those dependent on the political gibsmedat gravy train, to maintain their power.

    The more money (resources, capital, applause, etc.) you throw at something, the more of it that will be supplied. Anti-poverty programs axiomatically create more clients for those who use those programs as a foundation for their power.

    This was a relatively stable system until the Great Credit Bubble caused those in power to engage in a phenomenal Tragedy of the Commons with regard to issuing debt (which turned into the largest binge of capital consumption in recorded history.) They put too much on the National MasterCard, and when the bills do come due (and they must), it will destabilize the system in ways not seen since at least 1860. Back then, the center won the war. This time I think the center will fail.

  95. @dc.sunsets

    Maybe. But if he merely raises that income threshold from $29,000 to $100,000, he can win. Envy and the desire for “free” stuff go a long way.

  96. @Audacious Epigone

    Immigration will continue to make whites more identitarian, but framing immigration in explicitly racial terms is a surefire loser at the moment (and probably ever). A majority of whites react extremely negatively to that.

    The vast majority of Whites are fully aware of the racial aspects of many issues, and even the Whites in areas of the country with little or no non-Whites have some sense of it. It would be a benefit to a White identitarian polical party if some Whites and the corporate media and the ruling class over-react to a new political party that explicitly advances the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

    Also, younger voters love to see how political leaders respond to criticism by noticing the FLINCH FACTOR. The FLINCH FACTOR is how well political leaders absorb punishment and then deliver it right back. The “return to sender” rhetorical aspects of explicitly identifying as a political leader and a political party that advances the interests of Whites as Whites would be tremendous fun and excitement.

    The key is to not flinch or cringe when the corporate media and ruling class stooge politicians attack you. For me and tens of millions of other Whites, it helps that we hold most of the politician whores and the corporate propaganda whores in extremely low regard bordering on severe scorn and contempt.

    That guy from Comcast and CNBC named Phil Griffin who fired Pat Buchanan because Pat wrote a good book called Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? is an example of the kind of White person who has earned the contempt and scorn of the people of the historic American nation.

    Brian Stelter from NY Times(2012):

    In January, as Mr. Buchanan’s absence gained attention, Mr. Griffin was quoted as saying that “the ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.” They soon started discussing severance terms, Mr. Buchanan said. MSNBC executives said they were relieved that his departure had received relatively little attention when it was announced. Dismayed, however, several of the channel’s hosts spoke up in support of him.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/with-book-buchanan-set-his-fate.html

    A White political leader is going to have to endure some heavy pounding from the ruling class and its stooge whores in the mass media, but it is necessary to win the battle.

    So I agree partially with you that many Whites will react negatively to an explicit rhetorical push to advance White interests, but that very negativity will be good to energize Whites who are tired of being under attack from the mass media and the ruling class.

    Plus, many of the upper middle class Whites who will be loudest in condemnation of explicit White Identitarianism will be easy to rhetorically retaliate against because they are the greedy treasonous bastard ones pushing nation-wrecking globalization, financialization, mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration, transnationalism, monetary extremism and Neoliberalism.

    I use White Core America because there is a historical and ancestral core to colonial America, and later, the USA, and showing great pride and respect for their achievements will be refreshing and rejuvenating for a lot of White Americans.

    When Under Attack, White Core America Will Not Flinch!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  97. iffen says:
    @JackOH

    If there were a legitimate American politics of national solidarity, or “communitarian” ideology, or something similar

    Catalyst

    Baby steps

  98. @Audacious Epigone

    South Africa is a strong counterpoiunt to the idea that white nationalism is inevitable, isn’t it?

    South Africa wasn’t 85 or 90 percent White like the USA was in the 1960s.

    Young Whites in the USA are heading for heavy duty White Nationalism and the ruling class of the American Empire is entirely to blame.

  99. iffen says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Do you really believe that trends last forever

    They last until they don’t, and the trend for at least the last two thousand years has been in the direction of universalism, individualism and egalitarianism.

    The mixing and mating for hundreds of thousands of years is not a trend, but rather is basic human (near human ?) behavior. This is no longer inhibited by geography so you need to come up with some sort of convincing religious or ideological rationale, and very quickly.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  100. @restless94110

    a decentralized and anonymized internet. Which is coming

    This is why Gab was re-engineered and is now built on Mastodon.  Decentralized and thus un-stoppable.

  101. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    “Do you have any evidence for that?” (many people would accept a reduction in their standard of living in exchange for a reduction in immigration.)

    Recent polls (this year) show that most Canadians want to restrict immigration independently of economic concerns:

    New polling numbers suggest a majority of Canadians believe the federal government should limit the number of immigrants it accepts — a public opinion trend that Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen says he finds concerning. Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a recent Leger poll said the government should prioritize limiting immigration levels because the country might be reaching a limit in its ability to integrate them. Just 37 per cent said the priority should be on growing immigration to meet the demands of Canada’s expanding economy. […] A Leger poll in February had almost half of respondents saying they believe Canada welcomes too many immigrants and refugees. And an EKOS poll released last month suggested 42 per cent of Canadians believe the country accepts too many non-white newcomers.

    https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/06/16/poll-suggests-majority-of-canadians-favour-limiting-immigration-levels/#.XdQDwndFzcv

    “That was undoubtedly true 30 years ago. I don’t think it’s true today.”

    It is true today. Read the above.

    “There are plenty of other arguments against immigration aside from racial arguments. There are environmental arguments. There’s the issue of inadequate infrastructure. There’s the issue of overcrowding.”

    You’re coming around to my position. You started off saying that social and cultural arguments are illegitimate and should not be discussed. Only economic arguments are legitimate. Now you’re saying that social and cultural arguments are not the only arguments. Good! We’re making progress.

    Economic arguments are fine if your concerns are economic. If your concerns are social and cultural, you should be making social and cultural arguments. It’s a matter of simple honesty. People are most convincing when they speak their mind.

    • Agree: BlackFlag
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  102. @iffen

    No longer inhibited by geography.

    So you think contagious disease pandemics are permanently a thing of the past? That’s just one of several ways I think all this worldwide travel could screech to a halt for quite some time.

    The mixing and mating for hundreds of thousands of years is not a trend, but rather is basic human (near human ?) behavior.

    I enjoy some of your comments, but this one is simply ignorant. “Is not a trend?” No, hundreds of thousands of years (1) contain innumerable, then-relevant trends that you simply waved away with your hand, and (2) were punctuated by periods of pogroms, warfare, pestilence and other forces that radically altered the trajectory of conditions in different places, which happened to be quite relevant for those then living there.

    What happened for “thousands of years” or even last year is irrelevant to what occurs this year, next year and the years I have left (and of course, I’m also thoughtful about conditions my descendants will face, although I have even less ability to affect those than I do the ones I face myself.)

    You make the same mistake as everyone else; you look at the past, edit out (1) whatever doesn’t conform to your thesis and (2) everything about which you by definition don’t know about the it (the past), which also by definition could be everything that’s germane to this discussion, and you project your forecast in what amounts to a straight line, whether you admit it or not.

    I see nothing but unsustainable trends today. It doesn’t mean they’ll change, and I sure as hell have been lousy at forecasting reversals, but just because I couldn’t estimate how much fuel was in the rocket booster doesn’t mean that the longer it burns, the further it has to go. We’re not going to see humanity reach escape velocity and surge into a world of actually-unlimited resources.

    My current thesis is that what was Bubonic Plague in the Middle Ages is “Bad Ideas” today. Both are contagious diseases, but the former did its work mostly in real time. Bad Ideas can dam the consequences for quite some time before the dam fails and those downstream are drowned.

    The Leftist Cult is akin to a suicide switch for Nature, insuring that an organism that overgrows all the world’s ecological niches can still be burned back to balance. An Earth with seven billion people, where perhaps 500 million are supporting the rest and one of those billion is on a trend to 400% increase is not a stable situation. Nature’s laws are inviolable, and no legislature on Earth can make water flow uphill.

    • Replies: @iffen
  103. res says:
    @Dissident

    Mentioned in Krugman’s column (and also in iSteve comments), is Harvard economics professor George J. Borjas, who has a blog at gborjas DOT org. (I had saved two links to posts at Borjas’s blog but when atteming to access them now, I got a WordPress message informing me that the site is marked private by its owner and requires permission to access.)

    Are the pages available at archive.org? If so, please post the links. One problem with pages going away is they become harder to find via web searches even if they are available in an archive.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    , @Dissident
  104. anonymous[188] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    We must be operating with different definitions of neoliberalism. BoJo aside, Brexit has been opposed by most of the big business community, not just in the UK but thoughout the EU. The ideologically most neoliberal party, the LibDems, is fiercely anti-Brexit. I simply can’t agree that pro-Brexit is the neoliberal position.

    And you didn’t address the main criticism of your thesis contending that opposing neoliberalism is politically off-limits, which is that the present Democratic field is (rhetorically at least) the most opposed to it in decades, perhaps ever. In fact it could be argued that the Democratic field is now to the left of even the Ralph Nader of the early 2000s on socialist issues and anti-neoliberal rhetoric. Nader wanted higher corporate taxes but never proposed a tax on personal wealth, as the Democrats are now. Warren and Sanders want varying degrees of fully socialized medicine while Nader’s platform was just to cover the uninsured or at most single-payer in the context of a system that retained private hospitals and doctors.

  105. @Mr. Rational

    Fascinating, that reading the discussion of Borjas’ 2016 book reveals something just as obvious as other obvious (but studiously ignored) realities he describes, namely that flooding the USA with migrants (high and low) poured loot in the pockets of business owners and Wall Street while suppressing wages for everyone who was here (and belonged here) before CON(artists)GRESS tore down the gates and invited the world.

    If we want to know how the game was played, all we have to remember is that congressmen spend most of their time seeking money for their next political campaign. Those who fund their campaigns truly are they who run this country, and it’s been that way for quite some time.

    We get the best government money can buy; it’s just not we citizens who are paying, or, while it is we who pay (and pay and pay and pay), the envelopes of cash flowing into the Capitol sure as hell don’t have our names on them.

    Open Borders, Inc. was just another way to suppress wages during a period of unprecedented (credit) inflation, such that all that inflated loot flowed into the pockets of the 99.99th percentile. Its cheerleaders should be shot (as thieves and traitors–metaphorically, of course.)

    Concentrated benefit, diffused cost. Adam spends $1,000,000 on campaign donations and gets new contracts or “helpful” legislation that stuffs $300,000,000 in his pocket, all looted from American citizens, consumers, workers and taxpayers…but it only costs each adult maybe a dollar, so it’s simply not worth fighting…until we realize that what Adam did is the same thing fifty thousand other con artists are doing on K-Street.

    What a deal. All roads lead to the decline and fall of this empire of idiocy.

  106. Anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Do you have any evidence for that? I guess it depends on what you mean by many people – many Unz Review readers might feel that way.

    “Standard of living” tends to be conflated between two related but different concepts.

    There’s a physical, objective standard of living such as how much stuff you’re able to buy, how big of a house you have, etc.

    Then there’s a relative standard of living, or how much wealth and status you have relative to others, especially with respect to your peers, community or society you identify with, country, etc.

    People are primarily motivated by relative status and their positions in status hierarchies. Most people have no problem with or prefer a reduction in objective standard of living provided that their relative status is preserved or increased. Status is zero-sum, so for most people, immigration means that people who were previously poorer and lower in status than them become wealthier and relatively higher in status after immigrating, lowering the relative status of the original inhabitants, even if objective standard of living improves.

    Trade and outsourcing have a similar effect, and many people reflexively oppose them for similar reasons. Even if trade and outsourcing increase objective living standards overall, they can reduce the relative status of many people in a country. If country A is wealthy, and country B is so poor that even the poorest in A have greater wealth and status than the well off in B, trade between A and B that increases objective standard of living overall and makes both richer can mean relative status of many in A has declined because many in B are no longer so destitute and low in status.

    For many people today, a reduction in immigration would mean the preservation or increase of their relative standard of living status, even if their objective standard of living declined. So a reduction in immigration is preferable to them. But most probably would not prefer a reduction in their relative social status in exchange for a reduction in immigration.

  107. BlackFlag says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Then Whites are done.

    Mearsheimer says nationalism is the most powerful political force that he knows. Why are Whites unable to harness it? If Whites lack the asabiya/ethnocentrism/balls to stand up for their own territory and existence, it’s game over. They won’t sneak or luck their way into retaining their homelands.

    Most Whites are either brainwashed, browbeaten, or too individualistic. But there’s a healthy core of say 50m. We are probably approaching low returns on waking up more. The next step is to get the healthy core to act in concert in order to form a strong political block.

  108. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sean

    He is going to have to make promises to deal with with burgeoning non EU immigration or he will be beaten in the general election, or dumped by his party before the next one because he really is a south of Watford, City vulture capitalism bankers’ politician with little natural support in the majority of Britain.

    I agree. Except that Boris Johnson has managed to con Britons into thinking they can trust him so he’ll win the general election. Which will be catastrophic for Britain.

    One point I keep making is the prevalence of magical thinking these days (and it’s common across the political spectrum). Brexit is a classic example of this. Most of the people who voted Leave still believe that Brexit is a magical answer to all their problems. Brexit will actually usher in an age of neo-Thatcherism combined with extreme globalism but Leavers still cling to their magic Brexit talisman.

    • Agree: BlackFlag
    • Replies: @Sean
  109. “Barbara Jordan’s immigration commission, which was spurred in large part by both GHW Bush’s atrocious 1990 immigration act as well as the economy souring in 1991-1992 (hey, wouldn’t ya know, economic anxiety promotes skepticism about immigration!), obviously was not the least bit concerned about the “cultural” impact of illegals. Why would a black Democrat risk alienating the non-whites who were a big leg of the Dem stool by that point?”

    Laughing. I did try. I really did. Barvara jorgan’s advocacy occurred in the 1970’s —- and would she would not have supported anything concerning immigration that the white Pres supported regarding latinos in that vein.

    oy veh.

    The above and your subsequent comments about that report is utter and complete nonsense. Her position was the same as that of George Washington cover nearly 100 years earlier.

    It undermined the ability of citizens, especially the most disadvantaged citizens to reap the benefits of the US economy. It was really very simple. There’s nothing new deal, leftist, socialist about it. It is a straight up nationalist argument and it predicted the vents of today with respect to loose immigration policy’s impact.

    Your attempt to mangle it into some twisted liberal cabal is nonsensical on its face. You might actually want read that report and take note of Sen Jordan’s position.

    ———————————–

    Some of you people never seem to get it. That by underming black citizens they have been shoved into the arms of the those advocating the worst positions for the country. Not two dys ago, if accurate, a graph indicated just how issue conservative or traditional blacks are — yet they vote democratic —-

    where whites, not blacks invited:

    pornography as staple
    anti-god as staple
    homosexual conduct as staple
    feminist ideology as staple
    utterly gutted AA that it lowered standard and benefitted white females and homosexuals while undermining black family structure by killing the actual redress intended
    loose immigration — all whites

    U am more than willing to deal black rejection and even their weakn ess in siding with democrats, but I would say, the evidence that leveraging color is eventually going to die based on the real issues

    immigration and economic forces.

  110. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Peter Frost

    Recent polls (this year) show that most Canadians want to restrict immigration independently of economic concerns:

    That poll doesn’t seem to actually say that many people would accept a reduction in their standard of living in exchange for a reduction in immigration.

    You’re coming around to my position. You started off saying that social and cultural arguments are illegitimate and should not be discussed. Only economic arguments are legitimate.

    My point was that economic arguments are easier to sell. Social and cultural arguments are tricky to sell. You can do so but you have to tread very carefully. Explicitly racial arguments are impossible to sell. People are not happy about immigration but they are unwilling to embrace racial arguments such as HBD because to most people the idea of being racist is horrifying and repugnant.

    The advantage of economic arguments is that they make the bankers and billionaires the bad guys. That’s an incredibly easy message to sell. Racial arguments make the immigrants themselves the bad guys and that makes people uncomfortable.

    Social and cultural arguments are not illegitimate, they’re just dangerous unless you exercise caution.

    It’s a matter of simple honesty.

    So give an example of a political struggle won by simple honesty. Honesty is a fine thing but in politics honesty has to be packaged skilfully.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    , @Mr. Rational
  111. iffen says:
    @dc.sunsets

    I think that we are commenting on different subjects, talking past each other as it were. Let’s just keep it that way.

  112. @dc.sunsets

    “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

    “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

    Malcolm Gladwell is the definitive dumb person’s smart person… but the “tipping point” idea isn’t wrong. We didn’t get tranny nine year olds all at once, and european identity doesn’t happen all at once either.

    White identity IS slowly becoming mainstreamed in SPITE of (because of?) all out anti white measures from the fellow white directed institutions.

    The left might be stupid, but they aren’t stupid… they are seeing and reacting to the signs too.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  113. Sean says:
    @dfordoom

    Bloody Poles were a lot of the problems, judging by the way people voted. The non EU immigrants all wanted to get to Italy so they could get to the UK the UK and the south and East European EU workers all wanted to come to the UK. And because of freedom of movement rules that all EU members were obliged to obey there was no way to reduce either kind of immigration. After Brexit the British parliament will be able to stop freedom of movement and restrict it non EU people coming from EU countries into Britain. Boris will have to go along with the new feeling or be terminated. The crucial factor after Brexit will be what the British people pressure Parliament to do.

  114. Correction:

    I think I noted rep Jordan as a Senator. That was incorrect she was a Representative — there was no deliberate attempt to deceive — it was an error.

    “Deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave. The top priorities for detention and removal, of course, are criminal aliens. But for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process.23”

    Rep Barbara Jordon.

  115. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    The advantage of economic arguments is that they make the bankers and billionaires the bad guys. That’s an incredibly easy message to sell. Racial arguments make the immigrants themselves the bad guys and that makes people uncomfortable.

    This is something I’ve said ad nauseum. Trump went the Reaganite route on his immigration rhetoric (warn of dangerous lower class people, completely ignore the business elites who pull all kinds of shit to make more money), thereby making modern immigration discourse into an obvious “cultural” (e.g. racial) issue. This created the ignominy of open borders advocates saying that “Americans” (e.g., blacks) commit more crimes than Mexicans. Which is true, alas. Trump could’ve gone the Andy Yang route and focused strictly on empirical data regarding native economic well-being and it’s link to immigration or lack thereof, but nope, he just couldn’t resist appealing to knuckle dragging slobs who think that being “un-PC” is what the doctor ordered.

    As other have noted, moderates and liberals have become more pro-immigrant in response to Trump’s politically radioactive approach to publically talking about immigrants. The infamous “Mexican rapist” moment alone set us back a long ways.

  116. @Peter Frost

    I read “economic issues” much more broadly than just monthly and quarterly economic numbers.

  117. @Charles Pewitt

    Whites
    Greens
    Blues
    Reds

    Holy hell, Charles, you’ve taken us back to Constantinople! Get in your chariots, folks.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  118. @iffen

    Dispensing with your current social ties and language fluency, would you rather live in London or Warsaw?

    Unironically–and trebly so because I have a family–I’d choose Warsaw. When the dissolution comes, the ‘blue states’ will generally be the more affluent ones. They’ll also be the ones with much wider wealth disparities.

    • Replies: @iffen
  119. @216

    Why try and organize a boycott? Isn’t the Sleeping Giants more effective, anyway? Corporations are almost all public-facing now. A mass call/tweet campaign would be more consequential and easier to execute.

  120. Feryl says: • Website
    @JackOH

    If I were a big-time American globalist, I’d spike that hiatus with stuff like: “I’ve got crops rotting in the field, meat rotting in the slaughterhouses, and our Washington politicians just don’t care that Mr. and Mrs. America could soon be paying $10 a pound for hamburger!”

    It’s funny that the broker and more indebted Americans get (whether they’re consciously focused on it or not), the more we hear non-sense that “stuff would be too expensive if we had Americans doing the work”. Uh-huh. It seems to me that if more Americans had well paying and secure jobs, then the average person would have more money in the first place.

    And of course they never talk about how easily Americans could afford most things in the 1950’s-1970’s, which is precisely when we had few immigrant workers and relatively little off-shoring.

    Do that many people really accept neo-liberal talking points about immigration and off-shoring? I doubt it. If they did, then people would report more satisfaction with the state of politics and leadership. But on the contrary, people have grown increasingly disillusioned with our affairs has neo-liberalism has surged. We don’t trust the media, the government, corporate America, etc. to have our back anymore.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @JackOH
  121. Feryl says: • Website
    @Sean

    The economic boom of the late 1940’s-late 1960’s did not result in massive immigration levels into any Western country. Rather, immigration has gradually risen, decade over decade, since the 1950’s. We had fairly low immigration levels in the 1950’s and 60’s. Then we had higher immigration levels in the 1970’s and early 80’s. Then immigration levels went to massive levels in the late 80’s and 90’s; after the 90’s, the only time we slowed down immigration was in 2002-2004, due to 9/11 dramatically slowing down world wide travel for a few years.

    So immigration levels are more tied to corrupt leadership then they are to the strength of the economy.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Anonymous
  122. Sean says:
    @Feryl

    Boris did not get into no 10 by promising to cut immigration overall, and he is uninterested in judging by his ignorance over how much non EU immigration has climbed since the Brexit vote. He recently said it was half but it is in fact now the great majority of total immigration and the container lorry deaths show there is still considerable illegal immigration on top of that.

    The economy obviously draws in a certain amount and the decline in EU immigration since 2016 is being compensated for by immigration from elsewhere. If completely incorruptible, a leader would obey their conscience and reduce or increase immigration irrespective of what that meant for their career. But no one gets to be PM with such principles. To reduce immigration, which would almost certainly have a chilling effect on the economy (parts of which are overheated but pumping up the housing market is now thought essential to prevent recession) Boris is going to have to be subjected to massive popular pressure for immigration restriction.

    Leadership is responsive to voters, leaders are terminated with prejudice without an election when they don’t satisfy the MPs, and ultimately voters. If there is no popular pressure to counteract the business lobby’s funded and organised pro-immigration pressure then the fault is not the system. Brexit means ultimate control over immigration policy has been re established,so if pressured by popular opinion the leader will reduce immigration or be replaced by someone who is more tractable (or corrupt if you prefer)

  123. @dfordoom

    Explicitly racial arguments are impossible to sell. People are not happy about immigration but they are unwilling to embrace racial arguments such as HBD because to most people the idea of being racist is horrifying and repugnant.

    But a century ago, even a half-century ago, they were obvious to many if not most.  What changed?  More to the point, (((who))) has been in control of education and the media in the mean time?

    Literally NO Americans voted for Hart-Celler.  Americans never HAD a say; it was all done by skulduggery.  Increased immigration has been grossly unpopular for literally decades.  Time to un-do it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  124. @res

    You could have done it yourself, you were just too lazy to.

    • Replies: @res
  125. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    And of course they never talk about how easily Americans could afford most things in the 1950’s-1970’s, which is precisely when we had few immigrant workers and relatively little off-shoring.

    Agreed. It’s been exactly the same in Australia. In the 1950’s-1970’s ordinary working people could easily afford to buy a house and run a car. Power bills were very low so we didn’t have poor people and old people unable to afford electricity. Ordinary working people did not have crushing credit card debt.

    That’s an economic issue that is much more interesting to ordinary people than GDP.

    In the 1950’s-1970’s ordinary working people assumed that their kids would be able to get decent jobs when they left school.

    That’s an economic issue that is much more interesting to ordinary people than GDP.

    In the 1950’s-1970’s ordinary working people assumed that they had job security.

    That’s an economic issue that is much more interesting to ordinary people than GDP.

  126. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mr. Rational

    But a century ago, even a half-century ago, they were obvious to many if not most. What changed? More to the point, (((who))) has been in control of education and the media in the mean time?

    In Australia education and the media are not in the hands of the Jews but attitudes towards race have changed in exactly the same ways as in the US.

    The problem isn’t Jews, it’s liberals.

    And those changed attitudes are not going to magically reverse themselves.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    , @Dissident
  127. Anonymous[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Feryl

    The 40s to 60s was the height of the Cold War. Half the world was behind the Iron Curtain and Communist. Europe was relatively poor and rebuilding. The US populace had to be treated fairly well by elites because they were needed to produce industrial output and serve as cannon fodder for a potential hot war. Large regions of the non-aligned world such as the Mideast, India, Africa, and Latin America were areas with proxy wars and struggles between US backed capitalists against Soviet backed communists, and many parts of them were areas in which state socialism, which regards the populace as an important labor resource of the state and tends to thus restrict international mobility, was being implemented.

  128. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I think I would lean toward Warsaw because I’ve always wanted to sample world-class pierogi.

    But if some of the commenters here can be trusted, then there will be plenty (too many?) Poles in the UK, so not only should London have world-class pierogi, but also excellent cuisine from all parts of The Former Empire.

    Decisons, decisions.

    • Troll: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  129. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    so not only should London have world-class pierogi, but also excellent cuisine from all parts of The Former Empire.

    Decisons, decisions.

    I haven’t been to London since the dark days of Thatcher. It struck me as being the most miserable squalid city I’d ever encountered, with an extraordinary atmosphere of despair and hopelessness.

    Not even world-class pierogi would tempt me to revisit London.

    • Replies: @iffen
  130. @Audacious Epigone

    Holy hell, Charles, you’ve taken us back to Constantinople! Get in your chariots, folks.

    White Identity politics is a good Christmas present. Get it early, before some beefy-armed woman grabs it from you at the counter.

    I forgot those damn rascal Libertarian Party high IQ moron goons. Maybe, I just thought I’d leave them out. I almost hate libertarian scum more than I hate Neo-Conservative scum. There is an identitarian subtext about the libertarians and the Neo-Conservatives if you’ve been paying attention.

    My heart was filled with joy when that baby boomer Chappaqua harpy named Hillary Clinton nastily insinuated that a particularly energetic lady from Hawaii was being selected and prepared to run third party as a Green Party presidential candidate to thwart the Democrat Party. Hillary Clinton in her baby boomer compound in the mostly-White town of Chappaqua, New York, knows that the two party totalitarian system in the American Empire is fracturing like an egg before you scramble it.

    I want the Green Party to boom like a bastard with voter support so as to clear the way forward for White voters to abandon Trump and the rancid Republican Party to support White Core America. My idea is that millions of patriotic White voters will see the trade unionist Whites and radical Whites heading hard for the Green Party in reaction to a bland globalizer ruling class stooge such as Warren or Biden and then the patriotic Whites will decide to do the same and start supporting White Core America.

    The Libertarian Party will grab votes too, and that’s good.

    Trump and the rancid Republican Party have abandoned and betrayed and stabbed White Core Americans in the back, and White Core Americans will electorally counter-attack by splitting away from the rancid Republican Party.

    That globalizer mass legal immigration extremist nut from Houston, Dan Crenshaw, is sounding like a wacko kook who wants the Republican Party to get crushed in 2020. I think that Crenshaw guy is a total stooge whore for the nasty plutocrat globalizers who control the GOP and they want to lose.

    White Core Americans Must Ring The Voter Retaliation Bell Against The Rancid Republican Party.

    Just saw the poll with that ruling class globalizer politician whore named Buttigieg bouncing in Iowa and New Hampshire and I love that fracturing sound in the Democrat Party. The beautiful Black church ladies in the Democrat Party will lovingly introduce Buttigieg to electoral reality like you ain’t never before seen.

    Mr. Buttigieg will be greeted by an AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY backlash like he’s never seen before.

    This election is just now getting fun!

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  131. JackOH says:
    @Feryl

    Feryl, yep, agree.

    “stuff would be too expensive if we had Americans doing the work”

    We’re served up the line that something terrible, something awful will happen without armies of impoverished migrants, legal and illegal–who cares?–, to do our work, and oceans of foreign-made goods.

    I’m writing these words on a beautiful leather-topped desk my Dad bought in the early 1960s. He was a factory electrician and small contractor on the side. Price was about $100-$200, maybe inflation-adjusted, about $1000-$2000 today. Tell City Furniture, Indiana. How rotten was it when many Americans made a decent living and could buy stuff made by other Americans?

    I’m nowhere close to redneckish, but do any of our politicians think about:

    (1) Immigrants–of a sort–were brought into the colonies to work cotton, rice, tobacco, and other agriculture. What’s the cost-benefit on that gig again?

    (2) Immigrants did the stoop labor at our local steel mills and other industries. They also brought with them the Mafia and Hispanic gangs, the former just about strangling our city and county governments with corrupt practices for many decades, at least through the 1990s. Cost-benefit?

    Thanks again.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  132. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    I think neither of us played by AE’s rules. We were supposed to choose Warsaw over London because of London’s paucity of indigenes.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  133. @Anonymousse

    All is trend and trend change.

    The problem is that once a trend has lasted long enough, people come to think it’s a permanent feature of the landscape.

    The Cargo Cult that is Leftism (with all its sacraments) is a product in the West today of people with too much time on their hands, who have decided to join the popular bandwagon in “fixing the world” as their avenue to “self-actualization.”

    I know I tilt at windmills over this, but this stopped clock WILL be right sooner or later; you cannot create a stable, lasting economic system on credit-creation/debt-assumption. All you do is create a direct movement of wealth from one group to another, but in doing so you plant the seeds of the system’s own destruction.

    For individuals, firms or polities, going deeply into debt to fund a consumption lifestyle is the last phase of the lifecycle of poverty-to-plenty-back-to-poverty. The last nearly 40 years (and it could last a decade or more longer, who am I to know?) are a ONE OFF.

    Unprecedented credit creation.
    Unprecedented debt assumption.
    Unprecedented open borders erasure of nation-states.
    Unprecedented political sclerosis.
    Unprecedented warping of economic processes to serve exponentially-growing debt.

    This isn’t the new normal. The only true meaning of unsustainable trends lasting this long is that the next phase, post trend-change, will be utterly catastrophic, far eclipsing the aftermath of the most recent boom (of boom-bust lore), the Roaring Twenties.

    The past bakes into the cake what will happen in the future; we just don’t know when, and we don’t know the specifics…and those are the only questions worth answering.

    When this long collective delusion ends, so too will the Leftist insanity. What replaces it might well be worse…but it will be different.

  134. @dfordoom

    And those changed attitudes are not going to magically reverse themselves.

    You really should read Albert J. Nock’s Isaiah’s Job. It might cure you of this belief.

    Essentially all cause-and-effect gleaned from history is post hoc logical fallacy. You (and I) have absolutely no idea why one or another Stupid Idea gets traction and becomes fashionable for a time. We can look at history and say that our prosperity post 1913 is due to central banking, or we can notice that adding money (credit, mostly) to the system doesn’t create innovation, it simply moves wealth from some to others. This is but one of many ways we can see that we know relatively little about what caused (or causes) what.

    Bad Ideas (e.g., the Leftist Cult) are today’s Bubonic Plague. They are contagious, and under the “right” conditions can become extremely widespread, sowing future catastrophes across Earth like snowflakes landing onto of a massive snowmass.

    But this too will change. I’m an ant, riding on a leaf that floats down a wide river. I have no idea what’s around the next bend, and the river’s course couldn’t possible care less about what I wish.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  135. @Charles Pewitt

    I forgot those damn rascal Libertarian Party high IQ moron goons.

    No group of people could ever be more irrelevant, and I say that as a former (and embarrassed) card-carrying member of that famous oxymoron, the Libertarian Party.

    Talk about the system providing a nice, meaningless outlet for otherwise intelligent-enough-to-be-troublesome idealists to piss away their lives pushing their own paradoxically Utopian schemes.
    ——-
    I do think you’re correct about the fracturing of politics, but I think you grossly overestimate the relevance of large political entities in coming decades. No nation of several hundred million people can be effectively run under one political system. Frankly, Europe shows us that even a few million people cannot effectively share a single polity. The only reason Switzerland remains (so far, relatively) less damaged is because its Cantons are powerful enough to veto the collective state.

    If I’m remotely correct in what will follow this long, debt-funded voyage to find Fantasy Island, politics will become relevant only at a rather local level.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  136. @dc.sunsets

    If I’m remotely correct in what will follow this long, debt-funded voyage to find Fantasy Island, politics will become relevant only at a rather local level.

    Who gets the nukes? Who runs the central bank? Multiple central banks? No central banks? Who gets the satellites? Who gets the electronics? Who gets the aircraft carriers? Nuclear submarines?

    I say the young people should refuse to pay the government debt. Pop the asset bubbles with a 20 percent federal funds rate and remove 50 or 60 million foreigners.

    If Beppe frigging Grillo can explain central banking to a basketball stadium full of Italians, then some guy or gal ought to be able to explain the central banker scam to Americans. But you must be grimly determined to do it.

  137. Who gets the nukes? Who runs the central bank? Multiple central banks? No central banks? Who gets the satellites? Who gets the electronics? Who gets the aircraft carriers? Nuclear submarines?

    In an atomized world, who can afford the overhead to maintain them? As I said, the details may matter but conjecture about their status in the future is naught but a parlor game.

    I say the young people should refuse to pay the government debt. Pop the asset bubbles with a 20 percent federal funds rate and remove 50 or 60 million foreigners.

    If Beppe frigging Grillo can explain central banking to a basketball stadium full of Italians, then some guy or gal ought to be able to explain the central banker scam to Americans. But you must be grimly determined to do it.

    Everything in its time. Do you want to have “everything” occur all at once, such that we reach our ultimate end-state (only dead systems are static.) [I jest, of course. But notice that The Creature From Jekyll Island is not hard to find, yet remains obscure.]

    Recall what Tolstoy wrote: An army cannot resist an idea whose time has come.

    Then invert it and see the truth; An army cannot compel the adoption of an idea whose time has yet to arrive. Of course, that doesn’t stop armies of men (and women) throughout the ages from burning the time of their lives in a futile attempt to bring Time to heel.

    If the USA turns from Party-like-it’s-1999-on-the-MasterCard to “Holy crap, the cupboard is bare and I’m Mad As Hell About It,” most of those 60 million people who consider somewhere else “home” will likely return to it rather than fill the ranks of shock troops once their arrival is widely reframed as a literal invasion. If migrants think they’re only half-invited now, imagine when they’re told to pound sand if they show up to an ER? Free medical care will likely be the very first bene stripped from foreigners.

  138. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    I think neither of us played by AE’s rules. We were supposed to choose Warsaw over London because of London’s paucity of indigenes.

    Then I’d have been in real trouble if I’d pointed out that when London had lots of indigenous Englishmen it was still a squalid miserable city, full of depressed despairing apathetic indigenous Englishmen. Truly the worst of all the world’s great cities.

    As an Australian I have great compassion for those unlucky enough to live in England. You can’t get world-class pierogi in Australia but it still beats the hell out of England in every other way.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  139. dfordoom says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    You (and I) have absolutely no idea why one or another Stupid Idea gets traction and becomes fashionable for a time.

    Ideas don’t just magically become fashionable. They become fashionable because they’re energetically promoted. Changes in attitudes are not spontaneous. They’re a top-down thing. Public opinion doesn’t change organically. It gets changed.

    In the 19th century democracy and liberalism became fashionable because they were pushed very strenuously indeed by people with the power to influence opinion. Later on Marxism became fashionable in the West because it was pushed by the intellectual class. Antisemitism became fashionable in Nazi Germany (Germany having previously been arguably Europe’s least antisemitic country) because it was an idea that was promoted energetically and ruthlessly.

    Christianity fell out of favour because atheism was pushed very hard by the intellectual class, with support from the elites who saw it as an irritating obstacle. Identity politics became fashionable because of a concerted effort to promote it by a number of powerful groups.

    It’s true that public opinion could easily be changed again, but that would require a major effort by people with the power and the influence to mould public opinion. I don’t see that happening.

    Public opinion is whatever people are propagandised into believing. If for some obscure reason powerful elites decided they wanted to push absolutist monarchy then within a couple of decades public opinion would be strongly in favour of absolutist monarchy.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dc.sunsets
  140. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    If for some obscure reason powerful elites decided they wanted to push absolutist monarchy then within a couple of decades public opinion would be strongly in favour of absolutist monarchy.

    “Say it ain’t so, Joe”

  141. “That poll doesn’t seem to actually say that many people would accept a reduction in their standard of living in exchange for a reduction in immigration.”

    Most Canadians want less immigration even though most economists want more. Canadians may be skeptical of the economic arguments, and, like you, some may try to counter with economic arguments of their own, but in the final analysis their opposition to immigration is social and cultural.

    “My point was that economic arguments are easier to sell.”

    That’s the advice that Canadians have received from conservative politicans when we voice our concerns about immigration. Essentially, we have been told the following:

    1. Stick to economic arguments.

    2. Shut the f*** up about cultural and social concerns.

    3. And vote conservatives into public office.

    We have followed your advice for the past forty years. And it has failed us. Perhaps your advice might work in the future. Or perhaps not.

    In sum, it’s difficult to say in advance which line of argument will work. It’s easy to say that our arguments should be focused on the enemy’s weak points. Unfortunately, the enemy is likewise identifying his weak points … and preparing accordingly. I’m sure that a strong economic argument can be made against mass immigration, but most economists are now in the pay of globalist groups and organizations.

    In addition, the economic argument does involve cultural factors. Most economic activity takes place in high-trust societies, and such societies are a minority on this planet. If, through immigration, such societies disappear, the cost of all economic transactions will increase, and some transactions will no longer be cost-effective. We will have to check and double-check everything, not only what we buy but also the information we receive from the media.

    “So give an example of a political struggle won by simple honesty.”

    Most political struggles are won by honest people or by dishonest people who believe their lies. The average person in a high-trust society cannot lie convincingly. If I try to lie, my voice will change and I may even stutter. My facial expression will also change. It is unrealistic to ask John Doe and Joyce Doe to lie about their reasons for opposing immigration. A journalist would make them look like fools in less than a minute.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  142. RSDB says:
    @dfordoom

    I say this as a New Jerseyan in immediate proximity to decent-sized concentrations of Polish-Americans: just what the heck is so great about world-class pierogi?

    London to me is the London of The New Arabian Nights, of Shakespeare and Dickens. I have no desire to go there but the knowledge that it exists makes my life a little richer.

    Warsaw seems like a decent place; I think AE was talking about things like cost-of-living, where Warsaw comes out ahead.

  143. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Peter Frost

    And vote conservatives into public office.

    We have followed your advice for the past forty years. And it has failed us. Perhaps your advice might work in the future. Or perhaps not.

    I would never ever advise anyone to vote conservatives into public office. There is nothing more contemptible and dangerous than a conservative.

    I’m advancing leftist arguments against immigration (because leftist arguments against immigration so seldom get a hearing). I have zero interest in advancing conservative arguments against immigration. Given that conservatism is just a species of liberalism (conservatives are liberals who don’t like paying taxes) there are no conservative arguments against immigration.

    There are leftist arguments against immigration and there are reactionary arguments against immigration and there are traditionalist arguments against immigration and there are Marxist arguments against immigration. There might even be fascist arguments against immigration. But there are no conservative arguments against immigration.

    Most political struggles are won by honest people or by dishonest people who believe their lies.

    Unfortunately most political struggles seem to be won by dishonest people who believe their lies. People don’t want to hear the truth. They want to hear things that make them feel good. Successful politicians know how to make their lies sound not just convincing but attractive and reassuring and comforting. To beat them you need to find a way to package the truth so it seems more attractive than your opponent’s lies.

  144. Dissident says:
    @dfordoom

    The problem isn’t Jews, it’s liberals.

    I would add that while it is indisputably true that a disproportionately high number of Jews are liberals (and worse than mere liberals, are pro Invite/Invade/In-Hock (Steve Sailer’s coinage), pro sexual degeneracy, fomenters of anti-White sentiment, etc.), the fact nonetheless remains: Not all Jews are liberals and the overwhelming majority of liberals are not Jews.

    Additionally,

    If it really were true that 97 percent of the population is passively allowing itself to be jerked around by the other three percent, then the 97 percent would be the biggest fools in history, worthy of nothing but contempt. I personally don’t have that kind of contempt for my fellow gentiles.

    Have individual ethnocentric Jews given a helping push to white ethnomasochism when they’ve seen a chance? Undoubtedly they have; and we at VDARE.com have called them out by name, I hope fairly and politely, when that’s happened.

    The real heart of the matter, though, is widespread attitudes among Europeans at large, especially northwest Europeans and the societies shaped by them. That’s interesting to read and speculate about. Victimological whining about poor gullible gentiles being the helpless playthings of scheming Jews, is not interesting. Not to me, anyway.

    Above are excerpts from The Jew Thing, part of the transcript for the April 15th, 2016 edition of John Derbyshire’s Radio Derb.
    ~ ~ ~
    I haven’t been to London since the dark days of Thatcher. It struck me as being the most miserable squalid city I’d ever encountered, with an extraordinary atmosphere of despair and hopelessness.

    That certainly was the image Dickens painted. The one time I was in London was also during the Thatcher years. While I recall the trip fondly and have no recollection of observing any squalor or misery, I was but a mere lad of thirteen at the time and my experience was very much that of the pampered and sheltered tourist. Having attended a summer camp where the counselors were heavily British, and being a fan of the standard pop-music icons from that region of the world (Bowie, Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd, etc.), I was quite the Anglophile by the time I was eleven. Hearing what has become of that once-great nation has been disillusioning.
    _____________________________________________

    JackOH:
    I’m nowhere close to redneckish,

    Not even when you’ve been out in the sun too long?

    (1) Immigrants–of a sort–were brought into the colonies to work cotton, rice, tobacco, and other agriculture. What’s the cost-benefit on that gig again?

    It seems incredibly short-sighted of them, doesn’t it? But of course, hindsight is 20/20.

    (2) Immigrants did the stoop labor at our local steel mills and other industries. They also brought with them the Mafia and Hispanic gangs, the former just about strangling our city and county governments with corrupt practices for many decades, at least through the 1990s. Cost-benefit?

    Would be quite interesting to see that question discussed and debated amongst the AE commentariat.

  145. @dfordoom

    Pushing for a moratorium is the way to go. It allows people who want immigration reduction to project onto the person arguing for it whatever their angle is–religious, environmental, economic, racial/ethnic, etc. It’s relatively easy to defend rhetorically from every angle of attack and it aligns with whites’ need for apparent fairness.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  146. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dissident

    I was quite the Anglophile by the time I was eleven. Hearing what has become of that once-great nation has been disillusioning.

    To be honest I don’t think Britain was ever a great nation, unless you were one of the rich. It was a backward, poor depressing place for most people. A land with very narrow horizons. For the most part British greatness was a mixture of propaganda and fantasy.

    I used to be an anglophile but I recovered.

  147. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    Pushing for a moratorium is the way to go. It allows people who want immigration reduction to project onto the person arguing for it whatever their angle is–religious, environmental, economic, racial/ethnic, etc. It’s relatively easy to defend rhetorically from every angle of attack and it aligns with whites’ need for apparent fairness.

    Yep. Any other approach is bound to run into major difficulties. It’s not only easy to defend but it’s about the only approach that has a chance of uniting anti-immigrationists.

  148. @dfordoom

    Ideas don’t just magically become fashionable. They become fashionable because they’re energetically promoted.

    Can you cite a single example where post hoc fallacy doesn’t inform your conclusion?

    Do you really think that a corporation can, with enough spending, significantly alter the demand curve higher for a product that is simply not desirable?

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. To me, the marching band chooses the parade route, and those who march at its head, waving the baton, are just clowns who claim to steer. When the band changes course, the clowns scramble to jump in front again, wildly waving their batons again.

    History is a tapestry of people high and low being surprised by “what happened.” And as Hoppe observes, history is compatible with multiple, mutually contradictory theories, (some of which are patently absurd, yet often quite popular.)

    Science can only answer answerable questions. The really interesting ones, however, are unanswerable (largely because controlled experiments are impossible.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Dissident
  149. JackOH says:
    @Dissident

    Where’ve you been, Dissident? Noting that corporations enjoy the benefits of increased immigration while the costs tend to be borne by society is something of a commonplace on these pages. I think it was Borjas who used that “they wanted workers, what they got were people” line. That includes both up and down sides.

    The Mob’s bug men—sellers of illegal Mob-run lottery tickets—enjoyed practical immunity at the steel mill where my Dad worked as an electrician. You weren’t forced to buy a ticket, but you risked retaliation if you didn’t. My Dad had supervisory responsibility over a small crew, and didn’t want to risk a slowdown or other shirking. He played ball, and hated that he had to pay tribute to the Mob. (The ticket price was very small, and he did win at least once.)

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  150. @JackOH

    The difference between the mob and a political system: the mobster doesn’t spend as much time telling you how much he’s helping you while taking your money.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  151. dfordoom says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    Do you really think that a corporation can, with enough spending, significantly alter the demand curve higher for a product that is simply not desirable?

    With actual products it’s different. If you invent a new kind of microwave oven that is significantly inferior to the current models then making that product desirable will be an uphill battle.

    But with ideologies the image is the product. There are no objective standards for judging ideologies. If an ideology makes you feel good and it sounds fairer and more just and more up-to-date and cooler then it will sell. You’re selling the feeling, not the product. You can always sell goodfeelz.

    Liberals and globalists and SJWs always sell their new ideological positions on the basis that they’re packed to overflowing with goodfeelz. Their opponents always manage to make their own ideological positions sound nasty and old-fashioned and uncool.

    It’s all marketing.

  152. @Dissident

    Not all Jews are liberals

    True enough.

    Some Jews are neoconservative, which is much, much worse.

  153. @JackOH

    All the economic arguments used in favor of cheap labor via immigration work equally well as arguments in favor of slavery.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @JackOH
  154. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    All the economic arguments used in favor of cheap labor via immigration work equally well as arguments in favor of slavery.

    It’s a source of great regret to both big business and small businessmen that slavery is no longer an option. Maybe they could repackage the idea as an essential labour market reform.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  155. Dissident says:
    @dc.sunsets

    [dfordoom:] Ideas don’t just magically become fashionable. They become fashionable because they’re energetically promoted.

    Can you cite a single example where post hoc fallacy doesn’t inform your conclusion?

    Let’s take the dramatic acceleration that we have witnessed over the past ten-twenty years in the normalization, promotion and now exaltation not only of homosexuality, per se, but also of the specific act of buggery (i.e. anal penetration, even among heterosexuals), as well as of “transgenderism”/ gender-bending, etc.

    Less than twenty years ago in the United States of America, anti-sodomy laws were still on the books in many states. Openly homosexual individuals were still barred from military service. The Boy Scouts of America, one of the most respected organizations in the country, still explicitly excluded homosexuals from membership (both as scouts as well as leaders). No mainstream Presidential candidate supported homosexual marriage.

    Anyone who would have claimed that there was or even could be any such thing as a “female penis”, or a man being able to menstruate or give birth, would have been summarily written-off as a raving lunatic. As would anyone who would have predicted that a credentialed medical or psychiatric authority could– without completely destroying both his career as well as his credibility– do something such as sanction the administering of puberty-blockers to an objectively unambiguously male and physically healthy seven-year-old boy.

    How would you account for the complete reversal, in each and every case I cited above, that we have witnessed in the span of less than two decades?

    [MORE]

    Do you think attitudes among the population-at-large actually changed so radically, organically? That they were not manipulated by powerful interests? Are you not aware of the extensive, carefully- and calculatingly-planned and executed propaganda campaigns that have preceded and coincided with every one of these drastic changes in attitude and policy? [1]

    Note, as well, that when it comes to sensitive and politically-charged topics, people often publicly take positions and postures, including when being polled, that are at odds with how they truly think and feel concerning the matter. I could cite examples in which I have observed, first-hand, this discrepancy exhibited by people I know. The forces of social and political pressure are formidable and should not be overlooked or underestimated.

    Do you really think that a corporation can, with enough spending, significantly alter the demand curve higher for a product that is simply not desirable?

    Do you really doubt the immense influence that advertising and promotion–both in its overt as well as its many more subtle and camouflaged forms– has upon the public?

    Let me tell you a story that should serve to illustrate the point-at-hand. Decades ago, while still in my early teen years, I arrived at a sobering realization when comparing the much-vaunted Polo by Ralph Lauren polo shirts with the equivalent product sold by L.L. Bean and Lands’ End: That the latter–i.e., the less-glamorous and considerably less-expensive mail-order offerings– were actually considerably better-constructed than the vastly overpriced vanity option. Thus, in choosing the “designer” product, one was not merely paying a hefty premium for the prestige of the name on the label and the signature insignia, but also doing so at the cost of getting a product of considerably inferior quality.

    And yet, despite that knowledge (which I had observed first-hand), and despite the embarrassing knowledge that the very name “Ralph Lauren”, along with the patrician imagery surrounding the brand, amounted-to little more than a mirage of pretense, aspiration, and slick marketing– from someone who had been born (((Ralph Rueben Lifshitz)))…I still desired and sought the rip-off vanity product. Why? I was susceptible, in my typically youthful foolishness and vanity, to the enticing marketing and the desire to flaunt symbols of status and prestige among my peers. (I recall the vivid, attractive imagery in the Ralph Lauren commercials, and how taken I was with the glamor and grandeur of the Rhinelander mansion flagship store on Manhattan’s Madison Avenue.)

    The power of marketing, of image, of the desire for social status and attention, are all formidable and not to be overlooked or underestimated.

    ADDENDUM:
    [1] If you doubt or would dispute any of these claims that I have made, I would urge you to take some time perusing sites such as AMERICANS FOR TRUTH About Homosexuality (.com) and Mass Resistance (.org). Also instructive and useful, especially to those who may find themselves directly affected by such matters– whether personally or with regard to someone they know:

    4thWaveNow
    A community of parents & others questioning the medicalization of gender-atypical youth
    I learned of this site thanks to a comment that was posted in a Steve Sailer thread a few years back. Note that the people who post at 4th Wave Now are far from the rabid, reactionary, unrepentent homophobic, cis-hetero-sexist-centric type that I am.

    – The Man2Man Alliance (GRAPHIC CONTENT)
    Presents a point-of-view that while unapologetically pro-homoerotic, is no less emphatically anti-buggery, anti-promiscuity, and anti-effeminante-acting and other stereotypically obnoxious and degenerate Gay antics and cultural aspects. Promotes FROT as a safe, egalitarian, dignified alternative to buggery. I do not believe I have as yet come across condemnations of buggery as comprehensive, vehement and unapolgetic as those that can be found on the Man2Man Alliance site.

    • Replies: @iffen
  156. JackOH says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Yep, AE.

    I don’t follow immigration issues much, but the strange case of the ICE raid at the meatpacking plant south of me has me baffled. (My comment #60 above.) The strangeness was the hound that didn’t bark; no one publicly asked how the Central American Indians got there. There were legal Indian workers there, too, but no politician offered to publicly come to their defense.

    I dislike rhetorical vacuums, when one would expect reasonable questions to be posed, and, maybe reasonable explanations to be offered. Plus, inferring arguments from silence can be mischievous.

  157. JackOH says:
    @dc.sunsets

    dc., LOL, good one! You mean there’s a difference?!

    In the early 1990s, there was a turnover in Mob leadership here as a result of the assassination of the established guy. The new boss was brutal. He collected hard on gambling debts. One young guy a few blocks from me was hounded so badly he offed himself.

    Around the same time, Big Pharma rigged the FDA approval process for new drugs to be user-funded rather than solely government-funded. Yep, Purdue, Oxycontin, and what are we up to now, low six figures for people offing themselves?

  158. Anonymous[379] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    Well, you can believe what you wish, but in practice such views are held both by fringe amd a rather low-IQ one at that(as mentioned by the blogger Anatoly Karlin). The consequences of it is that it is very, very, very much not only a losing horse but an embarrassingly stupid one that flops and fails to function.

  159. iffen says:
    @Dissident

    The power of marketing, of image, of the desire for social status and attention, are all formidable and not to be overlooked or underestimated.

    I think that it takes two sides of the coin. The general public was “ready” to stop the persecution of homosexuals (don’t ask, don’t tell had a lot of support) and there was an all-out campaign for acceptance by homosexuals and their allies.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  160. @dfordoom

    It’s a source of great regret to both big business and small businessmen that slavery is no longer an option.

    No, really it isn’t.  Above some point in skill and brainpower, you cannot force people to be productive.  The Soviet Union found this out the hard way.  It put the entire population under military discipline as a substitute for wages, which was not nearly so productive as people using their own intelligence and initiative.

    Besides, the maintenance costs of slaves are horrendous.

    Edit:  Funny, (((the tribe))) has no problem with slavery….

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  161. Dissident says:
    @Sean

    Schmitt is certainly a good antidote to this customary excess: for Schmitt, the political begins only where the posturing over right and wrong ends. The enemy is declared, but the enemy is only to be defeated rather than dehumanized and annihilated.

    The reference to Schmitt in the passage you quoted would appear to be to Carl Schmitt. I have taken the liberty of adding emphasis to the final portions of both the excerpt that I reproduced above from the text you had quoted, as well as the opening paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Schmitt that I have just linked-to above. I did this to highlight the obvious and striking irony found in the juxtaposition of the two respective passages.

    Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) was a conservative German legal, constitutional, and political theorist. Schmitt is often considered to be one of the most important critics of liberalism, parliamentary democracy, and liberal cosmopolitanism. But the value and significance of Schmitt’s work is subject to controversy, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with National Socialism.

    I feel remiss in waiting until this late into this thread to mention that Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political (1932) was the featured book that was read and discussed on Luke Ford’s* YouTube stream between August 13th and September 24th. The mp3 audio recording of the August 13th stream can be found here. From that page (at SoundCloud) one can access the full audio archives of Ford’s stream.

    Ford’s co-host, the redoubtable Kevin Michael Grace, has repeatedly made a statement that I recall as sounding remarkably similar to the words of dfordoom that this thread is built-upon. Frustratingly, I am unable to recall Grace’s words even well enough to do justice in paraphrasing them (and I’d have to search through many hours of recordings in order to try to find the exact portion I need.) The essence of his claim, as best as I can recall, was something along the lines of that in the West since World War II, politics– as the word would normally be understood– has effectively been deemed unacceptable.

    (*I feel compelled to mention that I unfortunately have heard Luke Ford make a number of egregiously inaccurate and misleading statements concerning Judaism. Special caution is advised.)

    [MORE]

    Incidentally, I will take this opportunity to respond to dfordoom’s comment that “Videos/podcasts seem to me to be useless time sinks.” by pointing-out a critical distinction in this regard between video and audio. Video forces one to remain a captive, passive viewer. Audio, in sharp contradistinction, offers the distinct advantage of allowing one to listen to content of interest and value while at the same time engaging in any number of different activities.

    Additionally, in forcing one to conjure a great deal of imagery within one’s own mind, audio-only content also exercises one’s mind and imagination in ways that visual imagery does not. (Stan Freberg did a great routine on how radio “stretches the imagination”.) In addition to archived Luke Ford shows and John Derbyshire’s Radio Derb (as well as various religious lectures, homilies and discussions), I have also enjoyed all kinds of vintage programming from radio’s Golden Age, as well as some truly delightful readings of books that are in the public domain from Librivox.

  162. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    The general public was “ready” to stop the persecution of homosexuals

    They were “ready” after decades of relentless propaganda. The propaganda campaign was in full swing by the early 60s. That’s when Hollywood started making pro-homosexual movies such as The Children’s Hour). The British film industry made its first major studio pro-homosexual movie in 1961 (Victim).

    After decades of brainwashing most people will be “ready” for anything. The homosexual thing was entirely a top-down phenomenon, entirely driven by the media and the intellectual class. After more than half a century of being continuously bludgeoned the general public was told it was “ready” to accept homosexuality.

    When don’t ask, don’t tell was instituted in 1994 the propaganda war had already been relentlessly waged for more than thirty years.

    Changes in social attitudes are always manufactured. Always. When someone tells you that laws have to change to keep up with changes in public opinion and “community standards” that person is always lying. The public doesn’t change its opinions. It has its opinions changed for it.

    Winston Smith was “ready” to love Big Brother as well.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Feryl
  163. Dissident says:
    @res

    I wonder if Borjas’ making his blog private had anything to do with this:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/splcs-latest-shocker-stephen-miller-cited-harvard-researchers/
    ———–
    @ iffen:
    1.) I would not characterize any of the examples I cited from 20 years ago as “persecution”
    2.) As for real /persecution/, such as imprisoning, etc., it’s been a LONG time since more than a fringe would support anything like that.
    3.) I cannot imagine that you would argue that anywhere near a majority would support the extreme “trans” insanity examples I cited (“female penis”; man can menstruate, give birth; puberty blockers to 7-yr old boy)

    • Replies: @iffen
  164. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mr. Rational

    No, really it isn’t. Above some point in skill and brainpower, you cannot force people to be productive.

    There are lots of jobs that don’t require skill and brainpower. And you’d be surprised how productive you can be when you have an overseer with a whip to keep you productive.

    Employers, when they can get away with it, have always favoured either slave labour or labourers so downtrodden they might as well be slaves. You know, child labour in factories and coal mines in the 19th century, that sort of thing. Those were the good old days of capitalism. You think modern capitalists would have any compunction about doing that if they thought they could get away with it? Think again. Lots of small businessmen would be delighted by the prospect.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    , @Feryl
  165. iffen says:
    @Dissident

    2.) As for real /persecution/, such as imprisoning, etc., it’s been a LONG time since more than a fringe would support anything like that.

    That’s my argument.

    3.) I cannot imagine that you would argue that anywhere near a majority would support the extreme “trans” insanity examples I cited (“female penis”; man can menstruate, give birth; puberty blockers to 7-yr old boy)

    This is not my argumet.

  166. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    Changes in social attitudes are always manufactured. Always.

    No it is not.

    You are just overwhelmed by the ubiquitous presence of modern media. There was “public opinion” when most of the populace was illiterate.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  167. JackOH says:
    @dfordoom

    dfordoom, there is a “subordination preference” among employers, at least as I’ve experienced it, observed it, and read about it. I don’t want to make too much of the idea; don’t have any theory.

    I’ve seen the “subordination preference” in commissioned sales work. Star performers who routinely beat sales goals come to be regarded with resentment by sales managers who no longer are able to goad those salesmen as easily as lesser performers.

    I’ll guess that even slaves and serfs were subject to judgment by “subordination preference”. The energetic and talented but “uppity” slave would, at least if I’m more or less correct, be less regarded than the less talented but more openly deferential slave.

    I guess one “good” response to the “uppity” star performer is manumission and sharecropping (for slaves), increased responsibility and pay and ownership participation for others, etc.

    But, there are a lot of talented, well-educated folks who need jobs, and pretty much have to put up with bad treatment.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
  168. res says:
    @Mr. Rational

    I did not know the titles of the particular posts. Which was why I asked. It was much easier for someone who had the links in hand to tell me what they were (from when the blog was public) than for me to try to guess which two posts were meant by searching about in the archive version of his blog.

    If asking someone to do something which would be easy for them but hard for me is lazy… Then I guess I am lazy.

    I’m a bit mystified at getting what seems like a hostile response to a simple “Thanks!”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  169. @res

    On average the UR commentariat scores, I would imagine, very low on agreeableness.

    • Replies: @iffen
  170. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    You are just overwhelmed by the ubiquitous presence of modern media. There was “public opinion” when most of the populace was illiterate.

    When most of the populace was illiterate they had no opinions on any subjects that didn’t concern them personally. If you had asked an illiterate French peasant in the 18th century whether the political system of the ancien regime needed reforming you’d have received a blank look. If you had asked an illiterate English peasant in the 17th century whether Parliament or the King should be supreme you’d have received a blank look.

    On moral issues public opinion was what the Church told the public its opinion was.

  171. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    You are just overwhelmed by the ubiquitous presence of modern media. There was “public opinion” when most of the populace was illiterate.

    To give an example of what I’m talking about. In about 1530 the overwhelming majority of the English population was comprised of good loyal Catholics who believed that the Pope was the ultimate authority on all spiritual and moral issues. A hundred years later a very large majority of the English population was comprised of rabid Catholic-haters who thought the Pope was the Antichrist.

    How can we explain this dramatic change in attitude? Were the English “ready” to jettison Catholicism? Hardly. They jettisoned Catholicism because the government made it very plain to them that they had no choice.

  172. iffen says:
    @JackOH

    I guess one “good” response to the “uppity” star performer is manumission and sharecropping (for slaves)

    One of the main reason sharecropping developed and came to dominate the agricultural economy in the South was that former slaves preferred the arrangement over wage labor.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  173. JackOH says:
    @iffen

    iffen, thanks. I sort of follow dfordoom’s comments, and, I guess, wanted to add something.

    When I was a whiz salesman (yeah, whoop-de-do) I started to book weeks of extraordinary sales onto slower weeks so as not to draw the unfavorable attention of the majority owner, who’d be tempted, I knew, to cut my commission. I discovered that bait-and-dump was common practice; lure the star performers with high commissions, dump ’em when they’ve established a clientele or territory. Make of that what you will.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
  174. iffen says:
    @JackOH

    Make of that what you will.

    Dog-eat-dog crab bucket ethos. Capitalism has some redeeming facets, but there are many negatives.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  175. iffen says:
    @JackOH

    Alexsei Grigoryevich Stakhanov (Russian: Алексе́й Григо́рьевич Стаха́нов, IPA: [staˈxanəf]; 3 January 1906 – 5 November 1977) was a Russian Soviet miner, Hero of Socialist Labor (1970), and a member of the CPSU (1936). He became a celebrity in 1935 as part of what became known as the Stakhanovite movement – a campaign intended to increase worker productivity and to demonstrate the superiority of the socialist economic system.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Stakhanov

    You just had the misfortune of not being in the USSR. You could have had movement named for you. 🙂

  176. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    Most labor reforms have been driven by moralistic “crusades” to liberate a particular “disadvantaged” group (be it low IQ proles who have no options, or slaves, or children, or a particular ethnic group etc.). It’s generally been Western Europeans* behind most of these movements (in other parts of the world, people care primarily about their families and everyone else can take a hike, with only a handful of exceptions like Japan which is probably the all-time leader in maintaining assibyia)

    *Ironically, “liberation” theology originates among the Abrahamic religions and their shared cultural influences. But the Middle East/North Africa/Western Asia are too ethnically diverse to have been able to accomplish what the relatively homogenous (prior to 1990) region of Western Europe has been able to do since it adopted Christianity. Eastern Europe has historically been too fraught with the threat of invasion (from various Eurasian tribes) to become as idealistic as Western Europe. And it should be noted that the most powerful and earnest “liberators” in human history were English Puritans who were less threatened with invasion than just about anyone else. Compare the English Puritans** to the Mediterranean conquistadors who have overseen a borderline feudal caste system organized around economic and ethnic privilege in the Latin New World. The Anglos have done more to advance the cause of both economic and racial “justice” than any other ethnic group in world history.

    **After Anglo settlement of America, the arrogant moralizing of the Puritans soon got on the nerves of the Cavaliers who often made use of slaves in the sweltering South. The Celtic Scots-Irish who dominated the upland South and Appalachia (where plantations were mostly absent) were basically ornery bystanders (with West Virginia opting to become an altogether different state) to a spectacular collision between two equally head-strong foes, the Puritans and the Cavaliers, similar in stubbornness but much different in values with the Puritans being equality enforcers and Cavaliers being feudalist. The Civil War was essentially a continuation of the ethnic war between two Brit tribes, the Puritans and the Cavaliers.

    It would seem that the current era is essentially Puritan liberation being applied (excessively so) to Ashkenazi Jews. The thing is, Jews historically were “disadvantaged” by social and legal restrictions on their behavior and movement. Jews, unlike children, or diaspora blacks, or assembly line workers with middling IQs, were not thrust into low-paid or no paid/dangerous/demeaning work due to a lack of intellectual ability or overall refinement (do the research; the serf class invariably is the one deemed to be lacking in intelligence; smart people don’t accept back breaking and poorly rewarded work, and thus the high caste is generally smarter and often lighter skinned than the brutes doing the heavy lifting this is the pattern seen throughout the world unless you are in a 100% homogeneous country ). Thus the Isteve joke that modern Ashkenazi Jews can’t get over their great grandparents being denied entry to a WASPy country club in early 20th century Los Angeles. Prior to 1945 WASPs were in fact rather dismissive of Jews. That all changed with holocaust guilt tripping.

  177. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    Most people didn’t give a rat’s ass about gays before the AIDS epidemic (which for some became a crusade to “liberate” gays from their historically marginal position). At which point many people seem to either get much more pro-gay or much more anti-gay. And then communism collapsed in the 1990’s, as did the investment that many people put into maintenance of tradition. So around 1993 surveys recorded a rise in pro-gay sentiment across the populace. So that’s basically three eras:

    1)pre-1980 (children in the New Deal era were shown edu. films depicting gay men as creepy old predators looking for kids to exploit)

    2)1981-1992

    3)post-1993

    Now obviously, there was a variety of viewpoints before the 80’s, as well as after 1993. However, it’s fair to say that most people just didn’t give gay issues that much thought before 1981, other than being modestly oppositional to gay men in particular. Whereas after 1981 the attention given to gays has been higher than at any time in history. In the 80’s and early 90’s, worries about AIDS induced “homophobia” made some people more pro-gay. Than after 1993, everybody got much more pro-gay. One would think that if the AIDS epidemic had hit in the New Deal era, it would’ve resulted in quarantines (remember, public health was paramount at this time) and a durable hostility toward gay men. But nope, in the Reagan and especially Clinton era the whole thing got Oprah-fied, turned into a sympathy cause for decadent perverts. Once the New Gilded age kicked off in the mid-late 90’s, you couldn’t even be negative toward gays anymore. So what exactly are we “allowed” to say or do these days, anyhow? Tricky Dick Nixon in the early 70’s told his cabinet that the rise of homosexuals is invariably linked to the decline of institutions. Hmmmm. There were campaigns in the 1940’s and 50’s to root out gays in the state Department and other such places, on the grounds that they were easily corrupted and blackmailed.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  178. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    In the 80’s and early 90’s, worries about AIDS induced “homophobia” made some people more pro-gay.

    They became more pro-gay as the result of one of the most intensive propaganda campaigns in history. The initial reaction to AIDS was that it was what you’d expect to happen given the incredibly risky lifestyle of male homosexuals. But the propaganda kicked into high gear immediately.

    People at UR go on about Jewish influence but there has never in history been a more ruthless or more successful lobby group than homosexuals. They do not tolerate any dissent at all. The extent of homosexual influence in the media and in the entertainment industry, in academia, in the bureaucracy and in government is staggering. They hold immense power. And they use it with breathtaking ruthlessness.

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @Dissident
  179. JackOH says:
    @iffen

    “Capitalism has some redeeming facets, but there are many negatives.”

    Yep.

    I’d like to believe the good society would find a way to modulate the avarice built into capitalism, the corruption and aggrandizement built into governance, and, well, you name it.

    I think my commenting history reflects my thinking that some sort of restoration of traditionalist-conservative values would be a good thing for America and Americans. The place to start, in my opinion, would be the up-ending of affirmative action. That’ll be a tough slog persuading women and Blacks that those preferences they receive by windbaggy legislation are counter-productive, but I think we’ll somehow have to try.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  180. iffen says:
    @JackOH

    ending of affirmative action

    Yes, I think that there was a place for it in the 60’s and in very specific instances, but the justification has long passed. It has morphed into a hard quota expectation without regard to merit. And it was changed into a quota system without any discussion or justification. I can actually understand how from one perspective a quota system could be viewed as fair, but it was never justified as such.

  181. Dissident says:
    @dfordoom

    there has never in history been a more ruthless or more successful lobby group than homosexuals. They do not tolerate any dissent at all. The extent of homosexual influence in the media and in the entertainment industry, in academia, in the bureaucracy and in government is staggering. They hold immense power. And they use it with breathtaking ruthlessness.

    Yes, that is all very much true. And, as with other special interest lobbies, shrewd, deceptive manipulation and obfuscation has been critical to the incredible success that The Gay lobby has achieved in upending and completely inverting attitudes and policy. What has perhaps been the Gay lobby’s single most effective strategy/tactic/approach has been their dogmatic insistence that homosexuality is, in all cases and without exception, both innate as well as immutable; along with the conflation both of involuntary feelings with voluntary behavior, as well of male homosexuality, per se with the specific act of buggery (and even recklessly promiscuous buggery).

    For the reality is that critical as all the aforementioned distinctions are, relatively few people appreciate or have even give much thought to them, let alone possess the ability to articulate them clearly and effectively. Anyone who does attempt to make such distinctions or who otherwise challenges, questions or opposes the doctrinal assertions, agenda, or credibility of the Gay lobby is summarily dismissed, a priori, as nothing more than a vicious, raving homophobe; as one so cruel and callous as to hate and condemn people merely for how they were born.

    Moreover, even to fully accept all of the assertions I have outlined above, and to fully support allowing men to bugger each other to death, are no longer enough. We are well past the point that the demands of the Gay lobby (and, by extension, of the increasingly Woke enforced orthodoxy) have been limited to those of mere tolerance. Above I enumerated what are three basic, fundamental tenets of Gay dogma. Complementary to (and even flowing from/dependent upon) them is a fourth: That homosexuality is fully equivalent to and no less wholesome than heterosexuality. Nothing short of full, affirmative assent to that doctrinaire, manifestly untrue assertion is any longer acceptable.

    (And even that is not always enough. Veteran Canadian journalist and political/social/cultural commentator Kevin Michael Grace has reported the case of a prominent political figure in Canada being censured and perhaps even ousted by his own party merely for not attending a Gay Pride event.)

    The great irony in all this is that the ones who are most harmed by the Gay lobby are precisely the ones whose interests it claims to be advancing.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Dissident
    , @dfordoom
  182. iffen says:
    @Dissident

    single most effective strategy/tactic/approach has been their dogmatic insistence

    This is the ticket to success for most isms.

  183. dfordoom says: • Website
    @JackOH

    The place to start, in my opinion, would be the up-ending of affirmative action. That’ll be a tough slog persuading women and Blacks that those preferences they receive by windbaggy legislation are counter-productive, but I think we’ll somehow have to try.

    The danger of eliminating affirmative action is that you’ll end up with even greater economic inequality than you have now and the economic inequality will be more and more concentrated in certain racial/ethnic groups. That is likely to lead to much more extreme political and social instability.

    You can’t really believe in meritocracy and the level playing field idea unless you’re a committed Blank Slatist.

    If you believe in HBD then logically you have to believe that the government will have to intervene in various ways to prevent certain racial/ethnic from becoming a permanent politically and socially dangerous underclass.

    The irony, which is lost on most of the dissident right, is that HBD combined with meritocracy and free markets is a recipe for social/political disaster. HBD, if true, will require a fair degree of socialism.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Audacious Epigone
  184. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dissident

    What has perhaps been the Gay lobby’s single most effective strategy/tactic/approach has been their dogmatic insistence that homosexuality is, in all cases and without exception, both innate as well as immutable; along with the conflation both of involuntary feelings with voluntary behavior.

    And they provide zero scientific evidence to back up these assertions but insist that they are totally scientific.

    Complementary to (and even flowing from/dependent upon) them is a fourth: That homosexuality is fully equivalent to and no less wholesome than heterosexuality.

    Having won complete victory on that fourth count they have now moved on to a fifth – that homosexuality is in every way superior to heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is uncool and boring and hopelessly outdated and worst of all it is inherently oppressive. Heterosexuality is at best to be grudgingly tolerated but heterosexuals are not to be permitted to promote their lifestyle. Open displays of heterosexuality are increasingly frowned upon.

    • Replies: @Dissident
  185. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    You can’t really believe in meritocracy and the level playing field idea unless you’re a committed Blank Slatist.

    Not true.

    HBD, if true, will require a fair degree of socialism.

    True.

    The simple solution is to help all the less capable without regard to race.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Dissident
  186. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    HBD, if true, will require a fair degree of socialism.

    True.

    The simple solution is to help all the less capable without regard to race.

    That’s my favoured solution as well.

    But in practice (if you assume that HBD is true) that will mean that a disproportionate amount of the help will and should go to particular races/ethnicities. That will enrage alt-righters, with their knee-jerk hatred for both blacks and socialism.

    It amuses me enormously that hardly anyone on the dissident right understands that HBD will lead to socialism.

  187. Dissident says:
    @dfordoom

    Having won complete victory on that fourth count they have now moved on to a fifth – that homosexuality is in every way superior to heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is uncool and boring and hopelessly outdated and worst of all it is inherently oppressive. Heterosexuality is at best to be grudgingly tolerated but heterosexuals are not to be permitted to promote their lifestyle.

    Kevin Michael Grace has said to expect, if it hasn’t started happening already, that the next thing will be the challenge, “But how could you know…unless you’ve tried it…”.

    As an addendum to my previous comments and concerning the matters I have addressed therein, I present below a concise summary of some additional essential points. This is in large part adapted and distilled from much of the past writings of mine that I linked-to above.

    – Buggery (anal penetration) and other forms of typical male homosexual behavior are inordinately disease-promoting and, consequently, inordinately costly to society.

    – All nations should, at a bare minimum, follow the example of Russia in using the Law to protect minors from pernicious “LGBTQ” propaganda and proselytization* efforts.

    – This needs to be coupled with a proactive humane, compassionate, comprehensive prescriptive response to those with homosexual proclivities.

    [MORE]
    The following three options, in order of preference, should be strongly encouraged: (1) attempt to re-orient toward normative heterosexuality**; (2) celibacy; (3) Restrict sexual activity to non-penetrative, non-brutal forms (such as FROT and intercrural) that are far safer than buggery.

    – None of the positions I have articulated above or elsewhere are contradicted or compromised by what is a fact that I have not only not attempted to hide or deny, but have actually made fairly obvious (at times even explicitly) in a number of comments I have posted here at TUR: My own fascination with the magic of adolescent boys. (Who couldn’t be?) This affinity, while having an undeniable erotic element, is much more than that. It is both far more complex as well as far more wholesome than any mere carnal lust ever could be. Moreover, any such desire, even at the rawest level, is emphatically not to bugger, sodomize or in any other way desecrate, defile, corrupt or emasculate such precious creatures (who could?) but to celebrate them; to see them frolic, delight, and thrive, in all their natural glory, as boys.

    *Proselytization/recruitment: Steering toward homo those whose sexuality is still fluid; convincing young males with homosexual proclivities that only through submitting themselves to being buggered will they be accepted and fulfilled, and that said act is entirely natural for them– while at the same time assuring them that the experience will become one of pure, ultimate ecstasy only through repeated practice (and perhaps anesthetizing drugs).

    **While being fully honest about that such an endeavor will not be easy and has no guarantee of success.

  188. Dissident says:
    @iffen

    The simple solution is to help all the less capable without regard to race.

    I would certainly agree that doing this is part of what makes a society civilized. I can even see an argument for some level of quotas in service toward an ideal of more proportionate representation across sectors for different segments of the population– but never at the expense of standards, at least not when they are at all critical. Lowering standards ultimately harms and puts at risk everyone.[1]

    I would say that any such quotas should favor native-born citizens over foreigners[2]. and would have to address Jewish overepresentation.

    ADDITIONS:
    [1] As I wrote in a fairly recent iSteve comment,

    Do (even) the recipients of Affirmative Action truly benefit from it, beyond the obvious, immediate, penny-wise/pound-foolish benefits? For example, aren’t Blacks and Hispanics actually more likely to be dependent upon Affirmative Action hires than most Whites? Are minorities somehow immune from the dangers posed by under-qualified physicians, nurses, firefighters, police, etc.?

    Then, of course, there is also the problem that lowering standards for any given group can only cause those members of the group that are fully-qualified and achieved what they did on merit: that even they will inevitably be viewed with suspicion and skepticism.

    [2] Incidentally, I absolutely support a near-total immigration moratorium. The plan that John Derbyshire had suggested sounded good to me.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  189. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dissident

    I would certainly agree that doing this is part of what makes a society civilized. I can even see an argument for some level of quotas in service toward an ideal of more proportionate representation across sectors for different segments of the population– but never at the expense of standards, at least not when they are at all critical.

    I’d agree with that, but let’s be honest – in most areas standards don’t matter very much. Standards do matter very much when it comes to cardiac surgeons and structural engineers and nuclear physicists. They really don’t matter at all when it comes to sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists or economists – they’re all pseudosciences anyway. And when it comes to the humanities there’s no such thing as objective standards anyway.

    Standards don’t matter when it comes to lawyers. We don’t need smart lawyers, we need honest lawyers, and affirmative action is not going to make any difference. Standards don’t matter when it comes to low-level bureaucrats. Or even high-level bureaucrats. Or accountants. Or cops. Or bankers. Again honesty is more important than competence. It could even be argued that smart bankers and lawyers are more of a menace than dumb ones.

    What we do need to do is to improve the levels of honesty but I have no idea how that could be achieved.

    There are lots of fields in which no great harm is going to be done by favouring some groups that require some help.

  190. @dfordoom

    HBD, if true, will require a fair degree of socialism.

    Indeed. While the conventional wisdom among biological realists is that the rapid advances in genetics taking place now will be increasingly condemned (when not outright ignored) by the left, I suspect we will see a rabid embracing of genetic realities by the left, especially if CRISPR2.0 lives up to the expectations. No, people aren’t equal now–but it might be possible to make them so in the future.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS