The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Forum
A Republican Intellectual Explains Why the Republican Party Is Going to Die
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

CLEVELAND — Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican. A health care wonk and editor at Forbes, he has worked for three Republican presidential hopefuls — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio. Much of his adult life has been dedicated to advancing the Republican Party and conservative ideals.

But when I caught up with Roy at a bar just outside the Republican convention, he said something I’ve never heard from an establishment conservative before: The Grand Old Party is going to die.

“I don’t think the Republican Party and the conservative movement are capable of reforming themselves in an incremental and gradual way,” he said. “There’s going to be a disruption.”

Roy isn’t happy about this: He believes it means the Democrats will dominate national American politics for some time. But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.

“Until the conservative movement can stand up and live by that principle, it will not have the moral authority to lead the country,” he told me.

This is a standard assessment among liberals, but it is frankly shocking to hear from a prominent conservative thinker. Our conversation had the air of a confessional: of Roy admitting that he and his intellectual comrades had gone wrong, had failed, had sinned.

 
    []
  1. More establishment anti-Trump clickbait at Vox = dog bites man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /forum/a-republican-intellectual-explains-why-the-republican-party-is-going-to-die/#comment-1509047
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican.

    No, he is not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Judging by the name, we'd be just fine without him in our country in the first place. Fuck Avik Roy.

    We love America and our traditional way of life, and we don't care if you are offended that more people are waking up to the increasing violence, intimidation, cruelty, and hatred that Africans and their ilk inflict on white and Asian americans every day.

    The Republican Party may deserve to die. We and our children don't.

    Get out, Avik, and let real Americans and real men -- the white European-American historic core of this country and our friends and allies of other backgrounds (sometimes spouses of other backgrounds) -- defend our families and borders and restore our common language, Western culture, and prosperity.
    , @Joe Walker
    It would probably be more correct to describe him as a Neocon's Neocon.
    , @Dr. X

    Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican.
     
    Perhaps he'd be happier in Likud.
  3. Jason Liu says:

    But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.

    See, what the hell is this? The American right lives in opposite land. Right-wing, by definition, is the ideological belief in social inequality. If a government is not nationalistic, it cannot be considered legitimate and therefore does not have the mandate to rule. If everyone was equal the nation can no longer be defined as a nation, and would become merely a commune.

    There’s nothing wrong with intellectualism. Western nations need right-wing intellectualism to counter centuries of left-wing intellectualism. The problem is that the American right does not want to speak from the core of right wing thought, and so they’ve spent like 50 years standing on side issues like small government or whatever. Do they realize that the right should seek out bigotry, not run from it? If the left isn’t constantly calling you a racist sexist or whatever, you’re not doing it right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    Agree. The political right has morphed into an ideology of liberalism with small government versus the leftist liberalism with big government. What is needed are parties that can put forward the wealth of analysis regarding the building of civilisation, as seen on the web. Europeans need to find a way to speak up for European achievements and lobby for European self-rule without resorting to total alienation of non-Europeans. The hour has come but sadly the men haven't. No great leaders are stepping forward in US or EU despite the evident pool of intellectual and leadership ability seen on the web. Two examples are the research that has been done on the commonweal, and cousin marriage bans.
    , @Boris

    Do they realize that the right should seek out bigotry, not run from it?
     
    This would be a huge disaster for the GOP. You can't win as a racist, white party--there aren't enough racists.

    Hoping they try, though.
    , @artichoke
    The problem is, you have to win. Winning politics is about addition, not idealism. You need a coalition, and whites aren't enough these days. And Mr. Liu, I see Asian Americans often vote with the Dems so you aren't much help either.

    Nationalism, including all the people we've got whether we're thrilled about that or not, should be an absolutely winning platform. Comparing nationalists to Hitler has worked amazingly well for 70 years since WW2. Are we willing to say "f that" and vote our interests?
  4. Anything these establishment politicians say is always 180 degrees from the truth.

    Read More
  5. Even a cuckservative such as Avik Roy can have insight. His Republican Party probably is going to die, because it serves no useful purpose when the politics become founded on racial identity. The GOP, if it is to exist at all, must be reconfigured as a white identity party, one in which an Indian such as Roy probably has no place. His much more natural home will be with the coalition of the fringes that now constitute the Democratic Party. If he doesn’t like that either, he’s free to go back to India–they have lots of political parties.

    Read More
  6. Indian-American Hindu complains of white nationalism in America. It’s as relevant as a white American complaining about Hindu nationalism in India. In fact, the biggest Indian party, the BJP, is the main exponent of Hindu nationalism.
    Without Hindus, there would be no India. Without white Europeans, there would be no America. Any party that sustains and supports the interests of white people in America, necessarily helps preserve America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lorax
    Yes
    USA founded on the genius of such European Caucasians as Jefferson.
    I was going to say Roy is an Indian Caucasian but the definition has changed. OOps.
    Used to be:
    The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid) or Europid is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, including some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.
    No wonder the writer is confused; he doesn't know what race he is.
    Maybe, "other".
    , @uslabor
    "Without white Europeans, there would be no America."

    You're wrong, there would be America, just without you and your ilk here.
    , @Lepanto
    "Without white Europeans, there would be no America"

    If by this you are speaking historically, then you are right, given that white Europeans created and have lead the Republic. If you mean this in an existential and future sense then you are the problem that Roy points to: white = America. I have said it a few times on this site: if this is the view and your ideal then it is living in a fantasy.

    If you think there can be no United States with the integration of the new immigrants into our people-hood then then you are contributing to dis-union and fragmentation. I suggest instead that you work to help unify the country. Promote American ideals - liberty, freedom, opportunity. There are plenty of 'non-whites' who not only embrace them but now live them. If you push these people away you push reality away and you will continue to live in pain and confusion.

    Step up don't give up.
  7. If they were really so effective at getting the white nationalist message out, the fact that more than 70% of each year’s birth cohort is white would mean the Republicans would be around for a long time to come.

    The GOP is a dying party because they are simply too whitebread in their ideas. It is easy and mindless to try to whip up support by dredging up ISIS rather than telling Black Americans that they are being kept on a modern plantation by the Dems, because the latter would really be controversial and might take a little intellect to sell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Williams

    ...rather than telling Black Americans that they are being kept on a modern plantation by the Dems...
     
    People on a plantation worked. Modern blacks are being kept in a zoo.
  8. helena says:
    @Jason Liu

    But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.
     
    See, what the hell is this? The American right lives in opposite land. Right-wing, by definition, is the ideological belief in social inequality. If a government is not nationalistic, it cannot be considered legitimate and therefore does not have the mandate to rule. If everyone was equal the nation can no longer be defined as a nation, and would become merely a commune.

    There's nothing wrong with intellectualism. Western nations need right-wing intellectualism to counter centuries of left-wing intellectualism. The problem is that the American right does not want to speak from the core of right wing thought, and so they've spent like 50 years standing on side issues like small government or whatever. Do they realize that the right should seek out bigotry, not run from it? If the left isn't constantly calling you a racist sexist or whatever, you're not doing it right.

    Agree. The political right has morphed into an ideology of liberalism with small government versus the leftist liberalism with big government. What is needed are parties that can put forward the wealth of analysis regarding the building of civilisation, as seen on the web. Europeans need to find a way to speak up for European achievements and lobby for European self-rule without resorting to total alienation of non-Europeans. The hour has come but sadly the men haven’t. No great leaders are stepping forward in US or EU despite the evident pool of intellectual and leadership ability seen on the web. Two examples are the research that has been done on the commonweal, and cousin marriage bans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Banning first-cousin marriage is certainly a good idea without regard to the religious or racial background of the cousins. But it's a bonus if that ban makes America or Europe less comfortable and convenient for the muslim savages.

    How about deporting people who are the descendants of first cousins, too? I'd really miss all those Jewish folks.... ;)
    , @Reg Cæsar
    How about going the full Vatican, and banning marriages between third cousins?
  9. Rehmat says:

    YEP, Avik Roy is as much reliable commenter as Benjamin Netanyahu. Posting VOX Com. as ‘journalism’ is worse than claiming FOX NEWS is Talmud.

    For dudes like Roy Republican Party is “dying” because it nominated Donald Trump, a “Judas Goat” instead of Ted Cruz, the “Defender of Israel”.

    If the writer had ask one the 2,000 pro-Sanders protesters at the DNC, he would have told him: Democrat Party died the day it nominated Hillary Clinton.”

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/28/dnc-pro-sanders-crowd-torch-israeli-flag/

    Read More
  10. SteveM says:

    What motivates movement Republicans is not white nationalism, it’s “I got mine.” Social Darwinism. It just so happens that more people who “have theirs” are white. The Darwinists are indifferent to Las Vegas on the Hudson Banksterism, open immigration and an economically pathological health care system, because the perverse consequences of those Crony saturated domains do not measurably affect them. They really do “have theirs”.

    Which makes for an interesting conversation about Donald Trump. Trump’s admittedly incoherent message is against the cronied-up corporate and political organs that sustain the Social Darwinist model. So movement Republicans and the complicit MSM purposely painted Trump with the racist brush as a diversion away from Trump’s generalized message against the Darwinists that transcends race.

    I.e., Crony America hoses Americans of every race. A black or Hispanic American CITIZEN with crammed down wages or who is driven out of the workforce altogether by massive immigration is just as under-employed or unemployed as the white person. The systemically pathological wreck that is Obamacare is indifferent to skin color in making access to health care (not health insurance) infeasible for working class people.

    That said, Trump can be stupid and maybe even clueless. He should have pointed out that distinction when the MSM set off the David Duke stink bomb to purposely derail him. But he didn’t, and now the MSM is again taking the upper hand in dominating the propaganda as the compliant mouthpiece for the Cronies and the next corrupt parasitic hack to occupy the Oval Office, the haggard and odious HRC.

    Roy is partially correct. At this point in time, the Republican party is decomposing. However when the inevitable Implosion happens and that haggard 70+ year old mediocrity is sitting clueless in the Oval Office while it goes down, the Democrats will join them.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Miss Laura
    Thank you, SteveM, for getting it right. I agree.
  11. The country needs and wants a Labor Party. What we have now is one party rule and Donald Trump crashing the party. The working class wants work and wages not war and welfare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "work and wages not war and welfare."

    Congratulation, you are the winner of today's internets

    Trump now has his slogan for the next three months.
  12. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Even a cuckservative such as Avik Roy can have insight. His Republican Party probably is going to die, because it serves no useful purpose when the politics become founded on racial identity. The GOP, if it is to exist at all, must be reconfigured as a white identity party, one in which an Indian such as Roy probably has no place. His much more natural home will be with the coalition of the fringes that now constitute the Democratic Party. If he doesn't like that either, he's free to go back to India--they have lots of political parties.

    Agreed.

    Read More
  13. Boris says:
    @Jason Liu

    But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.
     
    See, what the hell is this? The American right lives in opposite land. Right-wing, by definition, is the ideological belief in social inequality. If a government is not nationalistic, it cannot be considered legitimate and therefore does not have the mandate to rule. If everyone was equal the nation can no longer be defined as a nation, and would become merely a commune.

    There's nothing wrong with intellectualism. Western nations need right-wing intellectualism to counter centuries of left-wing intellectualism. The problem is that the American right does not want to speak from the core of right wing thought, and so they've spent like 50 years standing on side issues like small government or whatever. Do they realize that the right should seek out bigotry, not run from it? If the left isn't constantly calling you a racist sexist or whatever, you're not doing it right.

    Do they realize that the right should seek out bigotry, not run from it?

    This would be a huge disaster for the GOP. You can’t win as a racist, white party–there aren’t enough racists.

    Hoping they try, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    It all depends on the dialogue. Who out in media land is challenging the currently accepted definition of racism? Most people are not racist but preferentialist. Instead of being defensive the right needs to start challenging the notion that europeans should want to live amongst non-european cultures. If non-europeans want to live in european culture with a commonweal and high trust that's one thing but currently europeans are being made to accept low-trust extended family based cultures alongside high-trust culture and high-trust culture is inevitably being eroded. The only way to redress this trend is to make public and acceptable analyses of what european civilisation and culture mean.
    , @Jason Liu
    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites, we just have better moral cover from a victim standpoint. Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests, and the Democrat party knows this.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones. Together, we can relegate the white liberals to obsolescence.
  14. I really wish that he–indeed who uses the word–would define exactly what is meant by “equality?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @uslabor
    I can just picture you on your farm, behind your plow, scratching your head, and furrowing your brow in a futile effort to comprehend the meaning of the word: Equality.
  15. @The Alarmist
    If they were really so effective at getting the white nationalist message out, the fact that more than 70% of each year's birth cohort is white would mean the Republicans would be around for a long time to come.

    The GOP is a dying party because they are simply too whitebread in their ideas. It is easy and mindless to try to whip up support by dredging up ISIS rather than telling Black Americans that they are being kept on a modern plantation by the Dems, because the latter would really be controversial and might take a little intellect to sell.

    …rather than telling Black Americans that they are being kept on a modern plantation by the Dems…

    People on a plantation worked. Modern blacks are being kept in a zoo.

    Read More
  16. @SteveM
    What motivates movement Republicans is not white nationalism, it's "I got mine." Social Darwinism. It just so happens that more people who "have theirs" are white. The Darwinists are indifferent to Las Vegas on the Hudson Banksterism, open immigration and an economically pathological health care system, because the perverse consequences of those Crony saturated domains do not measurably affect them. They really do "have theirs".

    Which makes for an interesting conversation about Donald Trump. Trump's admittedly incoherent message is against the cronied-up corporate and political organs that sustain the Social Darwinist model. So movement Republicans and the complicit MSM purposely painted Trump with the racist brush as a diversion away from Trump's generalized message against the Darwinists that transcends race.

    I.e., Crony America hoses Americans of every race. A black or Hispanic American CITIZEN with crammed down wages or who is driven out of the workforce altogether by massive immigration is just as under-employed or unemployed as the white person. The systemically pathological wreck that is Obamacare is indifferent to skin color in making access to health care (not health insurance) infeasible for working class people.

    That said, Trump can be stupid and maybe even clueless. He should have pointed out that distinction when the MSM set off the David Duke stink bomb to purposely derail him. But he didn't, and now the MSM is again taking the upper hand in dominating the propaganda as the compliant mouthpiece for the Cronies and the next corrupt parasitic hack to occupy the Oval Office, the haggard and odious HRC.

    Roy is partially correct. At this point in time, the Republican party is decomposing. However when the inevitable Implosion happens and that haggard 70+ year old mediocrity is sitting clueless in the Oval Office while it goes down, the Democrats will join them.

    Thank you, SteveM, for getting it right. I agree.

    Read More
  17. fnn says:

    I’ve read dozens of conservative intellectuals writing compellingly about non-racist conservative ideals. Writers like Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and too many others to count have put forward visions of a conservative party quite different from the one we have.

    But not one of these writers, smart as they are, has been able to explain what actual political constituency could bring about this pure conservatism in practice.

    The guy also read some Sam Francis.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wade
    • Replies: @Wade
    The statement you quote is one of the concise descriptions of the central conundrum that goes unspoken in right-of-center politics. It first dawned on me back when I considered myself a libertarian. It stuck out like a sore thumb to me that while "in theory" Libertarianism embraced all people, only white guys like me seemed interested in it at all.

    In fact there is no reason to believe that any of our ideals including our prized US Constitution would survive without a strong core of European descended white christians. The Han Chinese or the Indian Hindus could care less about The Constitution if either of them were the majority population.
  18. @David Davenport
    Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican.

    No, he is not.

    Judging by the name, we’d be just fine without him in our country in the first place. Fuck Avik Roy.

    We love America and our traditional way of life, and we don’t care if you are offended that more people are waking up to the increasing violence, intimidation, cruelty, and hatred that Africans and their ilk inflict on white and Asian americans every day.

    The Republican Party may deserve to die. We and our children don’t.

    Get out, Avik, and let real Americans and real men — the white European-American historic core of this country and our friends and allies of other backgrounds (sometimes spouses of other backgrounds) — defend our families and borders and restore our common language, Western culture, and prosperity.

    Read More
  19. @helena
    Agree. The political right has morphed into an ideology of liberalism with small government versus the leftist liberalism with big government. What is needed are parties that can put forward the wealth of analysis regarding the building of civilisation, as seen on the web. Europeans need to find a way to speak up for European achievements and lobby for European self-rule without resorting to total alienation of non-Europeans. The hour has come but sadly the men haven't. No great leaders are stepping forward in US or EU despite the evident pool of intellectual and leadership ability seen on the web. Two examples are the research that has been done on the commonweal, and cousin marriage bans.

    Banning first-cousin marriage is certainly a good idea without regard to the religious or racial background of the cousins. But it’s a bonus if that ban makes America or Europe less comfortable and convenient for the muslim savages.

    How about deporting people who are the descendants of first cousins, too? I’d really miss all those Jewish folks…. ;)

    Read More
  20. Jeff77450 says:

    Disclaimer: I don’t claim to be an expert on anything.

    Conservative is an ideology and Republican is a political party. I genuinely & sincerely believe that Conservative principles, when applied correctly, produce the best results. Leftist thinking is in denial of certain facts about human nature, disregards the principle of Causality, i.e. cause-and-effect relationships, and repeatedly runs afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    One reason why the Republican party has been dying for, in my opinion, twenty-odd years, is because they stopped being Conservatives. Example: It’s a basic-principle of Conservatism that government does not create jobs. Government creates the legal & physical infrastructure so that society can function and entrepreneurs & investors can engage in economic-activity, i.e. start businesses, a byproduct of which is creating jobs. By legal infrastructure I mean a criminal & civil justice system to protect people & property rights and enforce contracts. By physical infrastructure I mean roads, sewers, water, electrify, ports, airports, etc.

    But increasingly I hear Republicans promising to “if elected I’ll do this to create jobs” thereby betraying a basic Conservative principle.

    Do you remember the Terri Shivo fiasco? Twenty-odd years ago a man wanted to take his wife off life-support. She’d been brain-dead for something like twenty years. Her parents opposed it. Terri Shivo was not in a federal hospital, e.g. a VA hospital, and her husband wasn’t trying to transport her across state-lines therefore it wasn’t a federal matter. But Republicans in Congress chose to make it one. It was so very obvious that they were pandering to their pro-life constituency. It was so very obvious and so disgusting. I remember thinking that the Republican party had begun a slow death-spiral.

    The Republican party, as we know it, is likely doomed because they were collectively more concerned about getting reelected at all costs instead of focusing on good governance—which likely would’ve resulted in getting reelected. What will replace it I don’t know but we’re going to find out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "The Republican party, as we know it, is likely doomed because they were collectively more concerned about getting reelected at all costs instead of focusing on good governance—which likely would’ve resulted in getting reelected."
     
    The GOP is doomed because they can't figure out how to get re-elected at any cost. Good governance went out the window a long time ago. Thus the paradox of modern US government ... why vote for anyone who makes promises like a Democrat party member when they can vote for an actual Democrat and have a higher probability of achieving that for which they voted?

    The Republicans will probably never attract a significant portion of the black vote, therefore 95% of 14% of the electorate is off the table, because, for whatever reason, it is not cool to vote Republican. They will also probably never get half of the nearly 15% Hispanic vote because of the fine traditions of central and south America that revolve around statism. Maybe the Republicans will get most of the 5% Asian vote ... on a good day. What this means is that Republicans must get at least 65% of the remaining white voters on a good day, and that is not easy even on a good day.

    The demographics only get worse as time goes on, and since the growing portions of the population are pre-disposed to statism, it is highly unlikely that the standard go-to conservative themes of smaller, more responsible constitutional government are going to add to the numbers of those who vote Republican.

    What this boils down to is that Republicans must capture a significant part of the white vote to win. They can only do this by inspiring them, or, more likely, by scaring them. We have already seen some of this at the convention. The conventional alternative is to win the hearts and minds of the non-white votes, but once again, why vote for a Democrat look-alike when you can have the real thing. Nah, the GOP is likely dead if they do not win this time around.

    The most likely outcome for the US in any case is a century or so of one-party rule, like that of the PRI in Mexico. Since we invited the electorate of Mexico to replace our own, so why should we be surprised?
  21. helena says:
    @Boris

    Do they realize that the right should seek out bigotry, not run from it?
     
    This would be a huge disaster for the GOP. You can't win as a racist, white party--there aren't enough racists.

    Hoping they try, though.

    It all depends on the dialogue. Who out in media land is challenging the currently accepted definition of racism? Most people are not racist but preferentialist. Instead of being defensive the right needs to start challenging the notion that europeans should want to live amongst non-european cultures. If non-europeans want to live in european culture with a commonweal and high trust that’s one thing but currently europeans are being made to accept low-trust extended family based cultures alongside high-trust culture and high-trust culture is inevitably being eroded. The only way to redress this trend is to make public and acceptable analyses of what european civilisation and culture mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    currently europeans are being made to accept
     
    What's the alternative? A big government telling people where they can and can't live? Sorry, but freedom is more important than somebody's irrational preference for neighbors.
  22. Jason Liu says:
    @Boris

    Do they realize that the right should seek out bigotry, not run from it?
     
    This would be a huge disaster for the GOP. You can't win as a racist, white party--there aren't enough racists.

    Hoping they try, though.

    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites, we just have better moral cover from a victim standpoint. Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests, and the Democrat party knows this.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones. Together, we can relegate the white liberals to obsolescence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites
     
    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it's racism.

    Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests
     
    Maybe it's just plain old self-interest. Republicans had plenty of black voters. Then they decided to cater their platform to racist southern whites. They have since apologized for courting racists, but they haven't done anything to help black people.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones.
     
    Very few whites have any interest in white nationalism. I assume the same thing goes for minorities.
    , @RadicalCenter
    By encouraging nationalism in "all communities", I presume you mean racially defined communities.

    If so, you will find that you're merely accelerating the dominance and perhaps secessionism of the vast and still-growing Mexican fifth column in the USA.

    If your name really is Liu or the like, do you think the newly emboldened Mexican majority is going to be fair and decent (or even non-violent) to the Asian-American "community"?
  23. Boris says:
    @helena
    It all depends on the dialogue. Who out in media land is challenging the currently accepted definition of racism? Most people are not racist but preferentialist. Instead of being defensive the right needs to start challenging the notion that europeans should want to live amongst non-european cultures. If non-europeans want to live in european culture with a commonweal and high trust that's one thing but currently europeans are being made to accept low-trust extended family based cultures alongside high-trust culture and high-trust culture is inevitably being eroded. The only way to redress this trend is to make public and acceptable analyses of what european civilisation and culture mean.

    currently europeans are being made to accept

    What’s the alternative? A big government telling people where they can and can’t live? Sorry, but freedom is more important than somebody’s irrational preference for neighbors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    It's irrational to prefer not to live be raise our children with Africans or Muslims?

    If so, do you have children and are you raising them in a majorit African or majorit Muslim neighborhood and school? If you're not, what's the basis for your"irrational preference"?
  24. Boris says:
    @Jason Liu
    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites, we just have better moral cover from a victim standpoint. Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests, and the Democrat party knows this.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones. Together, we can relegate the white liberals to obsolescence.

    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites

    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it’s racism.

    Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests

    Maybe it’s just plain old self-interest. Republicans had plenty of black voters. Then they decided to cater their platform to racist southern whites. They have since apologized for courting racists, but they haven’t done anything to help black people.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones.

    Very few whites have any interest in white nationalism. I assume the same thing goes for minorities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    If that's so, how come so many of us live in white countries? It's nearing 10% or so in Western Europe, much more in the US. If China was set to become 50% Han Chinese by 2050, there would be egalitarians hung from every tree.

    Only a small number of whites are ideological bigots, but that can be improved with controlled education. Racial self-interest is racism by American standards.

    Going by your voting patterns, it seems over half of whites prefer homogeneity. That's probably a low number relative to the rest of world, due to the west's humanist beliefs, which is weaker in immigrants. Since assimilation will never be total, the increase in nonwhite population in the New World could be a slow death for western liberal democracy, ushing in social inequality over a few centuries. It wouldn't be the entire continent, but if white and other nationalists play their cards right, we could all have our own piece.
    , @iffen
    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it’s racism.

    It's not bragging if you can back it up, so ..... it's not racism if ...
    , @RadicalCenter
    By "minority" you apparently mean non-white? Inaccurate in a large and growing number of cities and states, where non-whites are a majority.

    In any event, you must love in a nice little bubble to think that nonwhites en masse aren't interested in advancing their group's interests by any means necessary at the expense of whites or other nonwhite groups. I hope you're not teaching such dangerously naive nonsense to children.
    , @Tarl Cabot

    Maybe it’s just plain old self-interest. Republicans had plenty of black voters. Then they decided to cater their platform to racist southern whites.
     
    Not true. Blacks first began voting Democrat in large numbers during the 1930s as a result of New Deal-inspired welfare programs. Democrats bought the black vote, as they pretty much do with all their votes, whether with a paycheck, a welfare check, or a government contract, grant or regulatory monopoly.

    Nixon's so-called "Southern Strategy" was was not implemented until 1968, and because of the Wallace candidacy, did not come to fruition until the 1972 landslide. Republican votes were decisive in passing all major civil rights legislation. Blacks abandoned Republicans before Republicans abandoned blacks

  25. Jason Liu says:
    @Boris

    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites
     
    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it's racism.

    Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests
     
    Maybe it's just plain old self-interest. Republicans had plenty of black voters. Then they decided to cater their platform to racist southern whites. They have since apologized for courting racists, but they haven't done anything to help black people.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones.
     
    Very few whites have any interest in white nationalism. I assume the same thing goes for minorities.

    If that’s so, how come so many of us live in white countries? It’s nearing 10% or so in Western Europe, much more in the US. If China was set to become 50% Han Chinese by 2050, there would be egalitarians hung from every tree.

    Only a small number of whites are ideological bigots, but that can be improved with controlled education. Racial self-interest is racism by American standards.

    Going by your voting patterns, it seems over half of whites prefer homogeneity. That’s probably a low number relative to the rest of world, due to the west’s humanist beliefs, which is weaker in immigrants. Since assimilation will never be total, the increase in nonwhite population in the New World could be a slow death for western liberal democracy, ushing in social inequality over a few centuries. It wouldn’t be the entire continent, but if white and other nationalists play their cards right, we could all have our own piece.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Very interesting perspective.
    , @Numinous

    If that’s so, how come so many of us live in white countries?
     
    This is a common trope I have heard on this website (and other similar ones) that non-whites are clamoring to live among whites in their societies. In reality, people are just doing what people have done forever; try to migrate to where the grass is greener. That's what Europeans did in the colonial era. Had you been around then, would you have claimed that white people were clamoring to live among Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Africans, Indians, etc?

    If China was set to become 50% Han Chinese by 2050, there would be egalitarians hung from every tree.
     
    You are just projecting your personal angst and proclivities on the Chinese (and no doubt, on other people too.) Your type a hundred years ago would have said the same thing about white people in America not tolerating changing demographics. Yet they have, and quite happily for the most part. You probably don't believe that; perhaps you think (just like the Bernie Bros) that your views are shared by 99% of people?

    Most people around the world just aren't that obsessed with race (historically, it's white people from colonizing countries who have been the most race-conscious). People do care about culture though. But culture ain't synonymous with race.
  26. Lorax says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Indian-American Hindu complains of white nationalism in America. It's as relevant as a white American complaining about Hindu nationalism in India. In fact, the biggest Indian party, the BJP, is the main exponent of Hindu nationalism.
    Without Hindus, there would be no India. Without white Europeans, there would be no America. Any party that sustains and supports the interests of white people in America, necessarily helps preserve America.

    Yes
    USA founded on the genius of such European Caucasians as Jefferson.
    I was going to say Roy is an Indian Caucasian but the definition has changed. OOps.
    Used to be:
    The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid) or Europid is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, including some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.
    No wonder the writer is confused; he doesn’t know what race he is.
    Maybe, “other”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Yes Hindu nationalists were strong exponents of Aryanism and many still are. Obviously Mr Roy is not one of these, otherwise he would have more insight into the effect that mass mestizo and other non-white immigration is having on native Americans.
    Also he seems to have little understanding of Indian History. In 1945, over 30% of the population of what is now Pakistan was non-Muslim. After partition, there were mass communal killings, forcible expulsions and migration. Now Hindus, Sikhs and Christians constitute 3% of Pakistan's population. Similar events occurred in Bengal.
    In nascent form we are seeing actions like these in parts of France. Sufficient numbers of Muslims arrive in a neighbourhood. They start intimidating the remaining natives. Unsupported by the State, the natives are pushed out or leave. Next stop Shariah Law etc.
    This is the prospect that America faces should Clinton win the election.
  27. iffen says:
    @Boris

    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites
     
    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it's racism.

    Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests
     
    Maybe it's just plain old self-interest. Republicans had plenty of black voters. Then they decided to cater their platform to racist southern whites. They have since apologized for courting racists, but they haven't done anything to help black people.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones.
     
    Very few whites have any interest in white nationalism. I assume the same thing goes for minorities.

    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it’s racism.

    It’s not bragging if you can back it up, so ….. it’s not racism if …

    Read More
  28. From the article:

    “I’ve read dozens of conservative intellectuals writing compellingly about non-racist conservative ideals. Writers like Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and too many others to count have put forward visions of a conservative party quite different from the one we have.

    But not one of these writers, smart as they are, has been able to explain what actual political constituency could bring about this pure conservatism in practice. The fact is that limited government conservatism is not especially appealing to nonwhite Americans, whereas liberalism and social democracy are. The only ones for whom conservatism is a natural fit are Roy’s “cranky old white people” — and they’re dying off.

    Maybe Roy and company will be able to solve this problem. I hope they do. America needs a viable, intellectually serious right-of-center party.

    Because we now know what the alternative looks like. It’s Donald Trump.”

    I think for many natural fit conservative Americans the explanation for DJ Trump is “root hog or die.” It is very serious for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The fact is that limited government conservatism is not especially appealing to nonwhite Americans, whereas liberalism and social democracy are. The only ones for whom conservatism is a natural fit are Roy’s “cranky old white people” — and they’re dying off.

    I disagree. Social Darwinist conservatism and clueless libertarianism have little to offer most working class white Americans. The core principle of conservatism is the adamant opposition to the use of government to ameliorate the economic conditions applying to the lower classes. They thought that they got Reagan Democrats, but what they really got was New Deal Democrats and their descendants. Now that it is crunch time, they have nothing to offer this group. Too late now, damn democraphics.
  29. @Jason Liu
    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites, we just have better moral cover from a victim standpoint. Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests, and the Democrat party knows this.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones. Together, we can relegate the white liberals to obsolescence.

    By encouraging nationalism in “all communities”, I presume you mean racially defined communities.

    If so, you will find that you’re merely accelerating the dominance and perhaps secessionism of the vast and still-growing Mexican fifth column in the USA.

    If your name really is Liu or the like, do you think the newly emboldened Mexican majority is going to be fair and decent (or even non-violent) to the Asian-American “community”?

    Read More
  30. @Boris

    currently europeans are being made to accept
     
    What's the alternative? A big government telling people where they can and can't live? Sorry, but freedom is more important than somebody's irrational preference for neighbors.

    It’s irrational to prefer not to live be raise our children with Africans or Muslims?

    If so, do you have children and are you raising them in a majorit African or majorit Muslim neighborhood and school? If you’re not, what’s the basis for your”irrational preference”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    PLEASE OFFER AN EDIT FUNCTION ALREADY.
    , @Boris

    It’s irrational to prefer not to live be raise our children with Africans or Muslims?
     
    Yes.

    If so, do you have children and are you raising them in a majorit African or majorit Muslim neighborhood and school? If you’re not, what’s the basis for your”irrational preference”?
     
    I do. My neighborhood is mostly white, but there are blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Muslims. They are are all welcome and I'd be happy with more. I have no preference for the racial make-up of the community where I live.

    In any event, you must love in a nice little bubble to think that nonwhites en masse aren’t interested in advancing their group’s interests by any means necessary at the expense of whites or other nonwhite groups.
     
    Any means necessary? Please.
  31. @RadicalCenter
    It's irrational to prefer not to live be raise our children with Africans or Muslims?

    If so, do you have children and are you raising them in a majorit African or majorit Muslim neighborhood and school? If you're not, what's the basis for your"irrational preference"?

    PLEASE OFFER AN EDIT FUNCTION ALREADY.

    Read More
  32. @Boris

    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites
     
    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it's racism.

    Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests
     
    Maybe it's just plain old self-interest. Republicans had plenty of black voters. Then they decided to cater their platform to racist southern whites. They have since apologized for courting racists, but they haven't done anything to help black people.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones.
     
    Very few whites have any interest in white nationalism. I assume the same thing goes for minorities.

    By “minority” you apparently mean non-white? Inaccurate in a large and growing number of cities and states, where non-whites are a majority.

    In any event, you must love in a nice little bubble to think that nonwhites en masse aren’t interested in advancing their group’s interests by any means necessary at the expense of whites or other nonwhite groups. I hope you’re not teaching such dangerously naive nonsense to children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "In any event, you must love in a nice little bubble to think that nonwhites en masse aren’t interested in advancing their group’s interests by any means necessary at the expense of whites or other nonwhite groups. I hope you’re not teaching such dangerously naive nonsense to children."

    The only naiveness is you believing that nonwhites collectively are actually hatching plans as we speak to take out whites.
  33. @Jason Liu
    If that's so, how come so many of us live in white countries? It's nearing 10% or so in Western Europe, much more in the US. If China was set to become 50% Han Chinese by 2050, there would be egalitarians hung from every tree.

    Only a small number of whites are ideological bigots, but that can be improved with controlled education. Racial self-interest is racism by American standards.

    Going by your voting patterns, it seems over half of whites prefer homogeneity. That's probably a low number relative to the rest of world, due to the west's humanist beliefs, which is weaker in immigrants. Since assimilation will never be total, the increase in nonwhite population in the New World could be a slow death for western liberal democracy, ushing in social inequality over a few centuries. It wouldn't be the entire continent, but if white and other nationalists play their cards right, we could all have our own piece.

    Very interesting perspective.

    Read More
  34. @Jeff77450
    Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert on anything.

    Conservative is an ideology and Republican is a political party. I genuinely & sincerely believe that Conservative principles, when applied correctly, produce the best results. Leftist thinking is in denial of certain facts about human nature, disregards the principle of Causality, i.e. cause-and-effect relationships, and repeatedly runs afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    One reason why the Republican party has been dying for, in my opinion, twenty-odd years, is because they stopped being Conservatives. Example: It's a basic-principle of Conservatism that government does not create jobs. Government creates the legal & physical infrastructure so that society can function and entrepreneurs & investors can engage in economic-activity, i.e. start businesses, a byproduct of which is creating jobs. By legal infrastructure I mean a criminal & civil justice system to protect people & property rights and enforce contracts. By physical infrastructure I mean roads, sewers, water, electrify, ports, airports, etc.

    But increasingly I hear Republicans promising to "if elected I'll do this to create jobs" thereby betraying a basic Conservative principle.

    Do you remember the Terri Shivo fiasco? Twenty-odd years ago a man wanted to take his wife off life-support. She'd been brain-dead for something like twenty years. Her parents opposed it. Terri Shivo was not in a federal hospital, e.g. a VA hospital, and her husband wasn't trying to transport her across state-lines therefore it wasn't a federal matter. But Republicans in Congress chose to make it one. It was so very obvious that they were pandering to their pro-life constituency. It was so very obvious and so disgusting. I remember thinking that the Republican party had begun a slow death-spiral.

    The Republican party, as we know it, is likely doomed because they were collectively more concerned about getting reelected at all costs instead of focusing on good governance---which likely would've resulted in getting reelected. What will replace it I don't know but we're going to find out.

    “The Republican party, as we know it, is likely doomed because they were collectively more concerned about getting reelected at all costs instead of focusing on good governance—which likely would’ve resulted in getting reelected.”

    The GOP is doomed because they can’t figure out how to get re-elected at any cost. Good governance went out the window a long time ago. Thus the paradox of modern US government … why vote for anyone who makes promises like a Democrat party member when they can vote for an actual Democrat and have a higher probability of achieving that for which they voted?

    The Republicans will probably never attract a significant portion of the black vote, therefore 95% of 14% of the electorate is off the table, because, for whatever reason, it is not cool to vote Republican. They will also probably never get half of the nearly 15% Hispanic vote because of the fine traditions of central and south America that revolve around statism. Maybe the Republicans will get most of the 5% Asian vote … on a good day. What this means is that Republicans must get at least 65% of the remaining white voters on a good day, and that is not easy even on a good day.

    The demographics only get worse as time goes on, and since the growing portions of the population are pre-disposed to statism, it is highly unlikely that the standard go-to conservative themes of smaller, more responsible constitutional government are going to add to the numbers of those who vote Republican.

    What this boils down to is that Republicans must capture a significant part of the white vote to win. They can only do this by inspiring them, or, more likely, by scaring them. We have already seen some of this at the convention. The conventional alternative is to win the hearts and minds of the non-white votes, but once again, why vote for a Democrat look-alike when you can have the real thing. Nah, the GOP is likely dead if they do not win this time around.

    The most likely outcome for the US in any case is a century or so of one-party rule, like that of the PRI in Mexico. Since we invited the electorate of Mexico to replace our own, so why should we be surprised?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    "The most likely outcome for the US in any case is a century or so of one-party rule,"

    In a decade or two a Watson machine intelligence descendant will probably be tried in a country that was screwed over one time too many by man's government. Shortly after that a lot of psychopaths will be unemployed.
    , @Jeff77450
    Valid points very well said. Many thanx.
  35. Although the effect is more obvious in the US, the West is suffering from an invasion by those whose mindsets are perhaps as much as several thousand years closer to that of a hunter-gatherer.

    The functionality of that type of mindset in a modern society is on display in several major American cities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I don't think those with the mind of a hunter-gatherer are likely to be attracted to cities. Too much going on.
  36. @The Alarmist

    "The Republican party, as we know it, is likely doomed because they were collectively more concerned about getting reelected at all costs instead of focusing on good governance—which likely would’ve resulted in getting reelected."
     
    The GOP is doomed because they can't figure out how to get re-elected at any cost. Good governance went out the window a long time ago. Thus the paradox of modern US government ... why vote for anyone who makes promises like a Democrat party member when they can vote for an actual Democrat and have a higher probability of achieving that for which they voted?

    The Republicans will probably never attract a significant portion of the black vote, therefore 95% of 14% of the electorate is off the table, because, for whatever reason, it is not cool to vote Republican. They will also probably never get half of the nearly 15% Hispanic vote because of the fine traditions of central and south America that revolve around statism. Maybe the Republicans will get most of the 5% Asian vote ... on a good day. What this means is that Republicans must get at least 65% of the remaining white voters on a good day, and that is not easy even on a good day.

    The demographics only get worse as time goes on, and since the growing portions of the population are pre-disposed to statism, it is highly unlikely that the standard go-to conservative themes of smaller, more responsible constitutional government are going to add to the numbers of those who vote Republican.

    What this boils down to is that Republicans must capture a significant part of the white vote to win. They can only do this by inspiring them, or, more likely, by scaring them. We have already seen some of this at the convention. The conventional alternative is to win the hearts and minds of the non-white votes, but once again, why vote for a Democrat look-alike when you can have the real thing. Nah, the GOP is likely dead if they do not win this time around.

    The most likely outcome for the US in any case is a century or so of one-party rule, like that of the PRI in Mexico. Since we invited the electorate of Mexico to replace our own, so why should we be surprised?

    “The most likely outcome for the US in any case is a century or so of one-party rule,”

    In a decade or two a Watson machine intelligence descendant will probably be tried in a country that was screwed over one time too many by man’s government. Shortly after that a lot of psychopaths will be unemployed.

    Read More
  37. iffen says:
    @Neil Templeton
    From the article:

    "I’ve read dozens of conservative intellectuals writing compellingly about non-racist conservative ideals. Writers like Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and too many others to count have put forward visions of a conservative party quite different from the one we have.

    But not one of these writers, smart as they are, has been able to explain what actual political constituency could bring about this pure conservatism in practice. The fact is that limited government conservatism is not especially appealing to nonwhite Americans, whereas liberalism and social democracy are. The only ones for whom conservatism is a natural fit are Roy’s “cranky old white people” — and they’re dying off.

    Maybe Roy and company will be able to solve this problem. I hope they do. America needs a viable, intellectually serious right-of-center party.

    Because we now know what the alternative looks like. It’s Donald Trump."

    I think for many natural fit conservative Americans the explanation for DJ Trump is "root hog or die." It is very serious for them.

    The fact is that limited government conservatism is not especially appealing to nonwhite Americans, whereas liberalism and social democracy are. The only ones for whom conservatism is a natural fit are Roy’s “cranky old white people” — and they’re dying off.

    I disagree. Social Darwinist conservatism and clueless libertarianism have little to offer most working class white Americans. The core principle of conservatism is the adamant opposition to the use of government to ameliorate the economic conditions applying to the lower classes. They thought that they got Reagan Democrats, but what they really got was New Deal Democrats and their descendants. Now that it is crunch time, they have nothing to offer this group. Too late now, damn democraphics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I am saying that a fair share of working class Americans, and a much larger share of the Crackers and their demographic cousins, generally support government that promises to "leave them alone." This is complicated by the immigration question, but this is the main reason they were attracted to small government advocacy. This does not mean voters of this stripe want SS ripped out from underneath, just means they're not comfortable with a Nanny State.

    These voters have not historically been opposed to outcrossing or alien assimilation. They are probably less racist, in terms of a tendency to make prior assumptions regarding value on the basis of race without additional information, than most if not all other significant classes of voters in our country. Throughout American history the Crackers and Cousins have been more willing to assimilate outsiders than probably any other class.

    They are concerned about unlimited immigration because they realize that their social and technological instincts and priorities will be a handicap, at best, in an America that is focused on burying its pioneer foundation and values deep in the ground with a lead overcoat. Of course, since these folks are the root of limited government, the internationalist free market advocates are left bereft of a fighting force.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Social Darwinist conservatism and clueless libertarianism have little to offer most working class white Americans.
     
    The very same Southern voters who kissed FDR's withered ass four times turned to Barry Goldwater 20 years later. By your analysis, that shouldn't have happened. After all, LBJ offered so much more.
  38. Numinous says:
    @Jason Liu
    If that's so, how come so many of us live in white countries? It's nearing 10% or so in Western Europe, much more in the US. If China was set to become 50% Han Chinese by 2050, there would be egalitarians hung from every tree.

    Only a small number of whites are ideological bigots, but that can be improved with controlled education. Racial self-interest is racism by American standards.

    Going by your voting patterns, it seems over half of whites prefer homogeneity. That's probably a low number relative to the rest of world, due to the west's humanist beliefs, which is weaker in immigrants. Since assimilation will never be total, the increase in nonwhite population in the New World could be a slow death for western liberal democracy, ushing in social inequality over a few centuries. It wouldn't be the entire continent, but if white and other nationalists play their cards right, we could all have our own piece.

    If that’s so, how come so many of us live in white countries?

    This is a common trope I have heard on this website (and other similar ones) that non-whites are clamoring to live among whites in their societies. In reality, people are just doing what people have done forever; try to migrate to where the grass is greener. That’s what Europeans did in the colonial era. Had you been around then, would you have claimed that white people were clamoring to live among Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Africans, Indians, etc?

    If China was set to become 50% Han Chinese by 2050, there would be egalitarians hung from every tree.

    You are just projecting your personal angst and proclivities on the Chinese (and no doubt, on other people too.) Your type a hundred years ago would have said the same thing about white people in America not tolerating changing demographics. Yet they have, and quite happily for the most part. You probably don’t believe that; perhaps you think (just like the Bernie Bros) that your views are shared by 99% of people?

    Most people around the world just aren’t that obsessed with race (historically, it’s white people from colonizing countries who have been the most race-conscious). People do care about culture though. But culture ain’t synonymous with race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gruff

    This is a common trope I have heard on this website (and other similar ones) that non-whites are clamoring to live among whites in their societies. In reality, people are just doing what people have done forever; try to migrate to where the grass is greener. That’s what Europeans did in the colonial era. Had you been around then, would you have claimed that white people were clamoring to live among Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Africans, Indians, etc?
     
    Colonial whites intentionally and violently displaced the natives. They did not adopt and live by native cultural norms.

    Modern immigrants adopt and live by white cultural norms (supermarkets, traffic laws, literacy, on and on). When they don't, there is violence (see: France).

    In other words, the grass is always greener on the white side of the fence.

    , @Curle
    "Your type a hundred years ago would have said the same thing about white people in America not tolerating changing demographics. "

    I guess you'll change your tune in five years, eh (see below)?

    The Emergency Quota Act, also known as the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, the Per Centum Law, and the Johnson Quota Act (ch. 8, 42 Stat. 5 of May 19, 1921) restricted immigration into the United States. Although intended as temporary legislation, the Act "proved in the long run the most important turning-point in American immigration policy"[2] because it added two new features to American immigration law: numerical limits on immigration and the use of a quota system for establishing those limits. These limits came to be known as the National Origins Formula.

    The Emergency Quota Act restricted the number of immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of residents from that same country living in the United States as of the U.S. Census of 1910.[3

    Based on that formula, the number of new immigrants admitted fell from 805,228 in 1920 to 309,556 in 1921-22.[4] The average annual inflow of immigrants prior to 1921 was 175,983 from Northern and Western Europe, and 685,531 from other countries, principally Southern and Eastern Europe. In 1921, there was a drastic reduction in immigration levels from other countries, principally Southern and Eastern Europe.
    , @martin_2
    Diversity is a good thing if by diversity is meant "more white people". Wherever white people go things improve. To compare brave white colonists going to a wilderness in America or Australia or Africa with non-white people currently emigrating to white countries with their white created welfare systems in place is extremely insulting to white people.
  39. @Lorax
    Yes
    USA founded on the genius of such European Caucasians as Jefferson.
    I was going to say Roy is an Indian Caucasian but the definition has changed. OOps.
    Used to be:
    The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid) or Europid is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, including some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.
    No wonder the writer is confused; he doesn't know what race he is.
    Maybe, "other".

    Yes Hindu nationalists were strong exponents of Aryanism and many still are. Obviously Mr Roy is not one of these, otherwise he would have more insight into the effect that mass mestizo and other non-white immigration is having on native Americans.
    Also he seems to have little understanding of Indian History. In 1945, over 30% of the population of what is now Pakistan was non-Muslim. After partition, there were mass communal killings, forcible expulsions and migration. Now Hindus, Sikhs and Christians constitute 3% of Pakistan’s population. Similar events occurred in Bengal.
    In nascent form we are seeing actions like these in parts of France. Sufficient numbers of Muslims arrive in a neighbourhood. They start intimidating the remaining natives. Unsupported by the State, the natives are pushed out or leave. Next stop Shariah Law etc.
    This is the prospect that America faces should Clinton win the election.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Yes Hindu nationalists were strong exponents of Aryanism and many still are.
     
    I don't know where you get your information from, but if by Aryanism you are referring to something akin to white supremacy, you could not be more wrong. The Hindu nationalist (or Hindutva) movement from its origins has preached moral and political equality of castes (though they haven't gone out of their way to destroy the institution.) Hindu nationalists are very bigoted towards Muslims (and to a lesser extent towards Christians) but they go out of their way to be inclusive of the lower (and formerly untouchable) castes.

    To put it succintly, upper castes in India have never tried to frame a grand theory around their superiority and lower castes' inferiority, like Europeans have. There are no Indian equivalents to the theories of Gobineau, Madison Grant, Chamberlain, or Hitler. The texts (Vedas and others) provide a religious basis for caste privileges, and everyone unthinkingly practiced them until not too long ago. There's nothing more to it.

    Hindu nationalists today, across the board, even reject the premise on which the Indo-European theories have been propounded. They either dismiss the similarities between Indian and European languages as coincidences, or propound the "Out-of-India" theory, which claims that Proto-Indo-European originated in India, and the Indo-European volkerwanderung started in India and ended in Europe.
  40. Jeff77450 says:
    @The Alarmist

    "The Republican party, as we know it, is likely doomed because they were collectively more concerned about getting reelected at all costs instead of focusing on good governance—which likely would’ve resulted in getting reelected."
     
    The GOP is doomed because they can't figure out how to get re-elected at any cost. Good governance went out the window a long time ago. Thus the paradox of modern US government ... why vote for anyone who makes promises like a Democrat party member when they can vote for an actual Democrat and have a higher probability of achieving that for which they voted?

    The Republicans will probably never attract a significant portion of the black vote, therefore 95% of 14% of the electorate is off the table, because, for whatever reason, it is not cool to vote Republican. They will also probably never get half of the nearly 15% Hispanic vote because of the fine traditions of central and south America that revolve around statism. Maybe the Republicans will get most of the 5% Asian vote ... on a good day. What this means is that Republicans must get at least 65% of the remaining white voters on a good day, and that is not easy even on a good day.

    The demographics only get worse as time goes on, and since the growing portions of the population are pre-disposed to statism, it is highly unlikely that the standard go-to conservative themes of smaller, more responsible constitutional government are going to add to the numbers of those who vote Republican.

    What this boils down to is that Republicans must capture a significant part of the white vote to win. They can only do this by inspiring them, or, more likely, by scaring them. We have already seen some of this at the convention. The conventional alternative is to win the hearts and minds of the non-white votes, but once again, why vote for a Democrat look-alike when you can have the real thing. Nah, the GOP is likely dead if they do not win this time around.

    The most likely outcome for the US in any case is a century or so of one-party rule, like that of the PRI in Mexico. Since we invited the electorate of Mexico to replace our own, so why should we be surprised?

    Valid points very well said. Many thanx.

    Read More
  41. Boris says:
    @RadicalCenter
    It's irrational to prefer not to live be raise our children with Africans or Muslims?

    If so, do you have children and are you raising them in a majorit African or majorit Muslim neighborhood and school? If you're not, what's the basis for your"irrational preference"?

    It’s irrational to prefer not to live be raise our children with Africans or Muslims?

    Yes.

    If so, do you have children and are you raising them in a majorit African or majorit Muslim neighborhood and school? If you’re not, what’s the basis for your”irrational preference”?

    I do. My neighborhood is mostly white, but there are blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Muslims. They are are all welcome and I’d be happy with more. I have no preference for the racial make-up of the community where I live.

    In any event, you must love in a nice little bubble to think that nonwhites en masse aren’t interested in advancing their group’s interests by any means necessary at the expense of whites or other nonwhite groups.

    Any means necessary? Please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral

    My neighborhood is mostly white, but...
     
    Typical liberal cockroach avoiding the REAL question, would you like to have the demographics of a place like Lagos or Lahore ? Of course you are going to um and ah that its about wealth and culture and other such BS, but then you are going to have to ask the question why Lahore and Lagos just never seem to be able to create this wealth or culture ?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I do. My neighborhood is mostly white…
     
    This alone is reason for suspicion. What steps are you taking to ensure that this situation doesn't last?

    …but there are blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Muslims
     
    Haven't heard the word "token" in some time, but here is a good example. Imagine, if you will, a "mostly black" neighborhood with (some) whites, Asians, and "Muslims". And a mostly Asian one with a few examples of the other three, and a mostly Islamic one, with a few whites, blacks, and Asians.

    I bet those will be four very different places. There will be very different gun policies, for example… oh, wait. I take that back. Unless a place is overwhelmingly white, it won't be offering liberal gun laws. Some things just aren't universal.
  42. neutral says:
    @Boris

    It’s irrational to prefer not to live be raise our children with Africans or Muslims?
     
    Yes.

    If so, do you have children and are you raising them in a majorit African or majorit Muslim neighborhood and school? If you’re not, what’s the basis for your”irrational preference”?
     
    I do. My neighborhood is mostly white, but there are blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Muslims. They are are all welcome and I'd be happy with more. I have no preference for the racial make-up of the community where I live.

    In any event, you must love in a nice little bubble to think that nonwhites en masse aren’t interested in advancing their group’s interests by any means necessary at the expense of whites or other nonwhite groups.
     
    Any means necessary? Please.

    My neighborhood is mostly white, but…

    Typical liberal cockroach avoiding the REAL question, would you like to have the demographics of a place like Lagos or Lahore ? Of course you are going to um and ah that its about wealth and culture and other such BS, but then you are going to have to ask the question why Lahore and Lagos just never seem to be able to create this wealth or culture ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    Typical liberal cockroach avoiding the REAL question, would you like to have the demographics of a place like Lagos or Lahore ?
     
    I don't care. I know your whiteness is very important to you since you have no accomplishments of your own to feel prideful about. You're essentially a racial communist saying "Hey, people who look like me have been important, so I must be important too!" Eventually reality will disabuse you of that delusion. Or not.
    , @Corvinus
    "Typical liberal cockroach avoiding the REAL question, would you like to have the demographics of a place like Lagos or Lahore?"

    American demographics are observably no where near those places you mentioned.
  43. Numinous says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Yes Hindu nationalists were strong exponents of Aryanism and many still are. Obviously Mr Roy is not one of these, otherwise he would have more insight into the effect that mass mestizo and other non-white immigration is having on native Americans.
    Also he seems to have little understanding of Indian History. In 1945, over 30% of the population of what is now Pakistan was non-Muslim. After partition, there were mass communal killings, forcible expulsions and migration. Now Hindus, Sikhs and Christians constitute 3% of Pakistan's population. Similar events occurred in Bengal.
    In nascent form we are seeing actions like these in parts of France. Sufficient numbers of Muslims arrive in a neighbourhood. They start intimidating the remaining natives. Unsupported by the State, the natives are pushed out or leave. Next stop Shariah Law etc.
    This is the prospect that America faces should Clinton win the election.

    Yes Hindu nationalists were strong exponents of Aryanism and many still are.

    I don’t know where you get your information from, but if by Aryanism you are referring to something akin to white supremacy, you could not be more wrong. The Hindu nationalist (or Hindutva) movement from its origins has preached moral and political equality of castes (though they haven’t gone out of their way to destroy the institution.) Hindu nationalists are very bigoted towards Muslims (and to a lesser extent towards Christians) but they go out of their way to be inclusive of the lower (and formerly untouchable) castes.

    To put it succintly, upper castes in India have never tried to frame a grand theory around their superiority and lower castes’ inferiority, like Europeans have. There are no Indian equivalents to the theories of Gobineau, Madison Grant, Chamberlain, or Hitler. The texts (Vedas and others) provide a religious basis for caste privileges, and everyone unthinkingly practiced them until not too long ago. There’s nothing more to it.

    Hindu nationalists today, across the board, even reject the premise on which the Indo-European theories have been propounded. They either dismiss the similarities between Indian and European languages as coincidences, or propound the “Out-of-India” theory, which claims that Proto-Indo-European originated in India, and the Indo-European volkerwanderung started in India and ended in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Since the British left, opportunities for untouchables have drastically declined. It took white Europeans to let untouchables have a modicum of social opportunities, Since Independence neither the Congress Party or the BJP have permitted that.
    Of course, Indian Aryanists believe that the original Indo-Europeans ( If they ever existed ) originated in India. They would. They are Aryanists.
    It may have originated in the Ukraine or the Caucasus. Nobody is very sure.
    , @iffen
    everyone unthinkingly practiced them

    You really don't want us to think that you believe this to be true, do you?
  44. Let’s quit pretending that racism is something besides sticking up for ones own and therefore virtuous.

    Read More
  45. gruff says:
    @Numinous

    If that’s so, how come so many of us live in white countries?
     
    This is a common trope I have heard on this website (and other similar ones) that non-whites are clamoring to live among whites in their societies. In reality, people are just doing what people have done forever; try to migrate to where the grass is greener. That's what Europeans did in the colonial era. Had you been around then, would you have claimed that white people were clamoring to live among Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Africans, Indians, etc?

    If China was set to become 50% Han Chinese by 2050, there would be egalitarians hung from every tree.
     
    You are just projecting your personal angst and proclivities on the Chinese (and no doubt, on other people too.) Your type a hundred years ago would have said the same thing about white people in America not tolerating changing demographics. Yet they have, and quite happily for the most part. You probably don't believe that; perhaps you think (just like the Bernie Bros) that your views are shared by 99% of people?

    Most people around the world just aren't that obsessed with race (historically, it's white people from colonizing countries who have been the most race-conscious). People do care about culture though. But culture ain't synonymous with race.

    This is a common trope I have heard on this website (and other similar ones) that non-whites are clamoring to live among whites in their societies. In reality, people are just doing what people have done forever; try to migrate to where the grass is greener. That’s what Europeans did in the colonial era. Had you been around then, would you have claimed that white people were clamoring to live among Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Africans, Indians, etc?

    Colonial whites intentionally and violently displaced the natives. They did not adopt and live by native cultural norms.

    Modern immigrants adopt and live by white cultural norms (supermarkets, traffic laws, literacy, on and on). When they don’t, there is violence (see: France).

    In other words, the grass is always greener on the white side of the fence.

    Read More
  46. uslabor says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Indian-American Hindu complains of white nationalism in America. It's as relevant as a white American complaining about Hindu nationalism in India. In fact, the biggest Indian party, the BJP, is the main exponent of Hindu nationalism.
    Without Hindus, there would be no India. Without white Europeans, there would be no America. Any party that sustains and supports the interests of white people in America, necessarily helps preserve America.

    “Without white Europeans, there would be no America.”

    You’re wrong, there would be America, just without you and your ilk here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    You are talking nonsense.
    It would be called Nueva Espana and would be largely mestizo in population.
    It would not be America. It would be a completely different social, ethnic, cultural entity.
  47. uslabor says:
    @Connecticut Famer
    I really wish that he--indeed who uses the word--would define exactly what is meant by "equality?"

    I can just picture you on your farm, behind your plow, scratching your head, and furrowing your brow in a futile effort to comprehend the meaning of the word: Equality.

    Read More
  48. Hrw-500 says:

    It’s almost a race to wonder which party will self-destruct first. The Democrat party is also at the crossroads. The Wikileaks showed DNC destroyed Sanders campaign to get Clinton elected. http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-email-leak-exposes-bias/

    Vlogger Styxhexenhammer666 posted some good vlogs about it.

    Read More
  49. Boris says:
    @neutral

    My neighborhood is mostly white, but...
     
    Typical liberal cockroach avoiding the REAL question, would you like to have the demographics of a place like Lagos or Lahore ? Of course you are going to um and ah that its about wealth and culture and other such BS, but then you are going to have to ask the question why Lahore and Lagos just never seem to be able to create this wealth or culture ?

    Typical liberal cockroach avoiding the REAL question, would you like to have the demographics of a place like Lagos or Lahore ?

    I don’t care. I know your whiteness is very important to you since you have no accomplishments of your own to feel prideful about. You’re essentially a racial communist saying “Hey, people who look like me have been important, so I must be important too!” Eventually reality will disabuse you of that delusion. Or not.

    Read More
  50. @Numinous

    Yes Hindu nationalists were strong exponents of Aryanism and many still are.
     
    I don't know where you get your information from, but if by Aryanism you are referring to something akin to white supremacy, you could not be more wrong. The Hindu nationalist (or Hindutva) movement from its origins has preached moral and political equality of castes (though they haven't gone out of their way to destroy the institution.) Hindu nationalists are very bigoted towards Muslims (and to a lesser extent towards Christians) but they go out of their way to be inclusive of the lower (and formerly untouchable) castes.

    To put it succintly, upper castes in India have never tried to frame a grand theory around their superiority and lower castes' inferiority, like Europeans have. There are no Indian equivalents to the theories of Gobineau, Madison Grant, Chamberlain, or Hitler. The texts (Vedas and others) provide a religious basis for caste privileges, and everyone unthinkingly practiced them until not too long ago. There's nothing more to it.

    Hindu nationalists today, across the board, even reject the premise on which the Indo-European theories have been propounded. They either dismiss the similarities between Indian and European languages as coincidences, or propound the "Out-of-India" theory, which claims that Proto-Indo-European originated in India, and the Indo-European volkerwanderung started in India and ended in Europe.

    Since the British left, opportunities for untouchables have drastically declined. It took white Europeans to let untouchables have a modicum of social opportunities, Since Independence neither the Congress Party or the BJP have permitted that.
    Of course, Indian Aryanists believe that the original Indo-Europeans ( If they ever existed ) originated in India. They would. They are Aryanists.
    It may have originated in the Ukraine or the Caucasus. Nobody is very sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    There are no "Indian Aryanists". And there is today something called a "Dalit Chamber of Commerce" ("Dalit" being the PC term for former untouchables.)

    You don't know what you are talking about. At all!
  51. @uslabor
    "Without white Europeans, there would be no America."

    You're wrong, there would be America, just without you and your ilk here.

    You are talking nonsense.
    It would be called Nueva Espana and would be largely mestizo in population.
    It would not be America. It would be a completely different social, ethnic, cultural entity.

    Read More
  52. iffen says:
    @Numinous

    Yes Hindu nationalists were strong exponents of Aryanism and many still are.
     
    I don't know where you get your information from, but if by Aryanism you are referring to something akin to white supremacy, you could not be more wrong. The Hindu nationalist (or Hindutva) movement from its origins has preached moral and political equality of castes (though they haven't gone out of their way to destroy the institution.) Hindu nationalists are very bigoted towards Muslims (and to a lesser extent towards Christians) but they go out of their way to be inclusive of the lower (and formerly untouchable) castes.

    To put it succintly, upper castes in India have never tried to frame a grand theory around their superiority and lower castes' inferiority, like Europeans have. There are no Indian equivalents to the theories of Gobineau, Madison Grant, Chamberlain, or Hitler. The texts (Vedas and others) provide a religious basis for caste privileges, and everyone unthinkingly practiced them until not too long ago. There's nothing more to it.

    Hindu nationalists today, across the board, even reject the premise on which the Indo-European theories have been propounded. They either dismiss the similarities between Indian and European languages as coincidences, or propound the "Out-of-India" theory, which claims that Proto-Indo-European originated in India, and the Indo-European volkerwanderung started in India and ended in Europe.

    everyone unthinkingly practiced them

    You really don’t want us to think that you believe this to be true, do you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    I know this to be true, because I am Indian and I know my country. Are you, and do you?
  53. @Drapetomaniac
    Although the effect is more obvious in the US, the West is suffering from an invasion by those whose mindsets are perhaps as much as several thousand years closer to that of a hunter-gatherer.

    The functionality of that type of mindset in a modern society is on display in several major American cities.

    I don’t think those with the mind of a hunter-gatherer are likely to be attracted to cities. Too much going on.

    Read More
  54. @iffen
    The fact is that limited government conservatism is not especially appealing to nonwhite Americans, whereas liberalism and social democracy are. The only ones for whom conservatism is a natural fit are Roy’s “cranky old white people” — and they’re dying off.

    I disagree. Social Darwinist conservatism and clueless libertarianism have little to offer most working class white Americans. The core principle of conservatism is the adamant opposition to the use of government to ameliorate the economic conditions applying to the lower classes. They thought that they got Reagan Democrats, but what they really got was New Deal Democrats and their descendants. Now that it is crunch time, they have nothing to offer this group. Too late now, damn democraphics.

    I am saying that a fair share of working class Americans, and a much larger share of the Crackers and their demographic cousins, generally support government that promises to “leave them alone.” This is complicated by the immigration question, but this is the main reason they were attracted to small government advocacy. This does not mean voters of this stripe want SS ripped out from underneath, just means they’re not comfortable with a Nanny State.

    These voters have not historically been opposed to outcrossing or alien assimilation. They are probably less racist, in terms of a tendency to make prior assumptions regarding value on the basis of race without additional information, than most if not all other significant classes of voters in our country. Throughout American history the Crackers and Cousins have been more willing to assimilate outsiders than probably any other class.

    They are concerned about unlimited immigration because they realize that their social and technological instincts and priorities will be a handicap, at best, in an America that is focused on burying its pioneer foundation and values deep in the ground with a lead overcoat. Of course, since these folks are the root of limited government, the internationalist free market advocates are left bereft of a fighting force.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t think that there is a philosophical attraction for “small government” among us crackers. We are opposed to actions and policies that are inimical to our interests and those that favor other groups to our detriment, see affirmative action. There has been, and is, a class based political trope that government is “bad” for us and this gives way to a reflexive oppositional position. The elites had the generic opposition to government and were able to bring along the crackers because the main thrust of government action in the 60’s and 70’s was in many instances directed against the interests of crackers and in favor of other groups.

    have been more willing to assimilate outsiders
    I am in complete agreement here. I think we will readily and sincerely make exceptions to the stereotypes, but the stereotypes will hold overall. Didn’t Dylann Roof have a black friend that stayed with them in their trailer home at times?
    since these folks are the root of limited government
    No, they are the root of the Republican base that has been used by the opportunistic globalist elites to win elections. The elites favor limited government. The jig was up in 2012 when 8 million stayed home and refrained from voting for that sewer pond scum Romney. This year they went full rogue. Unfortunately, the rats as identified by Kirkpatrick are sabotaging the election. Even without the rats the total opposition of the MSM would tough to overcome.
  55. rob says:

    To put it succintly, upper castes in India have never tried to frame a grand theory around their superiority and lower castes’ inferiority

    Course they did. It’s called Hinduism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Course they did. It’s called Hinduism.
     
    No, and for the last time, Hinduism is a set of religious concepts, not a racial manifesto. All the group-and-hierarchy theories that you are thinking of were propounded from whole cloth by Europeans during the 19th century. They thought they know what the Vedas meant more than than its practitioners did. Any texts that are so old and vaguely worded as the Hindu religious texts are can be reinterpreted and twisted in a way that fits the preconceptions of the theorizers (e.g., whites who have a need to believe in their own congenital superiority.) The Bible too can be reinterpreted any number of ways, psychoanalyzed, and its passages mangled, to paint a different picture of the land and inhabitants it emerged out of.
  56. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    By the time the trumpening is over, the Republican party will be a stronger organization that address the real concerns of ya’known conservatism (as in actually conserving the country) at least for a while. No love lost Avik Roy, don’t let the door hit you and the establishment on your way out.

    Read More
  57. @helena
    Agree. The political right has morphed into an ideology of liberalism with small government versus the leftist liberalism with big government. What is needed are parties that can put forward the wealth of analysis regarding the building of civilisation, as seen on the web. Europeans need to find a way to speak up for European achievements and lobby for European self-rule without resorting to total alienation of non-Europeans. The hour has come but sadly the men haven't. No great leaders are stepping forward in US or EU despite the evident pool of intellectual and leadership ability seen on the web. Two examples are the research that has been done on the commonweal, and cousin marriage bans.

    How about going the full Vatican, and banning marriages between third cousins?

    Read More
  58. @iffen
    The fact is that limited government conservatism is not especially appealing to nonwhite Americans, whereas liberalism and social democracy are. The only ones for whom conservatism is a natural fit are Roy’s “cranky old white people” — and they’re dying off.

    I disagree. Social Darwinist conservatism and clueless libertarianism have little to offer most working class white Americans. The core principle of conservatism is the adamant opposition to the use of government to ameliorate the economic conditions applying to the lower classes. They thought that they got Reagan Democrats, but what they really got was New Deal Democrats and their descendants. Now that it is crunch time, they have nothing to offer this group. Too late now, damn democraphics.

    Social Darwinist conservatism and clueless libertarianism have little to offer most working class white Americans.

    The very same Southern voters who kissed FDR’s withered ass four times turned to Barry Goldwater 20 years later. By your analysis, that shouldn’t have happened. After all, LBJ offered so much more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I can only point out that you are incorrect.

    They supported FDR because he proffered economic solutions that they saw to be in their interests.

    They supported Goldwater because of his stand against civil rights legislation.

    They have abandoned the globalist Republican Party because it offers nothing to them in terms of economic solutions.
  59. Numinous says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Since the British left, opportunities for untouchables have drastically declined. It took white Europeans to let untouchables have a modicum of social opportunities, Since Independence neither the Congress Party or the BJP have permitted that.
    Of course, Indian Aryanists believe that the original Indo-Europeans ( If they ever existed ) originated in India. They would. They are Aryanists.
    It may have originated in the Ukraine or the Caucasus. Nobody is very sure.

    There are no “Indian Aryanists”. And there is today something called a “Dalit Chamber of Commerce” (“Dalit” being the PC term for former untouchables.)

    You don’t know what you are talking about. At all!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    An untouchable by any other name, whether harijan or dalit, is still an untouchable.
    " Most Dalits continue to live in extreme poverty, without land or opportunities for better employment or education " www.dalitchristian.com
    The Indian press, to its credit, routinely runs stories of untouchable men being lynched or burned alive, as well as gang rapes of untouchable women. The true level of atrocities is probably significantly higher as many are unreported.
    The Aryan invasion over 3,000 years ago ushered in the caste system. The original untouchables were probably in large part the descendants of the pre-Aryan inhabitants. An upper caste Hindu's religion and caste ultimately derives this invasion. He cannot therefore be anything other than an Aryanist.
  60. Numinous says:
    @iffen
    everyone unthinkingly practiced them

    You really don't want us to think that you believe this to be true, do you?

    I know this to be true, because I am Indian and I know my country. Are you, and do you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Are you, and do you?

    I am an American.

    People in the lower classes can become resigned to their status at times.

    People in the upper classes accept the structure because they think that's the way it's supposed to be.

    By your statement we could say that slaves never thought about freedom.
  61. Numinous says:
    @rob
    To put it succintly, upper castes in India have never tried to frame a grand theory around their superiority and lower castes’ inferiority

    Course they did. It's called Hinduism.

    Course they did. It’s called Hinduism.

    No, and for the last time, Hinduism is a set of religious concepts, not a racial manifesto. All the group-and-hierarchy theories that you are thinking of were propounded from whole cloth by Europeans during the 19th century. They thought they know what the Vedas meant more than than its practitioners did. Any texts that are so old and vaguely worded as the Hindu religious texts are can be reinterpreted and twisted in a way that fits the preconceptions of the theorizers (e.g., whites who have a need to believe in their own congenital superiority.) The Bible too can be reinterpreted any number of ways, psychoanalyzed, and its passages mangled, to paint a different picture of the land and inhabitants it emerged out of.

    Read More
  62. iffen says:
    @Neil Templeton
    I am saying that a fair share of working class Americans, and a much larger share of the Crackers and their demographic cousins, generally support government that promises to "leave them alone." This is complicated by the immigration question, but this is the main reason they were attracted to small government advocacy. This does not mean voters of this stripe want SS ripped out from underneath, just means they're not comfortable with a Nanny State.

    These voters have not historically been opposed to outcrossing or alien assimilation. They are probably less racist, in terms of a tendency to make prior assumptions regarding value on the basis of race without additional information, than most if not all other significant classes of voters in our country. Throughout American history the Crackers and Cousins have been more willing to assimilate outsiders than probably any other class.

    They are concerned about unlimited immigration because they realize that their social and technological instincts and priorities will be a handicap, at best, in an America that is focused on burying its pioneer foundation and values deep in the ground with a lead overcoat. Of course, since these folks are the root of limited government, the internationalist free market advocates are left bereft of a fighting force.

    I don’t think that there is a philosophical attraction for “small government” among us crackers. We are opposed to actions and policies that are inimical to our interests and those that favor other groups to our detriment, see affirmative action. There has been, and is, a class based political trope that government is “bad” for us and this gives way to a reflexive oppositional position. The elites had the generic opposition to government and were able to bring along the crackers because the main thrust of government action in the 60’s and 70’s was in many instances directed against the interests of crackers and in favor of other groups.

    have been more willing to assimilate outsiders
    I am in complete agreement here. I think we will readily and sincerely make exceptions to the stereotypes, but the stereotypes will hold overall. Didn’t Dylann Roof have a black friend that stayed with them in their trailer home at times?
    since these folks are the root of limited government
    No, they are the root of the Republican base that has been used by the opportunistic globalist elites to win elections. The elites favor limited government. The jig was up in 2012 when 8 million stayed home and refrained from voting for that sewer pond scum Romney. This year they went full rogue. Unfortunately, the rats as identified by Kirkpatrick are sabotaging the election. Even without the rats the total opposition of the MSM would tough to overcome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I modify my terms. By small or limited government I refer to a relative absence of busybody law. In general, the frontier or pioneer whites don't like to be told what to do, and don't like claims on their liberty. If offered assistance that at least looks like a fair trade, e.g. Roosevelt's infrastructure build out, they will support. If offered assistance wrapped in "beholden" paper, they will reject. Above all they reject the progressive agenda in all its sanctimony and its embarrassing need for project peoples.
  63. iffen says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Social Darwinist conservatism and clueless libertarianism have little to offer most working class white Americans.
     
    The very same Southern voters who kissed FDR's withered ass four times turned to Barry Goldwater 20 years later. By your analysis, that shouldn't have happened. After all, LBJ offered so much more.

    I can only point out that you are incorrect.

    They supported FDR because he proffered economic solutions that they saw to be in their interests.

    They supported Goldwater because of his stand against civil rights legislation.

    They have abandoned the globalist Republican Party because it offers nothing to them in terms of economic solutions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    How am I incorrect? By your rationale, Johnson was the far better candidate, and Goldwater, the most free-market major-party candidate of the century, was a disaster who offered them nothing. Heck, LBJ carried six of the eleven CSA states, with more electors.

    Yet Goldwater carried FDR's best states, not his weakest. Yes, it was the civil rights business that inspired them to, but civil rights (except perhaps for open housing's effect on property values) is not economics.

    The only way this makes sense is if economics isn't everything. And that's a right-wing attitude.
  64. iffen says:
    @Numinous
    I know this to be true, because I am Indian and I know my country. Are you, and do you?

    Are you, and do you?

    I am an American.

    People in the lower classes can become resigned to their status at times.

    People in the upper classes accept the structure because they think that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

    By your statement we could say that slaves never thought about freedom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    I agree with you, and I thought I was saying the same thing. I'm not sure where the conflict between our views lies.

    Look, I despise the caste system, segregation, untouchability, etc., and am happy to see them (gradually) disappear, just as I would hope that modern Americans despise slavery and segregation and are happy in a world where people don't suffer from a crippling disadvantage just because they were born into a particular family. But that doesn't prevent me from recognizing that, historically, the beneficiary of these institutions (in bot countries) mainly went along with what was normal in their societies rather than willfully plotting to keep the "lower castes" down on a daily basis. (I am a liberal, but my liberalism draws from very different sources than the Marxist/BLM kind.)
  65. @Numinous
    There are no "Indian Aryanists". And there is today something called a "Dalit Chamber of Commerce" ("Dalit" being the PC term for former untouchables.)

    You don't know what you are talking about. At all!

    An untouchable by any other name, whether harijan or dalit, is still an untouchable.
    ” Most Dalits continue to live in extreme poverty, without land or opportunities for better employment or education ” http://www.dalitchristian.com
    The Indian press, to its credit, routinely runs stories of untouchable men being lynched or burned alive, as well as gang rapes of untouchable women. The true level of atrocities is probably significantly higher as many are unreported.
    The Aryan invasion over 3,000 years ago ushered in the caste system. The original untouchables were probably in large part the descendants of the pre-Aryan inhabitants. An upper caste Hindu’s religion and caste ultimately derives this invasion. He cannot therefore be anything other than an Aryanist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    Blacks in America suffer from similar disadvantages as Dalits in India. Yet most people commenting on these forums go up in arms when anyone dares to say that blacks don't have it very good in modern America. The reality is that both of our societies are working (slowly) towards improving the conditions of formerly unprivileged people. Please try to understand that.

    Please read Razib's blog for a more nuanced take on ancient Indian history. "Facts" you take for granted (that the Aryans invaded India rather than migrate or merge into it, or that the caste system resulted from said invasion) are in the realms of hypotheses, and are by no means taken for granted by scholars. The evidence is very incomplete, and open to multiple divergent interpretations.

    (The word "Aryan" itself was taken well out of context by 19th century European supremacists. It gets some mention in the early part of the Vedas purely as a class marker. That word has never been prominent in Indian religious or secular discourse until the late 19th century when European interpretations of the Vedas brought it to the forefront.)
  66. @iffen
    I can only point out that you are incorrect.

    They supported FDR because he proffered economic solutions that they saw to be in their interests.

    They supported Goldwater because of his stand against civil rights legislation.

    They have abandoned the globalist Republican Party because it offers nothing to them in terms of economic solutions.

    How am I incorrect? By your rationale, Johnson was the far better candidate, and Goldwater, the most free-market major-party candidate of the century, was a disaster who offered them nothing. Heck, LBJ carried six of the eleven CSA states, with more electors.

    Yet Goldwater carried FDR’s best states, not his weakest. Yes, it was the civil rights business that inspired them to, but civil rights (except perhaps for open housing’s effect on property values) is not economics.

    The only way this makes sense is if economics isn’t everything. And that’s a right-wing attitude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Yet Goldwater carried FDR’s best states, not his weakest.
     
    Sorry to intrude on your conversation, but weren't the Deep South states in a much better economic condition by the 1960s compared to the Depression Era? And their electorate (almost all white) probably had property to protect by then, making them much more receptive to Goldwater-style conservatism?
    , @iffen
    Other than Medicare, one had to look closely to see the economic appeal of Johnson’s programs to lower class whites.

    The Civil Rights issues overwhelmed all other issues.

    The actual economic conditions trump everything else.

    FDR gained their support because of his policies vis-a-vis the Depression.

    They didn’t “need” Johnson. The 50’s, 60’s and 70’s were the golden age for working class whites, and for other groups as well.

    Suffering from the aftereffects of the Great Recession and all the ongoing economical structural changes of the last 30 years, there is a realization that the globalist, “free market” opportunistic Republicans have nothing to offer. All this philosophical propaganda and conservative political rationale are worth squat and they know it, intuitively.

    Trump has gained their support because of the perception that he will implement policies that are beneficial to them.
  67. Numinous says:
    @Verymuchalive
    An untouchable by any other name, whether harijan or dalit, is still an untouchable.
    " Most Dalits continue to live in extreme poverty, without land or opportunities for better employment or education " www.dalitchristian.com
    The Indian press, to its credit, routinely runs stories of untouchable men being lynched or burned alive, as well as gang rapes of untouchable women. The true level of atrocities is probably significantly higher as many are unreported.
    The Aryan invasion over 3,000 years ago ushered in the caste system. The original untouchables were probably in large part the descendants of the pre-Aryan inhabitants. An upper caste Hindu's religion and caste ultimately derives this invasion. He cannot therefore be anything other than an Aryanist.

    Blacks in America suffer from similar disadvantages as Dalits in India. Yet most people commenting on these forums go up in arms when anyone dares to say that blacks don’t have it very good in modern America. The reality is that both of our societies are working (slowly) towards improving the conditions of formerly unprivileged people. Please try to understand that.

    Please read Razib’s blog for a more nuanced take on ancient Indian history. “Facts” you take for granted (that the Aryans invaded India rather than migrate or merge into it, or that the caste system resulted from said invasion) are in the realms of hypotheses, and are by no means taken for granted by scholars. The evidence is very incomplete, and open to multiple divergent interpretations.

    (The word “Aryan” itself was taken well out of context by 19th century European supremacists. It gets some mention in the early part of the Vedas purely as a class marker. That word has never been prominent in Indian religious or secular discourse until the late 19th century when European interpretations of the Vedas brought it to the forefront.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Black Americans are the most affluent blacks in the world and always have been, Most take full advantage of munificent welfare benefits, devised by white American governments over the years. Many of these benefits are higher than the average wages of many industrialised countries.
    Untouchables live in abject poverty for the most part. Their opportunities for advancement have deteriorated since the end of the Raj. They are subject to daily humiliation and routine murder, rape and beatings. They are not a fashionable minority. Ignored, their treatment condoned by religion - and of course, they've been maltreated for the last 3000 years !
    You, like many Hindus, seek either to ignore the treatment of untouchables, or if pressed, claim that government is helping to rapidly improve their conditions. This is untrue. The condition of untouchables is even more miserable than ever.
  68. Numinous says:
    @iffen
    Are you, and do you?

    I am an American.

    People in the lower classes can become resigned to their status at times.

    People in the upper classes accept the structure because they think that's the way it's supposed to be.

    By your statement we could say that slaves never thought about freedom.

    I agree with you, and I thought I was saying the same thing. I’m not sure where the conflict between our views lies.

    Look, I despise the caste system, segregation, untouchability, etc., and am happy to see them (gradually) disappear, just as I would hope that modern Americans despise slavery and segregation and are happy in a world where people don’t suffer from a crippling disadvantage just because they were born into a particular family. But that doesn’t prevent me from recognizing that, historically, the beneficiary of these institutions (in bot countries) mainly went along with what was normal in their societies rather than willfully plotting to keep the “lower castes” down on a daily basis. (I am a liberal, but my liberalism draws from very different sources than the Marxist/BLM kind.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    mainly went along with what was normal in their societies rather than willfully plotting to keep the “lower castes” down on a daily basis.

    Yes to what you are saying. It is just a question of wording.

    I just want to make it clear, as you are aware, all classes are not always "unthinking" as to the structure and how it affects them. Life is mostly routine.
  69. Numinous says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    How am I incorrect? By your rationale, Johnson was the far better candidate, and Goldwater, the most free-market major-party candidate of the century, was a disaster who offered them nothing. Heck, LBJ carried six of the eleven CSA states, with more electors.

    Yet Goldwater carried FDR's best states, not his weakest. Yes, it was the civil rights business that inspired them to, but civil rights (except perhaps for open housing's effect on property values) is not economics.

    The only way this makes sense is if economics isn't everything. And that's a right-wing attitude.

    Yet Goldwater carried FDR’s best states, not his weakest.

    Sorry to intrude on your conversation, but weren’t the Deep South states in a much better economic condition by the 1960s compared to the Depression Era? And their electorate (almost all white) probably had property to protect by then, making them much more receptive to Goldwater-style conservatism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    And their electorate (almost all white)

    Goldwater's best states had the higher black population ratios; Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Georgia, it was about race.
  70. iffen says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    How am I incorrect? By your rationale, Johnson was the far better candidate, and Goldwater, the most free-market major-party candidate of the century, was a disaster who offered them nothing. Heck, LBJ carried six of the eleven CSA states, with more electors.

    Yet Goldwater carried FDR's best states, not his weakest. Yes, it was the civil rights business that inspired them to, but civil rights (except perhaps for open housing's effect on property values) is not economics.

    The only way this makes sense is if economics isn't everything. And that's a right-wing attitude.

    Other than Medicare, one had to look closely to see the economic appeal of Johnson’s programs to lower class whites.

    The Civil Rights issues overwhelmed all other issues.

    The actual economic conditions trump everything else.

    FDR gained their support because of his policies vis-a-vis the Depression.

    They didn’t “need” Johnson. The 50’s, 60’s and 70’s were the golden age for working class whites, and for other groups as well.

    Suffering from the aftereffects of the Great Recession and all the ongoing economical structural changes of the last 30 years, there is a realization that the globalist, “free market” opportunistic Republicans have nothing to offer. All this philosophical propaganda and conservative political rationale are worth squat and they know it, intuitively.

    Trump has gained their support because of the perception that he will implement policies that are beneficial to them.

    Read More
  71. @iffen
    I don’t think that there is a philosophical attraction for “small government” among us crackers. We are opposed to actions and policies that are inimical to our interests and those that favor other groups to our detriment, see affirmative action. There has been, and is, a class based political trope that government is “bad” for us and this gives way to a reflexive oppositional position. The elites had the generic opposition to government and were able to bring along the crackers because the main thrust of government action in the 60’s and 70’s was in many instances directed against the interests of crackers and in favor of other groups.

    have been more willing to assimilate outsiders
    I am in complete agreement here. I think we will readily and sincerely make exceptions to the stereotypes, but the stereotypes will hold overall. Didn’t Dylann Roof have a black friend that stayed with them in their trailer home at times?
    since these folks are the root of limited government
    No, they are the root of the Republican base that has been used by the opportunistic globalist elites to win elections. The elites favor limited government. The jig was up in 2012 when 8 million stayed home and refrained from voting for that sewer pond scum Romney. This year they went full rogue. Unfortunately, the rats as identified by Kirkpatrick are sabotaging the election. Even without the rats the total opposition of the MSM would tough to overcome.

    I modify my terms. By small or limited government I refer to a relative absence of busybody law. In general, the frontier or pioneer whites don’t like to be told what to do, and don’t like claims on their liberty. If offered assistance that at least looks like a fair trade, e.g. Roosevelt’s infrastructure build out, they will support. If offered assistance wrapped in “beholden” paper, they will reject. Above all they reject the progressive agenda in all its sanctimony and its embarrassing need for project peoples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    progressive agenda in all its sanctimony and its embarrassing need for project peoples.

    They don't want to line up in the soup line with their cap in their hand for government handouts that they helped pay for through consumption taxes.
  72. Lepanto says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Indian-American Hindu complains of white nationalism in America. It's as relevant as a white American complaining about Hindu nationalism in India. In fact, the biggest Indian party, the BJP, is the main exponent of Hindu nationalism.
    Without Hindus, there would be no India. Without white Europeans, there would be no America. Any party that sustains and supports the interests of white people in America, necessarily helps preserve America.

    “Without white Europeans, there would be no America”

    If by this you are speaking historically, then you are right, given that white Europeans created and have lead the Republic. If you mean this in an existential and future sense then you are the problem that Roy points to: white = America. I have said it a few times on this site: if this is the view and your ideal then it is living in a fantasy.

    If you think there can be no United States with the integration of the new immigrants into our people-hood then then you are contributing to dis-union and fragmentation. I suggest instead that you work to help unify the country. Promote American ideals – liberty, freedom, opportunity. There are plenty of ‘non-whites’ who not only embrace them but now live them. If you push these people away you push reality away and you will continue to live in pain and confusion.

    Step up don’t give up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Excellent comment.

    You should take notice that politicians are exploiting race and ethnic divisions (as always) and as to the Democrats they are all in on the idea that white people are the problem. The commenters here are not representative of generic white America. Generic white America has tried to make diversity work and if one takes a historical perspective nothing in recorded history comes close to what has been accomplished in the last 50 years. That said, many white Americans are noticing that the problem is being described as white people, not racism or discrimination or persecutions.
    , @Verymuchalive
    Dear Dimwit,
    massive non-white immigration is already contributing to disunion and fragmentation. Even as we speak, large parts of the American Southwest are already de facto Mexican. The ability of America to assimilate these groups has long gone. Permitting even more immigration merely exacerbates the problem. If you can't grasp this, then surely you will get what's coming to you.
  73. iffen says:
    @Neil Templeton
    I modify my terms. By small or limited government I refer to a relative absence of busybody law. In general, the frontier or pioneer whites don't like to be told what to do, and don't like claims on their liberty. If offered assistance that at least looks like a fair trade, e.g. Roosevelt's infrastructure build out, they will support. If offered assistance wrapped in "beholden" paper, they will reject. Above all they reject the progressive agenda in all its sanctimony and its embarrassing need for project peoples.

    progressive agenda in all its sanctimony and its embarrassing need for project peoples.

    They don’t want to line up in the soup line with their cap in their hand for government handouts that they helped pay for through consumption taxes.

    Read More
  74. iffen says:
    @Numinous

    Yet Goldwater carried FDR’s best states, not his weakest.
     
    Sorry to intrude on your conversation, but weren't the Deep South states in a much better economic condition by the 1960s compared to the Depression Era? And their electorate (almost all white) probably had property to protect by then, making them much more receptive to Goldwater-style conservatism?

    And their electorate (almost all white)

    Goldwater’s best states had the higher black population ratios; Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Georgia, it was about race.

    Read More
  75. iffen says:
    @Numinous
    I agree with you, and I thought I was saying the same thing. I'm not sure where the conflict between our views lies.

    Look, I despise the caste system, segregation, untouchability, etc., and am happy to see them (gradually) disappear, just as I would hope that modern Americans despise slavery and segregation and are happy in a world where people don't suffer from a crippling disadvantage just because they were born into a particular family. But that doesn't prevent me from recognizing that, historically, the beneficiary of these institutions (in bot countries) mainly went along with what was normal in their societies rather than willfully plotting to keep the "lower castes" down on a daily basis. (I am a liberal, but my liberalism draws from very different sources than the Marxist/BLM kind.)

    mainly went along with what was normal in their societies rather than willfully plotting to keep the “lower castes” down on a daily basis.

    Yes to what you are saying. It is just a question of wording.

    I just want to make it clear, as you are aware, all classes are not always “unthinking” as to the structure and how it affects them. Life is mostly routine.

    Read More
  76. iffen says:

    … a true commitment to equality for all Americans. “Until the conservative movement can stand up and live by that principle…

    The crux of the argument is here in the early paragraphs. Conservatives don’t believe in equality, they believe in some degree of class structure to a greater or lesser extent. The people pushing the cuckservative meme are correct in that if the GOP does commit to equality then it will just be a whiter shade of Democrats.

    Read More
  77. iffen says:
    @Lepanto
    "Without white Europeans, there would be no America"

    If by this you are speaking historically, then you are right, given that white Europeans created and have lead the Republic. If you mean this in an existential and future sense then you are the problem that Roy points to: white = America. I have said it a few times on this site: if this is the view and your ideal then it is living in a fantasy.

    If you think there can be no United States with the integration of the new immigrants into our people-hood then then you are contributing to dis-union and fragmentation. I suggest instead that you work to help unify the country. Promote American ideals - liberty, freedom, opportunity. There are plenty of 'non-whites' who not only embrace them but now live them. If you push these people away you push reality away and you will continue to live in pain and confusion.

    Step up don't give up.

    Excellent comment.

    You should take notice that politicians are exploiting race and ethnic divisions (as always) and as to the Democrats they are all in on the idea that white people are the problem. The commenters here are not representative of generic white America. Generic white America has tried to make diversity work and if one takes a historical perspective nothing in recorded history comes close to what has been accomplished in the last 50 years. That said, many white Americans are noticing that the problem is being described as white people, not racism or discrimination or persecutions.

    Read More
  78. white nationalism will not win, american nationalism will.

    I wonder how many americans get this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    "...white nationalism will not win, american nationalism will.

    I wonder how many americans get this...."



    Bingo. We have a winner!!!
  79. Joe Walker says: • Website
    @David Davenport
    Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican.

    No, he is not.

    It would probably be more correct to describe him as a Neocon’s Neocon.

    Read More
  80. @Numinous
    Blacks in America suffer from similar disadvantages as Dalits in India. Yet most people commenting on these forums go up in arms when anyone dares to say that blacks don't have it very good in modern America. The reality is that both of our societies are working (slowly) towards improving the conditions of formerly unprivileged people. Please try to understand that.

    Please read Razib's blog for a more nuanced take on ancient Indian history. "Facts" you take for granted (that the Aryans invaded India rather than migrate or merge into it, or that the caste system resulted from said invasion) are in the realms of hypotheses, and are by no means taken for granted by scholars. The evidence is very incomplete, and open to multiple divergent interpretations.

    (The word "Aryan" itself was taken well out of context by 19th century European supremacists. It gets some mention in the early part of the Vedas purely as a class marker. That word has never been prominent in Indian religious or secular discourse until the late 19th century when European interpretations of the Vedas brought it to the forefront.)

    Black Americans are the most affluent blacks in the world and always have been, Most take full advantage of munificent welfare benefits, devised by white American governments over the years. Many of these benefits are higher than the average wages of many industrialised countries.
    Untouchables live in abject poverty for the most part. Their opportunities for advancement have deteriorated since the end of the Raj. They are subject to daily humiliation and routine murder, rape and beatings. They are not a fashionable minority. Ignored, their treatment condoned by religion – and of course, they’ve been maltreated for the last 3000 years !
    You, like many Hindus, seek either to ignore the treatment of untouchables, or if pressed, claim that government is helping to rapidly improve their conditions. This is untrue. The condition of untouchables is even more miserable than ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    I lament each and every case of caste-based oppression. But your comment is a perfect example of an unthinking double standard.

    If one were to go by what the mainstream media reports (throughout the world), blacks in America are suffering from unprecedented brutality from the police and unprecedented racial discrimination from their fellow (white) citizens. Someone who investigates harder though might get a different picture. Your impression of what's going on in India comes from a similar source with similar biases and motivations.

    Like all nationalistic right-wingers, you seem compelled to put the best spin on discrimination within your society and the worst spin on discrimination outside your society.
  81. @Lepanto
    "Without white Europeans, there would be no America"

    If by this you are speaking historically, then you are right, given that white Europeans created and have lead the Republic. If you mean this in an existential and future sense then you are the problem that Roy points to: white = America. I have said it a few times on this site: if this is the view and your ideal then it is living in a fantasy.

    If you think there can be no United States with the integration of the new immigrants into our people-hood then then you are contributing to dis-union and fragmentation. I suggest instead that you work to help unify the country. Promote American ideals - liberty, freedom, opportunity. There are plenty of 'non-whites' who not only embrace them but now live them. If you push these people away you push reality away and you will continue to live in pain and confusion.

    Step up don't give up.

    Dear Dimwit,
    massive non-white immigration is already contributing to disunion and fragmentation. Even as we speak, large parts of the American Southwest are already de facto Mexican. The ability of America to assimilate these groups has long gone. Permitting even more immigration merely exacerbates the problem. If you can’t grasp this, then surely you will get what’s coming to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lepanto
    Name-calling doesn't bother me. But you didn't read my comment carefully. I was talking about the integration/assimilation of the immigrants who are already here. So slowing immigration is indeed necessary but that does not fully address the problem of creating a united country where not everybody is white. And I completely disagree that the ability to assimilate is long-gone. Studies show assimilation is indeed happening, e.g. Alba and Nee Remaking the American Mainstream, essays in Jacoby's Reinventing the Melting Pot, and monographs by the scholars who published there. White racialists don't want this assimilation because it means eventual intermarriage. Black racialists don't want it for the same reason. Radical leftists don't want it because it promotes social cohesion and in their view solidification of the economic status quo. The ones who will be left out in the end will be those "whites" and "blacks" who want to stay separate. They will be the minorities in a hundred years. The rest will be Americans. That is my prediction.
  82. @WorkingClass
    The country needs and wants a Labor Party. What we have now is one party rule and Donald Trump crashing the party. The working class wants work and wages not war and welfare.

    “work and wages not war and welfare.”

    Congratulation, you are the winner of today’s internets

    Trump now has his slogan for the next three months.

    Read More
  83. Curle says:
    @Numinous

    If that’s so, how come so many of us live in white countries?
     
    This is a common trope I have heard on this website (and other similar ones) that non-whites are clamoring to live among whites in their societies. In reality, people are just doing what people have done forever; try to migrate to where the grass is greener. That's what Europeans did in the colonial era. Had you been around then, would you have claimed that white people were clamoring to live among Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Africans, Indians, etc?

    If China was set to become 50% Han Chinese by 2050, there would be egalitarians hung from every tree.
     
    You are just projecting your personal angst and proclivities on the Chinese (and no doubt, on other people too.) Your type a hundred years ago would have said the same thing about white people in America not tolerating changing demographics. Yet they have, and quite happily for the most part. You probably don't believe that; perhaps you think (just like the Bernie Bros) that your views are shared by 99% of people?

    Most people around the world just aren't that obsessed with race (historically, it's white people from colonizing countries who have been the most race-conscious). People do care about culture though. But culture ain't synonymous with race.

    “Your type a hundred years ago would have said the same thing about white people in America not tolerating changing demographics. ”

    I guess you’ll change your tune in five years, eh (see below)?

    The Emergency Quota Act, also known as the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, the Per Centum Law, and the Johnson Quota Act (ch. 8, 42 Stat. 5 of May 19, 1921) restricted immigration into the United States. Although intended as temporary legislation, the Act “proved in the long run the most important turning-point in American immigration policy”[2] because it added two new features to American immigration law: numerical limits on immigration and the use of a quota system for establishing those limits. These limits came to be known as the National Origins Formula.

    The Emergency Quota Act restricted the number of immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of residents from that same country living in the United States as of the U.S. Census of 1910.[3

    Based on that formula, the number of new immigrants admitted fell from 805,228 in 1920 to 309,556 in 1921-22.[4] The average annual inflow of immigrants prior to 1921 was 175,983 from Northern and Western Europe, and 685,531 from other countries, principally Southern and Eastern Europe. In 1921, there was a drastic reduction in immigration levels from other countries, principally Southern and Eastern Europe.

    Read More
  84. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    By "minority" you apparently mean non-white? Inaccurate in a large and growing number of cities and states, where non-whites are a majority.

    In any event, you must love in a nice little bubble to think that nonwhites en masse aren't interested in advancing their group's interests by any means necessary at the expense of whites or other nonwhite groups. I hope you're not teaching such dangerously naive nonsense to children.

    “In any event, you must love in a nice little bubble to think that nonwhites en masse aren’t interested in advancing their group’s interests by any means necessary at the expense of whites or other nonwhite groups. I hope you’re not teaching such dangerously naive nonsense to children.”

    The only naiveness is you believing that nonwhites collectively are actually hatching plans as we speak to take out whites.

    Read More
  85. Corvinus says:
    @neutral

    My neighborhood is mostly white, but...
     
    Typical liberal cockroach avoiding the REAL question, would you like to have the demographics of a place like Lagos or Lahore ? Of course you are going to um and ah that its about wealth and culture and other such BS, but then you are going to have to ask the question why Lahore and Lagos just never seem to be able to create this wealth or culture ?

    “Typical liberal cockroach avoiding the REAL question, would you like to have the demographics of a place like Lagos or Lahore?”

    American demographics are observably no where near those places you mentioned.

    Read More
  86. @Boris

    It’s irrational to prefer not to live be raise our children with Africans or Muslims?
     
    Yes.

    If so, do you have children and are you raising them in a majorit African or majorit Muslim neighborhood and school? If you’re not, what’s the basis for your”irrational preference”?
     
    I do. My neighborhood is mostly white, but there are blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Muslims. They are are all welcome and I'd be happy with more. I have no preference for the racial make-up of the community where I live.

    In any event, you must love in a nice little bubble to think that nonwhites en masse aren’t interested in advancing their group’s interests by any means necessary at the expense of whites or other nonwhite groups.
     
    Any means necessary? Please.

    I do. My neighborhood is mostly white…

    This alone is reason for suspicion. What steps are you taking to ensure that this situation doesn’t last?

    …but there are blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Muslims

    Haven’t heard the word “token” in some time, but here is a good example. Imagine, if you will, a “mostly black” neighborhood with (some) whites, Asians, and “Muslims”. And a mostly Asian one with a few examples of the other three, and a mostly Islamic one, with a few whites, blacks, and Asians.

    I bet those will be four very different places. There will be very different gun policies, for example… oh, wait. I take that back. Unless a place is overwhelmingly white, it won’t be offering liberal gun laws. Some things just aren’t universal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    This alone is reason for suspicion. What steps are you taking to ensure that this situation doesn’t last?
     
    I don't care if it lasts. Racist cowards like you are in the minority.
    , @Corvinus
    "Imagine, if you will, a “mostly black” neighborhood with (some) whites, Asians, and “Muslims”. And a mostly Asian one with a few examples of the other three, and a mostly Islamic one, with a few whites, blacks, and Asians."

    There's no imagining here. There are neighborhoods like this in the States. And people there get along fine.
  87. Numinous says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Black Americans are the most affluent blacks in the world and always have been, Most take full advantage of munificent welfare benefits, devised by white American governments over the years. Many of these benefits are higher than the average wages of many industrialised countries.
    Untouchables live in abject poverty for the most part. Their opportunities for advancement have deteriorated since the end of the Raj. They are subject to daily humiliation and routine murder, rape and beatings. They are not a fashionable minority. Ignored, their treatment condoned by religion - and of course, they've been maltreated for the last 3000 years !
    You, like many Hindus, seek either to ignore the treatment of untouchables, or if pressed, claim that government is helping to rapidly improve their conditions. This is untrue. The condition of untouchables is even more miserable than ever.

    I lament each and every case of caste-based oppression. But your comment is a perfect example of an unthinking double standard.

    If one were to go by what the mainstream media reports (throughout the world), blacks in America are suffering from unprecedented brutality from the police and unprecedented racial discrimination from their fellow (white) citizens. Someone who investigates harder though might get a different picture. Your impression of what’s going on in India comes from a similar source with similar biases and motivations.

    Like all nationalistic right-wingers, you seem compelled to put the best spin on discrimination within your society and the worst spin on discrimination outside your society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Like all nationalistic right-wingers, you seem compelled to put the best spin on discrimination within your society and the worst spin on discrimination outside your society.

    Discrimination is one of those words like racist. You can’t find a lot of people who will admit that they are racist. Even most Hitler fanboys won’t own up to it.
  88. It all boils down to one thing, overall, related to schools, safety and quality neighborhoods and even workplaces. Diversity and its presence or absence. Why are the schools good here in my neighborhood? Lack of diversity. No other factors need be considered. Of course, Liberals will tell you they settle in “good neighborhoods” because, in so many words, “good schools”. Some Liberals settle in such “good neighborhoods” they have high walls and security gates.

    And thus is my painful discussion with a youngster close to me that argues the benefits of diversity and inclusion and Hillary on the one hand while sensibly settling with her hubby into a lovely and wealthy neighborhood chock full of the qualities, amenities and “good schools” that come with a lack of diversity. Amazing still, the disassociation and distinctions these folks are able to make as regards your children while making certain they and their children are safe.

    I figure they know it’s the diversity, they just aren’t able to bring it to the top and spit it out. It would poke too many holes in their inner structure, that one concept, lack of diversity. I can’t believe the dough I spent on “higher education/indoctrination”. It’s going to take a long time to unwind it.

    Read More
  89. iffen says:
    @Numinous
    I lament each and every case of caste-based oppression. But your comment is a perfect example of an unthinking double standard.

    If one were to go by what the mainstream media reports (throughout the world), blacks in America are suffering from unprecedented brutality from the police and unprecedented racial discrimination from their fellow (white) citizens. Someone who investigates harder though might get a different picture. Your impression of what's going on in India comes from a similar source with similar biases and motivations.

    Like all nationalistic right-wingers, you seem compelled to put the best spin on discrimination within your society and the worst spin on discrimination outside your society.

    Like all nationalistic right-wingers, you seem compelled to put the best spin on discrimination within your society and the worst spin on discrimination outside your society.

    Discrimination is one of those words like racist. You can’t find a lot of people who will admit that they are racist. Even most Hitler fanboys won’t own up to it.

    Read More
  90. Boris says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I do. My neighborhood is mostly white…
     
    This alone is reason for suspicion. What steps are you taking to ensure that this situation doesn't last?

    …but there are blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Muslims
     
    Haven't heard the word "token" in some time, but here is a good example. Imagine, if you will, a "mostly black" neighborhood with (some) whites, Asians, and "Muslims". And a mostly Asian one with a few examples of the other three, and a mostly Islamic one, with a few whites, blacks, and Asians.

    I bet those will be four very different places. There will be very different gun policies, for example… oh, wait. I take that back. Unless a place is overwhelmingly white, it won't be offering liberal gun laws. Some things just aren't universal.

    This alone is reason for suspicion. What steps are you taking to ensure that this situation doesn’t last?

    I don’t care if it lasts. Racist cowards like you are in the minority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t care if it lasts. Racist cowards like you are in the minority.
     
    I lived in a nonwhite-majority neighborhood for over 20 years-- likely longer than you've been alive. You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.

    Thanks for adding to my pile of evidence that white progressives are all lies, all the time.

    You know what was the most refreshing thing about my neighborhood? It was the lack of those smug yard signs demanding "Don't limit the freedom to marry!" No self-respecting nonwhite would deface his lawn with that.

    White progs, though, are the scum of the earth. Their districts flaunted them everywhere.
  91. Corvinus says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I do. My neighborhood is mostly white…
     
    This alone is reason for suspicion. What steps are you taking to ensure that this situation doesn't last?

    …but there are blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Muslims
     
    Haven't heard the word "token" in some time, but here is a good example. Imagine, if you will, a "mostly black" neighborhood with (some) whites, Asians, and "Muslims". And a mostly Asian one with a few examples of the other three, and a mostly Islamic one, with a few whites, blacks, and Asians.

    I bet those will be four very different places. There will be very different gun policies, for example… oh, wait. I take that back. Unless a place is overwhelmingly white, it won't be offering liberal gun laws. Some things just aren't universal.

    “Imagine, if you will, a “mostly black” neighborhood with (some) whites, Asians, and “Muslims”. And a mostly Asian one with a few examples of the other three, and a mostly Islamic one, with a few whites, blacks, and Asians.”

    There’s no imagining here. There are neighborhoods like this in the States. And people there get along fine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    There’s no imagining here. There are neighborhoods like this in the States. And people there get along fine.
     
    And I'll bet yours isn't one of them.

    I lived in an immigrant-heavy nonwhite-majority neighborhood for the last two decades. Smug white progressives have nothing on me.
  92. Dr. X says:
    @David Davenport
    Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican.

    No, he is not.

    Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican.

    Perhaps he’d be happier in Likud.

    Read More
  93. @Corvinus
    "Imagine, if you will, a “mostly black” neighborhood with (some) whites, Asians, and “Muslims”. And a mostly Asian one with a few examples of the other three, and a mostly Islamic one, with a few whites, blacks, and Asians."

    There's no imagining here. There are neighborhoods like this in the States. And people there get along fine.

    There’s no imagining here. There are neighborhoods like this in the States. And people there get along fine.

    And I’ll bet yours isn’t one of them.

    I lived in an immigrant-heavy nonwhite-majority neighborhood for the last two decades. Smug white progressives have nothing on me.

    Read More
  94. @Boris

    This alone is reason for suspicion. What steps are you taking to ensure that this situation doesn’t last?
     
    I don't care if it lasts. Racist cowards like you are in the minority.

    I don’t care if it lasts. Racist cowards like you are in the minority.

    I lived in a nonwhite-majority neighborhood for over 20 years– likely longer than you’ve been alive. You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.

    Thanks for adding to my pile of evidence that white progressives are all lies, all the time.

    You know what was the most refreshing thing about my neighborhood? It was the lack of those smug yard signs demanding “Don’t limit the freedom to marry!” No self-respecting nonwhite would deface his lawn with that.

    White progs, though, are the scum of the earth. Their districts flaunted them everywhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    White progs, though, are the scum of the earth.

    This is incorrect. I am a progressive and I am not scum.

    I noticed you dropped out of debating me when the facts did not support your illusions.

    Just in case you missed this comment. I think my clicker control left me.
    , @Corvinus
    "You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others."

    Actually, in my neighborhood, there are Pakistanis, and Indians (red dot), and blacks, and Hispanics, and Eastern Europeans (Russian, Bulgarian), and Asians (Japanese) and GASP! Muslims (from Iran).

    You lose...

    , @Boris

    I lived in a nonwhite-majority neighborhood for over 20 years– likely longer than you’ve been alive. You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.
     
    I went to a high school that was 75% black in the 1980s. Things weren't perfect, but there weren't any major problems. And the problems we did have were caused by idiots of all races.

    If you don't like your neighborhood then move. It's obvious that your biggest complaint is that your type can't use the government to boss people around the way you used to. Such a shame.
  95. Svigor says:

    Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican.

    The article makes a lot more sense if you read “Republican’s Republican” as meaning “one of the ‘Republicans’ that real patriots are going to have to steamroll if they want to take back the party and make it serve real American interests again.”

    There’s nothing wrong with intellectualism. Western nations need right-wing intellectualism to counter centuries of left-wing intellectualism. The problem is that the American right does not want to speak from the core of right wing thought, and so they’ve spent like 50 years standing on side issues like small government or whatever. Do they realize that the right should seek out bigotry, not run from it? If the left isn’t constantly calling you a racist sexist or whatever, you’re not doing it right.

    I doubt a job in sales would be for you. Just some free advice.

    The GOP, if it is to exist at all, must be reconfigured as a white identity party, one in which an Indian such as Roy probably has no place. His much more natural home will be with the coalition of the fringes that now constitute the Democratic Party. If he doesn’t like that either, he’s free to go back to India–they have lots of political parties.

    I could see the GOP as a coalition of ethnic identity parties, at least, one that wanted to be, one that presented itself as such. The left wants to squish all the tribes and identities, they’re just saving some of the more useful idiots for later.

    I see no reason for the right not to buy off minorities, the way the left does.

    This would be a huge disaster for the GOP. You can’t win as a racist, white party–there aren’t enough racists.

    Hoping they try, though.

    Boris is sort of right. Liu’s spergy or ill-intended advice is the wrong sort of “bigotry.” It’s one thing to say “I’m a Sith, join the dark side!” It’s quite another to do what everyone else does, and have everyone else call you a dark-sider because you happen to be the calf designated for slaughter at their BBQ.

    It’s not like Democrats use “we’re the hate-YT, destroy-America, gibsmedat party” as a campaign slogan.

    The fundamental problem the Fringe Party has is that they can’t compel white loyalty. Sure, they can become a majority, take over the gov’t, and rewrite the laws to be authoritarian. But they can’t make whites loyal enough not to evade taxes, cheat/game the system, set up parallel economies, etc. As the Fringe rises, they contaminate the legitimacy of whatever they rule. Eventually, that legitimacy will be low enough for a clean break.

    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites, we just have better moral cover from a victim standpoint. Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests, and the Democrat party knows this.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones. Together, we can relegate the white liberals to obsolescence.

    Much better than rubbing our hands together and shouting “embrace the bigotry.”

    Read More
  96. Svigor says:

    What’s the alternative? A big government telling people where they can and can’t live? Sorry, but freedom is more important than somebody’s irrational preference for neighbors.

    Every rank-and-file leftist is an unimaginative conformist at heart. There are thousands of ways to skin the cat without ordering people about. They’re called incentives, carrots and sticks. The leftist rulers know this, but their rank-and-file seem to be too stupid to grasp the concept.

    Then there’s simple reality, another thing that leftists are too stupid to understand without a Parish Priest nearby to explain it to them with, I dunno, coloring books and cartoons. That being, landlords tell people all the time where they can and can’t live. One might say that’s at the very heart of the idea of being a landlord, but again, probably too complicated a concept for the leftist rank-and-file.

    Then there’s the idiotic Rube Goldberg “freedom is more important than somebody’s irrational preference for neighbors.” Only a leftist is stupid enough to think that doesn’t sound like a totalitarian’s flimsy rationalization.

    The freedom to enter into contracts? “Duh, what’s that?” says the leftist.

    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it’s racism.

    A great example of the leftist footsoldier’s stupidity. The exact opposite of the truth, but since Father O’Leftist told him it is so, hey, it must be true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    Every rank-and-file leftist is an unimaginative conformist at heart. There are thousands of ways to skin the cat without ordering people about. They’re called incentives, carrots and sticks. The leftist rulers know this, but their rank-and-file seem to be too stupid to grasp the concept.
     
    I'd love to hear your inane ideas on the incentives you'd give minorities to not move into white neighborhoods. You could offer cash, I suppose, but your own racist brethren would howl and whine louder than anyone. So carrots ain't happening. Sticks? Well, that's basically the same thing as ordering someone and almost certainly your personal preference. The fact that you would see it differently just reflects your pathological desire to use authoritarian means to reinstate racist policies that have already been defeated.

    That being, landlords tell people all the time where they can and can’t live.
     
    And banks and people who won't sell their houses and...This isn't news.


    The freedom to enter into contracts? “Duh, what’s that?” says the leftist.
     
    Well, sometimes the government should protect people from discrimination. If minorities are as out to get you as you seem to believe, then you might want to think twice before gutting this protection. Warning, though--the regs are easy to get around if you aren't completely stupid.


    if he wasn’t stupid and unimaginative, he’d tell much better lies.
     
    Conservatism is already a dumb movement, but it is a wonder to see it get dumbed down even more by the neoracists.
  97. Svigor says:

    ‘Course I’m being generous. People like Boris can also be motivated by simple malice. Actually, no, that doesn’t make sense in his case; if he wasn’t stupid and unimaginative, he’d tell much better lies.

    Read More
  98. martin_2 says:
    @Numinous

    If that’s so, how come so many of us live in white countries?
     
    This is a common trope I have heard on this website (and other similar ones) that non-whites are clamoring to live among whites in their societies. In reality, people are just doing what people have done forever; try to migrate to where the grass is greener. That's what Europeans did in the colonial era. Had you been around then, would you have claimed that white people were clamoring to live among Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Africans, Indians, etc?

    If China was set to become 50% Han Chinese by 2050, there would be egalitarians hung from every tree.
     
    You are just projecting your personal angst and proclivities on the Chinese (and no doubt, on other people too.) Your type a hundred years ago would have said the same thing about white people in America not tolerating changing demographics. Yet they have, and quite happily for the most part. You probably don't believe that; perhaps you think (just like the Bernie Bros) that your views are shared by 99% of people?

    Most people around the world just aren't that obsessed with race (historically, it's white people from colonizing countries who have been the most race-conscious). People do care about culture though. But culture ain't synonymous with race.

    Diversity is a good thing if by diversity is meant “more white people”. Wherever white people go things improve. To compare brave white colonists going to a wilderness in America or Australia or Africa with non-white people currently emigrating to white countries with their white created welfare systems in place is extremely insulting to white people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Wherever white people go things improve.
     
    For the white people, sure. Not so much for the natives.

    To compare brave white colonists going to a wilderness in America or Australia or Africa with non-white people currently emigrating to white countries with their white created welfare systems in place is extremely insulting to white people.
     
    Assuming that people emigrating to white countries just to mooch off their welfare systems is extremely insulting to those immigrants. So back at ya!

    For most white people who emigrated to the colonies, grabbing huge tracts of land for themselves and (in some cases) pushing away or killing backward natives (e.g., Maxim gun vs bow and arrow) didn't require much bravery, just a very unexceptional human greed. For landless peasants, and second or third sons in Europe, colonialism was a Godsend.

    Your praise for white colonists, and simultaneous contempt for today's immigrants, is hypocritical. Immigrants to richer countries work exceptionally hard for relatively low returns (and the prospect of something good in the future), but nativists see nothing praiseworthy in that, labeling them job-stealers, scabs, wage-undercutters, etc.
  99. iffen says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t care if it lasts. Racist cowards like you are in the minority.
     
    I lived in a nonwhite-majority neighborhood for over 20 years-- likely longer than you've been alive. You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.

    Thanks for adding to my pile of evidence that white progressives are all lies, all the time.

    You know what was the most refreshing thing about my neighborhood? It was the lack of those smug yard signs demanding "Don't limit the freedom to marry!" No self-respecting nonwhite would deface his lawn with that.

    White progs, though, are the scum of the earth. Their districts flaunted them everywhere.

    White progs, though, are the scum of the earth.

    This is incorrect. I am a progressive and I am not scum.

    I noticed you dropped out of debating me when the facts did not support your illusions.

    Just in case you missed this comment. I think my clicker control left me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I noticed you dropped out of debating me when the facts did not support your illusions
     
    By "illusions", you mean what is called here "your lying eyes". Why should I debate someone who calls me blind?

    Progressives are not blind. They're dishonest. That's why they paid black girls to have bastard babies in the '60s. Not because they didn't know what would happen. They knew perfectly well. Feature, not bug.


    This is incorrect. I am a progressive and I am not scum
     
    Then why do you support BLM police murders, gun prohibition, unhindered immigration, and buggery as marital consummation?

    You may say that you don't. But if not, your fellow progs will say you're not progressive enough.
    , @lavoisier
    I would have to agree with you that not all white progressives are the scum of the Earth.

    But they are, by and large, sanctimonious lying hypocrites who do not live by the principles that they claim to espouse.

    They are also, by and large, very dangerous to freedom loving people everywhere in their blind pursuit of a leftist utopia that far too often has resulted in human misery and mass murder.
  100. Corvinus says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t care if it lasts. Racist cowards like you are in the minority.
     
    I lived in a nonwhite-majority neighborhood for over 20 years-- likely longer than you've been alive. You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.

    Thanks for adding to my pile of evidence that white progressives are all lies, all the time.

    You know what was the most refreshing thing about my neighborhood? It was the lack of those smug yard signs demanding "Don't limit the freedom to marry!" No self-respecting nonwhite would deface his lawn with that.

    White progs, though, are the scum of the earth. Their districts flaunted them everywhere.

    “You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.”

    Actually, in my neighborhood, there are Pakistanis, and Indians (red dot), and blacks, and Hispanics, and Eastern Europeans (Russian, Bulgarian), and Asians (Japanese) and GASP! Muslims (from Iran).

    You lose…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I was talking about Boris and his tokens, not you and yours.

    Would you live in a black-run neighborhood? In a Sharia-compliant district in Birmingham or Île-de-France? Who dominates, matters. Progs know this, too, but conceal it.

    Progressives' "universal values" are just as parochial as those of their fellow whites whom they condemn. But they won't 'fess up to this.

    And one of those rare universal values, the purpose, shape and content of marriage, they just went to war with themselves.
  101. @Astuteobservor II
    white nationalism will not win, american nationalism will.

    I wonder how many americans get this.

    “…white nationalism will not win, american nationalism will.

    I wonder how many americans get this….”

    Bingo. We have a winner!!!

    Read More
  102. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Who ever heard of Avik Roy before this article was written?

    Read More
  103. Numinous says:
    @martin_2
    Diversity is a good thing if by diversity is meant "more white people". Wherever white people go things improve. To compare brave white colonists going to a wilderness in America or Australia or Africa with non-white people currently emigrating to white countries with their white created welfare systems in place is extremely insulting to white people.

    Wherever white people go things improve.

    For the white people, sure. Not so much for the natives.

    To compare brave white colonists going to a wilderness in America or Australia or Africa with non-white people currently emigrating to white countries with their white created welfare systems in place is extremely insulting to white people.

    Assuming that people emigrating to white countries just to mooch off their welfare systems is extremely insulting to those immigrants. So back at ya!

    For most white people who emigrated to the colonies, grabbing huge tracts of land for themselves and (in some cases) pushing away or killing backward natives (e.g., Maxim gun vs bow and arrow) didn’t require much bravery, just a very unexceptional human greed. For landless peasants, and second or third sons in Europe, colonialism was a Godsend.

    Your praise for white colonists, and simultaneous contempt for today’s immigrants, is hypocritical. Immigrants to richer countries work exceptionally hard for relatively low returns (and the prospect of something good in the future), but nativists see nothing praiseworthy in that, labeling them job-stealers, scabs, wage-undercutters, etc.

    Read More
  104. Wade says:
    @fnn

    I’ve read dozens of conservative intellectuals writing compellingly about non-racist conservative ideals. Writers like Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and too many others to count have put forward visions of a conservative party quite different from the one we have.

    But not one of these writers, smart as they are, has been able to explain what actual political constituency could bring about this pure conservatism in practice.
     
    The guy also read some Sam Francis.

    The statement you quote is one of the concise descriptions of the central conundrum that goes unspoken in right-of-center politics. It first dawned on me back when I considered myself a libertarian. It stuck out like a sore thumb to me that while “in theory” Libertarianism embraced all people, only white guys like me seemed interested in it at all.

    In fact there is no reason to believe that any of our ideals including our prized US Constitution would survive without a strong core of European descended white christians. The Han Chinese or the Indian Hindus could care less about The Constitution if either of them were the majority population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    You're channeling the late Sam Francis--the American system of government has its roots in the genetic stock of the descendants of the people who founded that system. Individuals and small groups of other races can adapt to that system, but they will never continue it once they reach a certain number; they'll begin replicating the system from which they came, and which their ancestors founded.
  105. Boris says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t care if it lasts. Racist cowards like you are in the minority.
     
    I lived in a nonwhite-majority neighborhood for over 20 years-- likely longer than you've been alive. You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.

    Thanks for adding to my pile of evidence that white progressives are all lies, all the time.

    You know what was the most refreshing thing about my neighborhood? It was the lack of those smug yard signs demanding "Don't limit the freedom to marry!" No self-respecting nonwhite would deface his lawn with that.

    White progs, though, are the scum of the earth. Their districts flaunted them everywhere.

    I lived in a nonwhite-majority neighborhood for over 20 years– likely longer than you’ve been alive. You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.

    I went to a high school that was 75% black in the 1980s. Things weren’t perfect, but there weren’t any major problems. And the problems we did have were caused by idiots of all races.

    If you don’t like your neighborhood then move. It’s obvious that your biggest complaint is that your type can’t use the government to boss people around the way you used to. Such a shame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I didn't say I didn't like my neighborhood. I didn't, but I did like my neighbors, alien as most of them were.

    What my long tenure there taught me was that white progressives are inveterate liars snd preachy bastards to boot. Your comments just add to the pile of evidence.
    , @lavoisier
    Now that is fascinating.

    It is pretty obvious from your postings that you would support a government that can impose your progressive values on the rest of us.

    No live and let live for you, Boris. You are a typical progressive control freak who wants to shove your distorted value system down the rest of our throats.

    Your hatred for anything that is white is a sickness.
  106. @Wade
    The statement you quote is one of the concise descriptions of the central conundrum that goes unspoken in right-of-center politics. It first dawned on me back when I considered myself a libertarian. It stuck out like a sore thumb to me that while "in theory" Libertarianism embraced all people, only white guys like me seemed interested in it at all.

    In fact there is no reason to believe that any of our ideals including our prized US Constitution would survive without a strong core of European descended white christians. The Han Chinese or the Indian Hindus could care less about The Constitution if either of them were the majority population.

    You’re channeling the late Sam Francis–the American system of government has its roots in the genetic stock of the descendants of the people who founded that system. Individuals and small groups of other races can adapt to that system, but they will never continue it once they reach a certain number; they’ll begin replicating the system from which they came, and which their ancestors founded.

    Read More
  107. Boris says:
    @Svigor

    What’s the alternative? A big government telling people where they can and can’t live? Sorry, but freedom is more important than somebody’s irrational preference for neighbors.
     
    Every rank-and-file leftist is an unimaginative conformist at heart. There are thousands of ways to skin the cat without ordering people about. They're called incentives, carrots and sticks. The leftist rulers know this, but their rank-and-file seem to be too stupid to grasp the concept.

    Then there's simple reality, another thing that leftists are too stupid to understand without a Parish Priest nearby to explain it to them with, I dunno, coloring books and cartoons. That being, landlords tell people all the time where they can and can't live. One might say that's at the very heart of the idea of being a landlord, but again, probably too complicated a concept for the leftist rank-and-file.

    Then there's the idiotic Rube Goldberg "freedom is more important than somebody's irrational preference for neighbors." Only a leftist is stupid enough to think that doesn't sound like a totalitarian's flimsy rationalization.

    The freedom to enter into contracts? "Duh, what's that?" says the leftist.


    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it’s racism.
     
    A great example of the leftist footsoldier's stupidity. The exact opposite of the truth, but since Father O'Leftist told him it is so, hey, it must be true.

    Every rank-and-file leftist is an unimaginative conformist at heart. There are thousands of ways to skin the cat without ordering people about. They’re called incentives, carrots and sticks. The leftist rulers know this, but their rank-and-file seem to be too stupid to grasp the concept.

    I’d love to hear your inane ideas on the incentives you’d give minorities to not move into white neighborhoods. You could offer cash, I suppose, but your own racist brethren would howl and whine louder than anyone. So carrots ain’t happening. Sticks? Well, that’s basically the same thing as ordering someone and almost certainly your personal preference. The fact that you would see it differently just reflects your pathological desire to use authoritarian means to reinstate racist policies that have already been defeated.

    That being, landlords tell people all the time where they can and can’t live.

    And banks and people who won’t sell their houses and…This isn’t news.

    The freedom to enter into contracts? “Duh, what’s that?” says the leftist.

    Well, sometimes the government should protect people from discrimination. If minorities are as out to get you as you seem to believe, then you might want to think twice before gutting this protection. Warning, though–the regs are easy to get around if you aren’t completely stupid.

    if he wasn’t stupid and unimaginative, he’d tell much better lies.

    Conservatism is already a dumb movement, but it is a wonder to see it get dumbed down even more by the neoracists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    "Neoracists"?

    Check out this map of the world and tell me who looks better on it, whites or nonwhites.

    All but a few of us "neoracists" would say the nonwhite world is closer to sanity than the white territory. (Even in apparent exceptions like Brazil and South Africa, the relevant decisions were made by whites.)

    So, Boris, can you and I at least agree that whites are inferior and backward to nonwhites on this, er, penetrating issue?

    You may also be one of the few commenters here that would oppose replacing our white-designed immigration policy with the much more sensible ones of Brazil, Mexico, Japan, and China.
  108. @Boris

    Untrue. Most minorities are equally or more racist than whites
     
    If there is one thing whites are actually superior at, it's racism.

    Almost all minority voting for the left is based on racial self-interests
     
    Maybe it's just plain old self-interest. Republicans had plenty of black voters. Then they decided to cater their platform to racist southern whites. They have since apologized for courting racists, but they haven't done anything to help black people.

    This is why the American right needs to foster nationalism in all communities, not just white ones.
     
    Very few whites have any interest in white nationalism. I assume the same thing goes for minorities.

    Maybe it’s just plain old self-interest. Republicans had plenty of black voters. Then they decided to cater their platform to racist southern whites.

    Not true. Blacks first began voting Democrat in large numbers during the 1930s as a result of New Deal-inspired welfare programs. Democrats bought the black vote, as they pretty much do with all their votes, whether with a paycheck, a welfare check, or a government contract, grant or regulatory monopoly.

    Nixon’s so-called “Southern Strategy” was was not implemented until 1968, and because of the Wallace candidacy, did not come to fruition until the 1972 landslide. Republican votes were decisive in passing all major civil rights legislation. Blacks abandoned Republicans before Republicans abandoned blacks

    Read More
  109. mtn cur says:

    The popular and not so popular myth of the warlike white invaders arriving in N America, or anywhere else and laying waste to the innocents is a myth in both the positive and negative memes. Once the white folks whoopsadently turned loose their germs, pigs and religion, all they had to do was get back on the boat or secure a beachhead and wait for the natives to die. The population of Mexico apparently went from around 25 million down to about .7 million in the following century, more from smallpox and measles etc. than other things. Of course, the conquistadores and the beefeaters were too ignorant to know that their swords were unneeded once the hogs got loose. The Europeans could not have stopped the plagues they brought if the king himself had ordered them to. Yes the natives were easy to murder when they were running high fevers. The idea of any given group being “the real people, the human beings, the master race or gods chosen people” is the earmark of every bunch of greasy mouthed, unlettered savages throughout history in every land and even were it true, it would hardly rank better than being the smartest retard in special ed, in a ghetto where lead paint still peels from the wall

    Read More
  110. @Boris

    I lived in a nonwhite-majority neighborhood for over 20 years– likely longer than you’ve been alive. You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.
     
    I went to a high school that was 75% black in the 1980s. Things weren't perfect, but there weren't any major problems. And the problems we did have were caused by idiots of all races.

    If you don't like your neighborhood then move. It's obvious that your biggest complaint is that your type can't use the government to boss people around the way you used to. Such a shame.

    I didn’t say I didn’t like my neighborhood. I didn’t, but I did like my neighbors, alien as most of them were.

    What my long tenure there taught me was that white progressives are inveterate liars snd preachy bastards to boot. Your comments just add to the pile of evidence.

    Read More
  111. @Boris

    Every rank-and-file leftist is an unimaginative conformist at heart. There are thousands of ways to skin the cat without ordering people about. They’re called incentives, carrots and sticks. The leftist rulers know this, but their rank-and-file seem to be too stupid to grasp the concept.
     
    I'd love to hear your inane ideas on the incentives you'd give minorities to not move into white neighborhoods. You could offer cash, I suppose, but your own racist brethren would howl and whine louder than anyone. So carrots ain't happening. Sticks? Well, that's basically the same thing as ordering someone and almost certainly your personal preference. The fact that you would see it differently just reflects your pathological desire to use authoritarian means to reinstate racist policies that have already been defeated.

    That being, landlords tell people all the time where they can and can’t live.
     
    And banks and people who won't sell their houses and...This isn't news.


    The freedom to enter into contracts? “Duh, what’s that?” says the leftist.
     
    Well, sometimes the government should protect people from discrimination. If minorities are as out to get you as you seem to believe, then you might want to think twice before gutting this protection. Warning, though--the regs are easy to get around if you aren't completely stupid.


    if he wasn’t stupid and unimaginative, he’d tell much better lies.
     
    Conservatism is already a dumb movement, but it is a wonder to see it get dumbed down even more by the neoracists.

    “Neoracists”?

    Check out this map of the world and tell me who looks better on it, whites or nonwhites.

    All but a few of us “neoracists” would say the nonwhite world is closer to sanity than the white territory. (Even in apparent exceptions like Brazil and South Africa, the relevant decisions were made by whites.)

    So, Boris, can you and I at least agree that whites are inferior and backward to nonwhites on this, er, penetrating issue?

    You may also be one of the few commenters here that would oppose replacing our white-designed immigration policy with the much more sensible ones of Brazil, Mexico, Japan, and China.

    Read More
  112. @iffen
    White progs, though, are the scum of the earth.

    This is incorrect. I am a progressive and I am not scum.

    I noticed you dropped out of debating me when the facts did not support your illusions.

    Just in case you missed this comment. I think my clicker control left me.

    I noticed you dropped out of debating me when the facts did not support your illusions

    By “illusions”, you mean what is called here “your lying eyes”. Why should I debate someone who calls me blind?

    Progressives are not blind. They’re dishonest. That’s why they paid black girls to have bastard babies in the ’60s. Not because they didn’t know what would happen. They knew perfectly well. Feature, not bug.

    This is incorrect. I am a progressive and I am not scum

    Then why do you support BLM police murders, gun prohibition, unhindered immigration, and buggery as marital consummation?

    You may say that you don’t. But if not, your fellow progs will say you’re not progressive enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Then why do you support BLM police murders..."

    BLM doesn't murder cops.

    "gun prohibition"

    Guns have always been regulated in our country.

    "unhindered immigration"

    There have always been laws to restrict immigration.

    "and buggery as marital consummation?"

    And how does homosexual marriage personally impact your life?
  113. @Corvinus
    "You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others."

    Actually, in my neighborhood, there are Pakistanis, and Indians (red dot), and blacks, and Hispanics, and Eastern Europeans (Russian, Bulgarian), and Asians (Japanese) and GASP! Muslims (from Iran).

    You lose...

    I was talking about Boris and his tokens, not you and yours.

    Would you live in a black-run neighborhood? In a Sharia-compliant district in Birmingham or Île-de-France? Who dominates, matters. Progs know this, too, but conceal it.

    Progressives’ “universal values” are just as parochial as those of their fellow whites whom they condemn. But they won’t ‘fess up to this.

    And one of those rare universal values, the purpose, shape and content of marriage, they just went to war with themselves.

    Read More
    • Agree: artichoke
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Would you live in a black-run neighborhood?"

    Yes. In a black-run middle to upper class neighborhood, sure. Social class dominates. That matters most.

    "In a Sharia-compliant district in Birmingham or Île-de-France? Who dominates, matters. Progs know this, too, but conceal it."

    There is a reason why there are ethnic enclaves. Praytell, how many Sharia-compliant districts are there in America?
  114. Corvinus says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    I was talking about Boris and his tokens, not you and yours.

    Would you live in a black-run neighborhood? In a Sharia-compliant district in Birmingham or Île-de-France? Who dominates, matters. Progs know this, too, but conceal it.

    Progressives' "universal values" are just as parochial as those of their fellow whites whom they condemn. But they won't 'fess up to this.

    And one of those rare universal values, the purpose, shape and content of marriage, they just went to war with themselves.

    “Would you live in a black-run neighborhood?”

    Yes. In a black-run middle to upper class neighborhood, sure. Social class dominates. That matters most.

    “In a Sharia-compliant district in Birmingham or Île-de-France? Who dominates, matters. Progs know this, too, but conceal it.”

    There is a reason why there are ethnic enclaves. Praytell, how many Sharia-compliant districts are there in America?

    Read More
  115. Corvinus says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I noticed you dropped out of debating me when the facts did not support your illusions
     
    By "illusions", you mean what is called here "your lying eyes". Why should I debate someone who calls me blind?

    Progressives are not blind. They're dishonest. That's why they paid black girls to have bastard babies in the '60s. Not because they didn't know what would happen. They knew perfectly well. Feature, not bug.


    This is incorrect. I am a progressive and I am not scum
     
    Then why do you support BLM police murders, gun prohibition, unhindered immigration, and buggery as marital consummation?

    You may say that you don't. But if not, your fellow progs will say you're not progressive enough.

    “Then why do you support BLM police murders…”

    BLM doesn’t murder cops.

    “gun prohibition”

    Guns have always been regulated in our country.

    “unhindered immigration”

    There have always been laws to restrict immigration.

    “and buggery as marital consummation?”

    And how does homosexual marriage personally impact your life?

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    I think the Dallas cop shooter wrote something pro-BLM. Of course BLM disavows it and probably says he was just a nut. But BLM does get involved in a lot of things that turn violent and confrontational with cops -- that put cops in danger as well as other people.

    I don't think BLM gets off so easy from being dangerous to cops.
  116. Guns have always been regulated in our country

    They certainly have. Do a search on “No free Negro or mulatto shall be suffered to…”

    Read More
  117. Stogumber says:

    White nationalism is as normal as Black, Latino, Jewish or Asian nationalism. The problem of the Republican Party was its inability to accept and integrate the white nationalists the same way they did with all other nationalists.

    Read More
  118. artichoke says:
    @Jason Liu

    But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.
     
    See, what the hell is this? The American right lives in opposite land. Right-wing, by definition, is the ideological belief in social inequality. If a government is not nationalistic, it cannot be considered legitimate and therefore does not have the mandate to rule. If everyone was equal the nation can no longer be defined as a nation, and would become merely a commune.

    There's nothing wrong with intellectualism. Western nations need right-wing intellectualism to counter centuries of left-wing intellectualism. The problem is that the American right does not want to speak from the core of right wing thought, and so they've spent like 50 years standing on side issues like small government or whatever. Do they realize that the right should seek out bigotry, not run from it? If the left isn't constantly calling you a racist sexist or whatever, you're not doing it right.

    The problem is, you have to win. Winning politics is about addition, not idealism. You need a coalition, and whites aren’t enough these days. And Mr. Liu, I see Asian Americans often vote with the Dems so you aren’t much help either.

    Nationalism, including all the people we’ve got whether we’re thrilled about that or not, should be an absolutely winning platform. Comparing nationalists to Hitler has worked amazingly well for 70 years since WW2. Are we willing to say “f that” and vote our interests?

    Read More
  119. artichoke says:
    @Corvinus
    "Then why do you support BLM police murders..."

    BLM doesn't murder cops.

    "gun prohibition"

    Guns have always been regulated in our country.

    "unhindered immigration"

    There have always been laws to restrict immigration.

    "and buggery as marital consummation?"

    And how does homosexual marriage personally impact your life?

    I think the Dallas cop shooter wrote something pro-BLM. Of course BLM disavows it and probably says he was just a nut. But BLM does get involved in a lot of things that turn violent and confrontational with cops — that put cops in danger as well as other people.

    I don’t think BLM gets off so easy from being dangerous to cops.

    Read More
  120. Lepanto says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Dear Dimwit,
    massive non-white immigration is already contributing to disunion and fragmentation. Even as we speak, large parts of the American Southwest are already de facto Mexican. The ability of America to assimilate these groups has long gone. Permitting even more immigration merely exacerbates the problem. If you can't grasp this, then surely you will get what's coming to you.

    Name-calling doesn’t bother me. But you didn’t read my comment carefully. I was talking about the integration/assimilation of the immigrants who are already here. So slowing immigration is indeed necessary but that does not fully address the problem of creating a united country where not everybody is white. And I completely disagree that the ability to assimilate is long-gone. Studies show assimilation is indeed happening, e.g. Alba and Nee Remaking the American Mainstream, essays in Jacoby’s Reinventing the Melting Pot, and monographs by the scholars who published there. White racialists don’t want this assimilation because it means eventual intermarriage. Black racialists don’t want it for the same reason. Radical leftists don’t want it because it promotes social cohesion and in their view solidification of the economic status quo. The ones who will be left out in the end will be those “whites” and “blacks” who want to stay separate. They will be the minorities in a hundred years. The rest will be Americans. That is my prediction.

    Read More
  121. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Boris

    I lived in a nonwhite-majority neighborhood for over 20 years– likely longer than you’ve been alive. You choose to live in a white-majority neighborhood, yet preach to others.
     
    I went to a high school that was 75% black in the 1980s. Things weren't perfect, but there weren't any major problems. And the problems we did have were caused by idiots of all races.

    If you don't like your neighborhood then move. It's obvious that your biggest complaint is that your type can't use the government to boss people around the way you used to. Such a shame.

    Now that is fascinating.

    It is pretty obvious from your postings that you would support a government that can impose your progressive values on the rest of us.

    No live and let live for you, Boris. You are a typical progressive control freak who wants to shove your distorted value system down the rest of our throats.

    Your hatred for anything that is white is a sickness.

    Read More
  122. lavoisier says: • Website
    @iffen
    White progs, though, are the scum of the earth.

    This is incorrect. I am a progressive and I am not scum.

    I noticed you dropped out of debating me when the facts did not support your illusions.

    Just in case you missed this comment. I think my clicker control left me.

    I would have to agree with you that not all white progressives are the scum of the Earth.

    But they are, by and large, sanctimonious lying hypocrites who do not live by the principles that they claim to espouse.

    They are also, by and large, very dangerous to freedom loving people everywhere in their blind pursuit of a leftist utopia that far too often has resulted in human misery and mass murder.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored