The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Judis: "I Argued That Demographics Favored the Democrats. I Was Wrong."
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From The New Republic, a recantation by the co-author of the influential 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority (which I reviewed) of his thesis that the Democratic Party’s Coalition of the Fringes can eventually achieve one party rule over America.

Redoing the Electoral Math
I argued that demographics favored the Democrats. I was wrong.

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

September 14, 2017

If any force on Earth could be powerful enough to unite the Democratic Party, you’d have thought the words “President Donald Trump” would do the trick. Instead, Hillary Clinton’s defeat last November only served to intensify the split within the party. Nine months in, two warring camps continue to offer seemingly irreconcilable versions of what went awry and how to fix it. On one side, populists like Bernie Sanders and Rust Belt Democrats like Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio argue that the party lost by neglecting working-class voters while catering primarily to “identity politics.” On the other side, an equally vocal contingent makes the opposite case: that the Democrats will blow it in 2018 and 2020 if they take voters of color for granted and focus their energy on wooing the white voters who backed Trump. …

The book I co-wrote in 2002 with demographer Ruy Teixeira, The Emerging Democratic Majority, laid out an overly optimistic forecast of the party’s prospects in an increasingly diverse America. By and large, Teixeira still holds to the view that the growth of minority populations will provide a long-term “boost to the left.” In his new book, fittingly titled The Optimistic Leftist, Teixeira notes that by the 2050s, eleven of the 15 largest states will be “majority-minority.”

On one level, there’s no arguing with the math. If you take the percentage of Americans that the U.S. census defines as “minorities” and project their past voting habits into the next decade and beyond, you’ll come up with a very sunny version of the Democrats’ prospects. There are only two problems with this line of thinking, but they’re pretty big ones. For starters, the census prediction of a “majority-minority” America—slated to arrive in 2044—is deeply flawed. And so is the notion that ethnic minorities will always and forever continue to back Democrats in Obama-like numbers.

The U.S. census makes a critical assumption that undermines its predictions of a majority-nonwhite country. It projects that the same percentage of people who currently identify themselves as “Latino” or “Asian” will continue to claim those identities in future generations. In reality, that’s highly unlikely. History shows that as ethnic groups assimilate into American culture, they increasingly identify themselves as “white.”

Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice. A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites. “This town has 8,000,000 people,” a young Harry Truman wrote his cousin upon visiting New York City in 1918. “7,500,000 of ’em are of Israelish extraction. (400,000 wops and the rest are white people.)” But by the time Truman became president, all those immigrant groups were considered “white.”

After all, who can forget the dramatic scene during the Civil War in which Jefferson Davis discovered that Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin was not white and immediately had his right hand man sold into slavery?

“As nonwhite as a 2 dollar bill” is an old Southern saying

There’s no reason to imagine that Latinos and Asians won’t follow much the same pattern.

After all, who wouldn’t want all that White Privilege everybody keeps hearing about?

Well, except that Democrats and the media are doing all they can to encourage Flight from White by nonstop demonization of whites, what I call the KKKrazy Glue that tries to hold together the Coalition of the Fringes.

In fact, it’s already happening. In the 2010 Census, 53 percent of Latinos identified as “white,” as did more than half of Asian Americans of mixed parentage.

As opposed to the 1950 and 1960s Censuses, in which 100 percent of Latinos were identified as white because, during that era of Flight to White, Latino organizations like LULAC successfully lobbied the Census Bureau into assuming that the Spanish surnamed were simply Caucasian. But then the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity was invented for the 1970 Census to facilitate handing out affirmative action privileges.

Or as opposed to how South Asians used to be counted as Caucasian … but then successfully lobbied to be grouped with Orientals in a new Asian category in order to be eligible for minority business development low interest loans and affirmative action on government contracting.

Or how Arab groups lobbied the Obama Administration to get themselves de-Whiteified through a 2020 new racial category called Middle Eastern and North African (nobody seems to know what the Trump Administration will do about the Obama Administration’s plan).

In future generations, those percentages are almost certain to grow. According to a recent Pew study, more than one-quarter of Latinos and Asians marry non-Latinos and non-Asians, and that number will surely continue to climb over the generations.

Just as Barack Obama was 50% white genetically and 99% white culturally, but chose to identify himself on the 2010 Census as 100% black.

Unless ethnic identification is defined in purely racial—and racist—terms, the census projections are straight-out wrong and profoundly misleading. So is the assumption that Asians and Latinos will continue to vote at an overwhelming clip for Democrats. This view, which underpins the whole idea of a “new American majority,” ignores the diversity that already prevails among voters lumped together as “Latino” or “Asian.” Cuban-Americans in Miami vote very differently from Mexican-Americans in Los Angeles; immigrants from Japan or Vietnam come from starkly different cultures than those from South Korea or China. While more than two-thirds of Asian voters went for Obama in 2012 and Clinton in 2016, they leaned the other way in the 2014 midterms: National exit polls showed them favoring Republicans by 50 to 49 percent.

Seriously, the reason why the Democrats’ KKKrazy Glue plan to demonize whites as Ku Klux Klanners and Nazis might not work in attracting Asian and Latino enthusiasm is because there is this other group who sees themselves as the rightful owners of the Democratic Party: blacks.

Blacks tend to feel that they deserve for the Democratic Party to be, first and foremost, the Black Party and everybody else needs to ride in the back of the bus.

If blacks were content to merely let the media demonize whites, this long-term Democratic strategy would have a fair chance of working. But instead blacks repeatedly assert their rightful ownership over the Democratic Party with gestures guaranteed to offend Asians and Hispanics.

For example, the celebrated Black Lives Matter movement began in Ferguson with giant Michael Brown roughing up a tiny Asian shopkeeper, and quickly emerged into a dogma in which the Most Racist Thing Ever was to say “all lives matter.”

Similarly, in December 2014, African-American Muslim terrorist BLM enthusiast Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley traveled from the Baltimore area to assassinate NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu.

 
Hide 222 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Imagine that! It only took 15 years for Judis to recognize that things (demographics, self-identity, politics) didn’t turn out as he assumed. Funnily, the factors he uses to explain the variance from his predictions could have been made as assumptions in 2002 (as Steve mostly points out), but for his own partisan bias…

    • Replies: @Rifleman
    This post represents so much that is fundamentally wrong about Steve Sailer's worldview.

    To make it perfect he would have to add references to Ockham's Razor, Regression to the Mean and of course a picture of a golf course.

    The future of Core America is California, Houston, Miami as well as pretty much every big city and every massive college campus.

    It's also the massive inundation of non-White people into rural and small town America with their much higher birth rates replacing the older depleted, drugged up and dying White locals.

    America's shrinking White fringe isn't going to be saved by mestizos pretending to be White.

    Or by Steve Sailer hiding in his wife's house pretending that America in 2017 is 1950s San Fernando Valley California or even reruns of the Brady Bunch.

    Or that the current majority White and heavily White dominated (donors, senators, governors, , hacks, wonks, academics) Democrat party is the equivalent of an episode of Good Times or the Cosby Show.
    , @Anonymous
    My family has been in the U.S. for hundreds of years. We've never thought of the U.S. as a place to "get rich." Why do immigrants think of it that way? If you look at Americans over the years, many have had to work very hard just to break even or to have a nice middle class life. What is all of this "get rich" crap that so many immigrants imagine?
    , @Randal

    It only took 15 years for Judis to recognize that things (demographics, self-identity, politics) didn’t turn out as he assumed
     
    I wonder how many critics he's accused of being "racists" and "haters" in the meantime for criticising his theory?
    , @AnotherDad

    Imagine that! It only took 15 years for Judis to recognize that things (demographics, self-identity, politics) didn’t turn out as he assumed.
     
    Giving the thing a quick read, I don't think Judis has had some sort of Road to Damascus moment.

    I don't think he's had any real change of view of the long term demographics. And he sort of says so

    On one level, there’s no arguing with the math. If you take the percentage of Americans that the U.S. census defines as “minorities” and project their past voting habits into the next decade and beyond, you’ll come up with a very sunny version of the Democrats’ prospects.
     
    If there's any real change of his view explicitly on the demographics, it's perhaps that long term there is more intermarriage of Asians and Hispanics with whites than he accounted for, and quite possibly many of those who are middle class will see their interests and vote for pretty much like middle class whites.

    I suspect this is mixed with some deep--but unspoken--recognition of the point that Steve makes at the end, the blackety, black, black stuff isn't a winner:

    --> short term BLM violence--and black demands for everything to revolve around themselves--has pushed whites toward both Republicans and a "white" ethnic identification faster than the demographic transition has taken hold

    --> long term it is likely alienating to Hispanics and UMC Asians and even more so to their mixes with whites (since whites are always the demons in the narrative).

    But at root I think Judis is just having the realization that while minorities will eventually bring about the "emerging Democratic majority" it isn't going to be a "Democratic majority" that wants to sit around and get lectures and instruction from dorky Jewish guys in glasses while marching off into a glorious "progressive" future.

    It's going to be an ugly, sloppy, unruly, patronage driven, "gimme dat" majority, mainly concerned with ethnic spoils allocation and soothing ethnic grievance. In other words ... like ethnic politics everywhere else in the world for all of human history--which somehow befuddles such "intellectuals" as Judis.
  2. Sorry Steve, not buying it. If only those misguided people would stop pushing identity politics then the flight from White will cease and Jews, Han, Desi, Mestizo, and Negro Americans will all live together in citizenist harmony.

    I repeat: NO. You can call not-A whatever you wish, but it will never actually BE A.

    • Agree: Kevin C.
    • Replies: @Nick Granite
    He missed the most important democrat strategy of them all. Above all else, they assumed (and still do) they could keep their pet demographics poor. Dependency is the key.
    , @Olorin

    If only those misguided people would stop pushing identity politics then the flight from White will cease and Jews, Han, Desi, Mestizo, and Negro Americans will all live together in citizenist harmony.
     
    It's the real thing...
    In the back of your mind...
    What you're hoping to find...
    It's the real thing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib-Qiyklq-Q

    Created, btw, by Ivy League-schooled, squid-veteran, Episcopalian son of the South (Charleston) horse breeder/racer and conservationist Bill Backer.

    And remember that it was Coke boss J. Paul Austin--Culver-, Phillips-, and Harvard/Harvard Law-educated Georgia boy--who cultivated and championed MLK, civil rights in Georgia, Jimmy Carter, and Fidel. Also Trilateral Commission and CFR member.

    On Backer's ideas see his book The Care and Feeding of Ideas, available in various places online.

    https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-8129-1969-1
  3. After all, who can forget the dramatic scene during the Civil War in which Jefferson Davis discovered that Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin was not white and immediately had his right hand man sold into slavery?

    LOL right here.

    After all, who wouldn’t want all that White Privilege everybody keeps hearing about?

    Don’t I know it – it’s automatic checks in the mail, hobnobbing with celebs, and maids to clean up my house. Oh wait, that’s Beyonce, not my life. My bad.

    • Replies: @Josh
    To be fair, Steve keeps making the scarlet O'Hara sold into slavery joke, but he knows a) that slavery was not based on race but matrilineal status, and more importantly b) that black/white was not the primary ethnic divide in northern cities before the 30s at least and really until the 60s.
  4. “Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all”

    Wonder what James Watson would have to say in response to this. Or Charles Darwin.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Probably the obvious truth: that whiteness is part genetic and part socially constructed.
    , @Autochthon

    Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all.
     
    Yet when white people copulate with each other, we invariably produce white offspring....

    It's a puzzle.

  5. Who can forget, Benjamin was sold into slavery. How can anyone who says such a thing be taken seriously? And I am the only one who burns when I read “people of color”? Its as bad as the “c” word.
    You know “community”. The democrats just may find that the bus doesn’t get filled up all the way to the back.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Don't forget "social construct". They are the three key markers to know when you are dealing with autistic liberals.
  6. The percentage of whites voting Republican goes up as they become a lower percentage of the population. Whites in Mississippi vote mostly Republican and whites in Vermont vote mostly Democratic.

    • Replies: @AM

    Whites in Mississippi vote mostly Republican and whites in Vermont vote mostly Democratic.
     
    This is brand new, as of the 1960's in Vermont. Until then, VT was so reliably Republican it voted against FDR's second term.

    Two things have happened. Vermont had a reasonably large influx of French Canadians. In the 1960's they caught whatever was in the water and basically into turn secular, liberal socialists like their cousins north of the border. The Congregationalist natives also seem to have been infected by the same disease, although less pronounced.

    The other issue with VT has been a slow 1:1 replacement of conservative, poor rural mountain natives with liberal urbanites with outside income. Almost every VT politician within my lifetime are actually transplants, predominately from the NYC area. Before we left, I joked that the best place to hold the Vermont Republican conference is Florida. That's still largely true today, although you might need to split it between there and NC.

    If you ever scratch your head at VT's "rural" politics, think NYC's 6th borough with less traffic and more ski areas and the place makes much more sense. Much of the divide within white politics quite often comes down to city versus country/suburban. VT ironically seems to highlight the point.

    , @Marty T
    Didn't happen in California though. Whites got more Democratic as they became a minority.
  7. Are we certain that Judis is sincere? Or is this perhaps Judis noticing that the great white middle has been noticing the ever increasing anti-white cacophony and he thinks the Democrats would be better off putting the plan back on the down low for a while?

    • Agree: res, Travis, snorlax, Seneca
    • Replies: @SnakeEyes
    Insincerity and concern-trolling all in one.
    , @Andrew
    "Are we certain that Judis is sincere?"

    Judis is sincere. My mother said the same thing to me 30 years ago as well. As the percent of white people shrink, white looking/successful Asians and Hispanics will become white via intermarriage with and incorporation into the general white population. The people who ghettoize themselves in those populations will in the meantime become poorer and ever more like blacks.

    Look at the small scale of your personal friends and I'm sure you already see many white-Asian and white-Latino mixed couples. When their kids marry, chances are it will be to a white person, and so on, and thus their blood will dilute. It's an open question what a white kid who is 1/4 or 1/8 Chinese will think he is or what his politics will be, but I'd bet on Asian blood becoming an exotic marker of pride like being part Cherokee, instead of it being divisive and separating that person from the people.

    Also not discussed is ongoing changes in the internal composition of the white population. Gen X and Millenial liberal whites are marrying much later and having fewer kids. Where a conservative couple might marry in their 20's and have 3 kids by 30, liberals are waiting until late 30's or early 40's to have 1 or 2 kids. The conservatives will have 3 generations in the time the liberals have 2. And that's the liberals who breed. Many more in the cities today are not marrying and are going childless. Then there is the differential toll taken by the abortion industry and homosexual identity. The future (eventually) belongs to those who show up.

    The most right wing section of the population is late Boomers and early Gen X (born 1954 to 1976), while the older boomers are highly liberal and late Silents are moderate. As the latter two groups start passing in major numbers and are replaced by Gen Z, the white electorate will actually tilt further to the right over the next 20 years.
    , @guest
    There are rumblings on the soft left along the lines of, "Hmm, maybe identity politics wasn't such a grand idea." They say this in public, no less. Which I interpret as more "Cheese it, they're onto us!" than "hey, everybody, let's take a chill pill and reassess where we're going."

    Per usual, it's a ploy to get our side to unilaterally disarm. Identity politics was just fine until white people got in the game. Suddenly it's wrong and we have to stop. We, not them. Because they can't stop. They'll go on the DL and avoid creating real Nazis, like Dr. Frankenstein, and setting off more riots.

    I must reiterate the above point: they can't stop. They're on a runaway train. The only hope for those serious about avoiding virtual race war is for our side to switch tracks and thus avoid a headon collision. Then they can maintain the post-civil rights movement colorblindness in whites, which has been oh-so useful to them.

  8. Have my grandfather’s and father’s records from 1917 and prior and few years after, including birth certificate, grandfather’s draft registration card, marriage certificate. Marked as “white”, even though we are Jewish. Apparently before modern science, before we knew better, in the age of superstition and ignorance, “white” was considered somehow related to genetic inheritance. Crazy.

    BTW, Harry Truman had an “Israelish” business partner.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    BTW, Harry Truman had an “Israelish” business partner.
     
    Wah? He was Jewish and in the haberdashery business with Harry Truman. Truman struggled financially after leaving the White House. After this was when Presidential pensions were instituted.

    per Wiki-
    Edward "Eddie" Jacobson (June 17, 1891, New York City – October 25, 1955, Kansas City, Missouri) was a Jewish-American businessman. He was also a U.S. Army associate, business partner, and close friend of President Harry S. Truman.

    Truman Library - Edward Jacobson Papers
    www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/jacobson.htm
    The papers of Edward Jacobson document his life and business career; his relationship with Harry S. Truman; his role in advocating U.S. support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1947-48; and his involvement in the early history of the modern state of Israel.

    For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With ...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/business/for-harry-truman-the...
    Apr 10, 2016 · For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With Bankruptcy. ... Harry S. Truman, ... and who had worked for years in the haberdashery business.

    Must read on Harry Truman https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/harry-s-truman-suits-haberdasher/

    , @Mr. Blank
    Thing is, it's easy to cherry-pick old quotes to prove certain groups weren't considered "white" because "white" was once used in an informal sense to indicate WASPs -- this is the sense in which Truman was using the term. It was clearly understood that this was a slang term and not a scientific category. (Echoes of this usage persist today, particularly among blacks.)

    If a guy as smart as Judis doesn't know this about our past, it's kind of funny to try to imagine the linguistic misunderstandings future writers will have about our own era.
  9. Seriously, the reason why the Democrats’ KKKrazy Glue plan to demonize whites as Ku Klux Klanners and Nazis might not work in attracting Asian and Latino enthusiasm

    It does for the moment, I think in part because it’s a whole lot of fun to trash someone else’s history. This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I “get” them and respect them, but I’m not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think? Democrats have instinctively been able to reach out to immigrants in way that the Republicans have not.

    Economically what holds the Dems together is welfare. If that can ever be knocked out (and I think will have to at some point, given our debt), what do they have? In a real way, the Democrats absolutely rely on ever so slight white majority to stay in power. Once the whites are minorities collectively, how does welfare get paid for? Once the welfare is gone, what exactly interests minorities used to the dole in anything but how to get back, using violence if necessary?

    I have hard time being even vaguely optimistic about the ability to manage a republic if the trends continue. In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing. We’re creaking along on borrowed time because we can’t maintain the Constitution anymore. It’s easy to argue we’re hardly acknowledging now – more like a passing nod as we lurch from one set of regs to another.

    • Replies: @Frank DeScushin

    In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing.
     
    In 1919 all of the Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, and nearly all Americans were Constitutional originalists. If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.

    Today, however, most Americans, most Congressmen, and most Supreme Court Justices subscribe to the bogus concept they've been raised on that the U.S. Constitution is a living document. Now instead of passing an Amendment to grant a right not listed in the Constitution Supreme Court Justices merely read that new right into the supposedly living document.

    In that way the Constitution is not less flexible, it's far more flexible. That's a bad thing. The Constitution's drafters intended the amendment process to be exceptionally difficult to preserve the integrity of the original Constitution. Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.
    , @Autochthon

    This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I “get” them and respect them, but I’m not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?
     
    Please help me understand how your reasoning, supra, materially differs from this reasoning:

    This native Southerner tends to find the whole Democratic, northern, congregationalist culture off-putting. I think I get them and I respect them, but I’m not going to fit in anytime soon; and if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?
     
    You seem to be simply assuming something about one regional subculture in what used to the the U.S.A. is somehow intrinsically more appealing to, say, a Mohammedan Indonesian, a Peruvian mestizo, an animist Negro from Lesotho for some unexplained reason?

    Is your reasoning only meant to apply to Canadiennes on the grounds they are more like New Englanders than they are like Southerners? Heck, when I lived in Maine my girlfriend was a Canadienne (she lived in Grand-Sault), and her people were essentailly on the same length as many Southerners: rural, independent folk who liked to hunt and so forth – for that matter, Cajuns are merely displaced Acadians. I genuinely don't follow you.

    , @guest
    "which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing."

    For the hoi polloi, maybe.

    For SCOTUS, the Constitution is a free-for-all, constrained only by polite elite opinion. How much more flexible can it be when you can cram a right to gay marriage in there?
    , @c matt
    Passing amendments like they were going out of style is what got us into this mess; maybe we need to start repealing a few.
  10. OT: https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1505419461

    Apparently ProPublica is running a series about “machine bias” that aims to — they really put it this way — “investigate algorithmic injustice.”

    • Replies: @anon
    I've read some of their stuff. Overall, it hasn't been that impressive. That is, what I have seen is just recycling old 'fairness' arguments directed against algorithms that use objective fact.

    The one area that I find the most interesting is the use of algorithms to predict recidivism.

    Whatever is done -- blacks are going to have bad outcomes. Because of intelligence, culture, slavery, implicit bias and on and on -- the facts are always going add up to unfortunate outcomes with blacks at the bottom.

    It's more of the same. People who demand equal outcomes are going to always be disappointed.
  11. Pretty sure that Judis is trying to prevent or at least slow down the white backlash that has begun by lying about what he really thinks:

    • Agree: Seneca
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Not much of a backlash. A large number of white Americans are totally on board with the hate whitey meme and worship at the altar of multiculturalism.

    I do not see the braindead white faction as capable of defending themselves or the civilization their ancestors created.

    If tomorrow 95% 0f the black population supported a referendum to confiscate white families' wealth, I believe a significant number of white people would sign the referendum.

    Braindead white liberals will never fight for their civilization.

  12. Judis was right. Trumps cuck plan will have 35 million instant non White voters here in a year. Only a matter of time before that Heartiste post of the Africans immavader in Italy having sex with a White woman on a pile of trash comes here.

    Symbolism speaks volumes. Far better to be feared than loved

    • Replies: @Lot
    You would be a better commentator if you cut out the constant slurs against white women over behavior less than 10% engage in, as well as take care to not get your numbers wrong by a factor of 10, as you do here.

    The trend the last three decades by the way is for women of all races to be more sexually restrained.
  13. Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice. A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites…

    There is a legal and a social component to how newcomers are treated. Legally Irish, Italians, Jews and other Europeans were classified as white as they were allowed to naturalize under the first naturalization act and its successors, which limited naturalization to free whites of good moral character. I don’t know when Italians first came, but the Irish and Jews were definitely naturalized in the early 1800s when those laws were in effect. Hence, they were legally considered white.

    Socially the Irish, Italians, Jews and probably every other group of Europeans who came here were treated with suspicion until they assimilated to the local norms. There is nothing bad or abnormal with this. Usually all newcomers to a country, club, school or other institution are generally not given the keys to the kingdom, or welcomed into the inner circle until they have proven themselves.

    For example, when a kid switches high schools because he moves to another state, legally he is permitted to register and attend the new school. So legally he is a student of that high school. Socially, however, he is generally an outcast for a period of time as the existing student body gets to know him. The student body has no legal right to exclude this kid from school, though they have no obligation to socialize with him either.

    I am getting tired of this Noel Ignatiev whiteness crap. He is conflating the social reception of people versus their legal status. Languages, accents, clothing, grooming and other ‘alien’ habits might tend to cause others to keep their distance, but it did not seem to prevent various Europeans from naturalizing under our early naturalization laws that explicitly limited this privilege to whites.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @c matt
    I don’t know when Italians first came

    1492, if the history books are to be believed.
    , @Autochthon
    It's all codswallop, of course, but at least Italians and Jews are Mediterranean. "The Irish were not white" canard is beyond tired (and tiresome) – it is downright haggard. Celts were arguably the original white people, from Galatia to Galicia. We not uncommonly have red or blonde hair and green or blue eyes, for God's sake. If Celts were not white until recently, the Han were not Oriental until recently and the Igbo became Negroes last month.
  14. We all know that Pedophilia is the next depravity to be “normalized”, right?
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/14/revised-uk-child-sexual-consent-guidelines-provoke-backlash.

    • Replies: @Raffler
    Singapore takes a harsher approach to pedophiles. Convictions bring long sentences in prison and caning to drive home the point. A recent case of one Joshua Robinson caused much outrage in the community as that pedophile only received 4 years in prison and no caning. UK magistrates and MPs should take note of how such depravity is viewed across their former lands. The Master may learn from the pupil when the time is right.
  15. >dogma in which the Most Racist Thing Ever was to say “all lives matter.”

    It’s really shameful that there was no significant pushback against this.

    I believe one of the Becky subtypes in the anti-White 5 types of Becky article was described as “thinks all lives matter”.

    This should have been a slam dunk. They’re saying that we are bad people for believing all lives matter. But, we mostly just let it happen.

    • Replies: @Dave
    White people have been mostly just letting it happen to us for 50 years.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    In his infamous post-Charlottesville pushback against the press when he said there “was blame on both sides,” it would be awesome if Trump had added,

    I denounce neo-Nazis, the KKK, white supremacists, Communists, anarchists, and black supremacists.

    (Cue tidal wave of “Whaaaat!” from the assembled idiot reporters.)

    There is this group, what is it—Black Lives Matter—that was there at Charlottesville. Awful, awful people. Violent people. During the campaign, —hold on. You had your turn. Excuse me. Excuse me.

    During the presidential campaign, Black Lives Matter got upset when people reminded them that all lives matter. Black Lives Matter-inspired terrorists murdered many, many police officers. They are a black supremacist terrorist group. Right? If a group promotes hate and supremacy, that’s bad, right?

    According to most of you here representing Fake News, Black Lives Matter is great, they’re great people. Shit like this is why I won.
     
  16. A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    Right, WASPs might have looked down on them, but there isn't a Census in the history of the United States where they aren't counted as white.
    , @Lot
    Young Truman making an ironic hipster racist joke. The fact he said Israelites are 15/16 of NYC's population is hyperbole, which even an idiot like Judis should realize means Truman is trying to be funny, not giving a dispassionate ethnic demographic report.
    , @TWS
    Tell that to my Irish grandfather. The army let him serve with the 'real whites'.
    , @Alec Leamas
    I think Judis is engaging in the (probably intentional) fallacy that because people in the 19th Century used to refer to the "Irish Race" or "Italian Race" where "Race" meant "People," that they were distinguishing these peoples from "white people." They probably did this because Nations - at least on the continent - were a fairly new phenomenon.
    , @Joe Schmoe
    The category I have seen on old census forms reads "color or race" such that black or white would be colors, not races. Also, people would put in some ethnic group as race. In the past, Germans, Slavs, Iberians, Chinese, etc., were considered races. These seemed to be changing all the time. I found a relative who was married to a Mexican who was listed as an octaroon on the census form. I have also seen where they wrote Mex. and it was crossed out and a W written in its place. The point is still race or color. It didn't mean that your color is your race.
    , @Dr. X

    A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.
     
    Of course they were seen as whites... but old-stock bluebloods and Progressives saw them as white trash.

    Still, there was always a significant difference between "white trash" and "nonwhite" in this country. It is only recently that the Progressives and SJWs have come to regard white trash as inferior to nonwhites. I find this odd, because many of the negative stereotypes about white trash -- fat, uneducated, Christian, on welfare, making babies at fifteen, etc. -- are more prevalent among blacks, yet blacks are sanctified by the leftist elites while white trash are demonized.
    , @advancedatheist
    Thomas Jefferson certainly saw Italians as white people, and he admired many aspects of Italian culture.
  17. I read this article this morning and noticed he never actually said anything about the GOP white vote share going up slowly but consistently for the foreseeable future.

    Instead he says Dems can’t just assume they will do well with Asians and Hispanics, or that they won’t become white through intermarriage and assimilation.

    It is kind of crazy that someone goes into the fraught area for the MSM of racial vote share analysis and then fails to say anything interesting. A 1 pt boost in the white share of the GOP has a bigger boost to the party than 5 pts from hispanics or 10 from Asians. And it is a far easier goal.

    We may not even need to do anything to get our 1 or 2 point white vote boost per cycle, with BLM and SJW white hate becoming more prevalent and obvious each year.

    • Replies: @Felix...

    A 1 pt boost in the white share of the GOP has a bigger boost to the party than 5 pts from hispanics or 10 from Asians. And it is a far easier goal.

    We may not even need to do anything to get our 1 or 2 point white vote boost per cycle, with BLM and SJW white hate becoming more prevalent and obvious each year.
     

    Yes, but each year that ratio becomes less and less favorable. Furthermore, what is a trickle of erosion now will shortly become a flood when the massive, overwhelmingly white baby boomer generation begins to kick the bucket and unmasks what the last 50 years of demographic change have wrought on succeeding generations. This is not some distant future, this is the next couple of presidential elections. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing, and the landing is yet to come when the boomers die. This is doubly true for states like Texas where white births have long accounted for less than a third of total births and which are like demographic dead men walking.
    _________
    I doubt the coalition of the fringes will fracture. Not only are there massive, powerful forces at the very top hard at work to make sure it doesn't happen, but there is a bottom-up logic to the PoC remaining cohesive as well. Whites will maintain their plurality for decades after they lose outright majority, so the "people of color" need each other to assert political dominance, and we all know they want to assert political dominance. I'm sure the blacks would prefer to get all the spoils, but they'll settle for sharing them with the Hispanics and Asians because without their help in outvoting increasingly racially conscious whites they'll get no spoils at all. They're not that stupid (I think).

    It's also very unlikely a member of the coalition will break away to ally with whites against the remainder of the coalition for the simple reason that whites have all the goodies so what would be the point? To put it crudely, whites have all the blonde bimbos and the PoC want those bimbos. There is nothing the blacks have that that the Asians want, or that the Asians have that the Hispanics want. Or maybe there is, but it pales into insignificance compared to what whites have that the Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics want and if they have to hold their noses and work together to take it, they will.

  18. Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice. A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    Colours exist on a spectrum, therefore colours do not exist. Same thing with races. Makes sense.

    A century ago, people fresh off the boat were exotic. Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are noticeably less exotic. Others noted the change and decided to include the native born descendants within the category “White”. This just proves self-described White people were irrational bigots back then and still are now. Makes sense.

    “This town has 8,000,000 people,” a young Harry Truman wrote his cousin upon visiting New York City in 1918. “7,500,000 of ’em are of Israelish extraction. (400,000 wops and the rest are white people.)”

    I always like how a private joke is given the weight of a court ruling or the final report of a board of inquiry whenever they fell like it. Is it really so odd that a guy from Missouri found 1917 vintage New York Jews and Italians to be exotic? Considering how recently most of these people had arrived, they probably were downright alien to even the most broad-minded internationalist.

    • Replies: @newrouter
    "I always like how a private joke is given the weight of a court ruling or the final report of a board of inquiry whenever they fell like it"

    Agree. Truman didn't put out a video where he's lynches a young wop or israeli.
  19. The key is not to be apologetic – no one respects someone who hangs their head or is always ready to defer to whoever speaks the loudest. This is what whites on the left are all about and it’s why identity politics picked up so much steam.

    If the right wants to attract Hispanics and Asians to their side, they can’t be bashful about talking about the superiority of the culture they want to preserve and ideas behind it. Act like winners, not like less committed Democrats.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    "Never apologize, mister. It's a sign of weakness." John Wayne, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon"
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    You got it. Everyone loves a winner.

    For example, in the late 20th Century, Moslem fundamentalism gathered steam as the West was seen as weak. This was a change from Moslem behavior in the late 19th and early to mid-20th Centuries, when middle and upper class Moslems willingly imitated the West. Everybody loves a winner. So, act like one.
  20. @TangoMan
    A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    https://i.imgur.com/8ayz1S8.png

    Right, WASPs might have looked down on them, but there isn’t a Census in the history of the United States where they aren’t counted as white.

    • Replies: @Clay Bishop
    Has there ever been a case of a couple charged for violating anti-miscegenation laws which involved an Irish or Italian being treated as a non-White? I am not aware of any.
  21. @TangoMan
    A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    https://i.imgur.com/8ayz1S8.png

    Young Truman making an ironic hipster racist joke. The fact he said Israelites are 15/16 of NYC’s population is hyperbole, which even an idiot like Judis should realize means Truman is trying to be funny, not giving a dispassionate ethnic demographic report.

  22. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Blank
    OT: https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1505419461

    Apparently ProPublica is running a series about "machine bias" that aims to — they really put it this way — "investigate algorithmic injustice."

    I’ve read some of their stuff. Overall, it hasn’t been that impressive. That is, what I have seen is just recycling old ‘fairness’ arguments directed against algorithms that use objective fact.

    The one area that I find the most interesting is the use of algorithms to predict recidivism.

    Whatever is done — blacks are going to have bad outcomes. Because of intelligence, culture, slavery, implicit bias and on and on — the facts are always going add up to unfortunate outcomes with blacks at the bottom.

    It’s more of the same. People who demand equal outcomes are going to always be disappointed.

  23. @Flip
    The percentage of whites voting Republican goes up as they become a lower percentage of the population. Whites in Mississippi vote mostly Republican and whites in Vermont vote mostly Democratic.

    Whites in Mississippi vote mostly Republican and whites in Vermont vote mostly Democratic.

    This is brand new, as of the 1960’s in Vermont. Until then, VT was so reliably Republican it voted against FDR’s second term.

    Two things have happened. Vermont had a reasonably large influx of French Canadians. In the 1960’s they caught whatever was in the water and basically into turn secular, liberal socialists like their cousins north of the border. The Congregationalist natives also seem to have been infected by the same disease, although less pronounced.

    The other issue with VT has been a slow 1:1 replacement of conservative, poor rural mountain natives with liberal urbanites with outside income. Almost every VT politician within my lifetime are actually transplants, predominately from the NYC area. Before we left, I joked that the best place to hold the Vermont Republican conference is Florida. That’s still largely true today, although you might need to split it between there and NC.

    If you ever scratch your head at VT’s “rural” politics, think NYC’s 6th borough with less traffic and more ski areas and the place makes much more sense. Much of the divide within white politics quite often comes down to city versus country/suburban. VT ironically seems to highlight the point.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    Two things have happened. Vermont had a reasonably large influx of French Canadians. In the 1960′s they caught whatever was in the water and basically into turn secular, liberal socialists like their cousins north of the border. The Congregationalist natives also seem to have been infected by the same disease, although less pronounced.
     
    I went skiing there a few times in the 80s-90s when I was a kid, and looking back it seemed like Vermont was home to whatever the transitional phase between 1960s Hippie and 2000s Hipster was. I think they were saddled with the epithet "Granolas."
    , @James Kabala
    In Massachusetts and Rhode Island French Canadians seem to be still relatively conservative - obviously both states are Democratic strongholds and that applies to the French as much as to any other group, but they are rarely in the left-wing vanguard.
  24. @TangoMan
    A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    https://i.imgur.com/8ayz1S8.png

    Tell that to my Irish grandfather. The army let him serve with the ‘real whites’.

  25. @Cwhatfuture
    Have my grandfather's and father's records from 1917 and prior and few years after, including birth certificate, grandfather's draft registration card, marriage certificate. Marked as "white", even though we are Jewish. Apparently before modern science, before we knew better, in the age of superstition and ignorance, "white" was considered somehow related to genetic inheritance. Crazy.

    BTW, Harry Truman had an "Israelish" business partner.

    BTW, Harry Truman had an “Israelish” business partner.

    Wah? He was Jewish and in the haberdashery business with Harry Truman. Truman struggled financially after leaving the White House. After this was when Presidential pensions were instituted.

    per Wiki-
    Edward “Eddie” Jacobson (June 17, 1891, New York City – October 25, 1955, Kansas City, Missouri) was a Jewish-American businessman. He was also a U.S. Army associate, business partner, and close friend of President Harry S. Truman.

    Truman Library – Edward Jacobson Papers
    http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/jacobson.htm
    The papers of Edward Jacobson document his life and business career; his relationship with Harry S. Truman; his role in advocating U.S. support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1947-48; and his involvement in the early history of the modern state of Israel.

    For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With …
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/business/for-harry-truman-the…
    Apr 10, 2016 · For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With Bankruptcy. … Harry S. Truman, … and who had worked for years in the haberdashery business.

    Must read on Harry Truman https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/harry-s-truman-suits-haberdasher/

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    This tangential Truman discussion reminds me of one of the earlier memories I can recall from my childhood. I was too young in 1969 to understand what was going on among the adults when Ike died. But in 1972, I was old enough, and had learned enough history, to understand when Truman died on the day after Christmas why the adults were talking about it. He was among the last of the World War II era American leaders, so there was a sort of hushed respect and reflection among the adults discussing it. Interestingly, LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973), but I don't remember the adults discussing him all that much, as they did with Truman. Perhaps because they had served in WWII or Korea, so Truman had a direct connection in their life.
    , @Captain Tripps
    This tangential Truman discussion reminds me of one of the earlier memories I can recall from my childhood. I was too young in 1969 to understand what was going on among the adults when Ike died. But in 1972, I was old enough, and had learned enough history, to understand when Truman died on the day after Christmas why the adults were talking about it. He was among the last of the World War II era American leaders, so there was a sort of hushed respect and reflection among the adults discussing it. Interestingly, LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973), but I don't remember the adults discussing him all that much, as they did with Truman. Perhaps because they had served in WWII or Korea, so Truman had a direct connection in their life.
    , @Hockamaw
    Truman anecdote I heard somewhere or other: A (jewish) reporter or biographer or somebody was shadowing Truman in Missouri for a story. Truman is in his golden years now and he driving this guy around the small Missouri town he lives in and is telling this guy just about his life generally. Then, they pull up in front of Truman's house, and Truman says, "Sir, this is where I live and I would invite you inside but this is Mrs. Truman's house, and she has never allowed anyone of the Hebrew extraction under her roof, and she never will."
    , @ScarletNumber

    Truman struggled financially after leaving the White House. After this was when Presidential pensions were instituted.
     
    At the time there were only 2 former presidents: Truman and Hoover. Hoover also took the money, just to avoid embarrassing Truman.
  26. @Whiskey
    Judis was right. Trumps cuck plan will have 35 million instant non White voters here in a year. Only a matter of time before that Heartiste post of the Africans immavader in Italy having sex with a White woman on a pile of trash comes here.

    Symbolism speaks volumes. Far better to be feared than loved

    You would be a better commentator if you cut out the constant slurs against white women over behavior less than 10% engage in, as well as take care to not get your numbers wrong by a factor of 10, as you do here.

    The trend the last three decades by the way is for women of all races to be more sexually restrained.

    • Replies: @Rifleman

    @Whiskey

    You would be a better commentator if you cut out the constant slurs against white women over behavior less than 10% engage in, as well as take care to not get your numbers wrong by a factor of 10, as you do here.
     
    Whiskey has serious issues that aren't going away. His sexual paranoia, cuckoldphobia and virgin's inadequecy, his over the top Christian paranoid's Judeo-phillia.

    That's just who he is.
    , @Jack D
    And the # of white women who have "jungle fever" is very limited and as you go up the economic scale even more limited (putting aside Hollywood trash). During the '60s it was very fashionable for rebellious Leftist girls to pair up with Black Panther types but that fashion seems to have passed.

    The myth that white women want to pair up with "bad boys" is just that - a myth. America still has important class distinctions. If anything, these have hardened - in the past it was not unusual for doctors to date nurses or businessmen to date their secretaries, but nowadays this is rare. I recently read an interview with Dov Charney - the American Apparel guy who was known for screwing his (female) employees and he very carefully emphasized that he never dated the girls who were sewing out on the shop floor - he would only hit on the professionals in the office (he also emphasized that it was a 2 way street - these females were hitting on him). A female professional type woman has nothing in common with a blue collar motorcycle gang type guy (nor vice versa). Charney OTOH was perfect because he was a "bad boy" but was also high status.
  27. If Judis now thinks that demographics don’t favor the Democrats, then I guess he never heard of this exotic place called “California”. He should visit us, I think it will cheer him right up. This is now a one party state in which statewide elections increasingly don’t even have a Republican candidate, and the handful of Republican legislators basically sit in the corner of the hall making ineffectual little squeaking noises while the Dems pass anything that is in fashion.
    The only threat to the Democrats is that some of their fringes will get fed up with the Wall Street/ Davos owned Democratic Party and start making socialist parties like the Greens the new second party.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    California liberals are ultimately constrained by money. They can be as brown and gay as they want but the way the trends are going, it will become ungovernable and far less livable. Jerry Brown has slowed down the day of reckoning but once he is gone, a younger more radical generation will piss through what is left of the Golden State's finances.
    , @Maj. Kong
    Hawaii has never had a white majority, and it has elected only one Republican to the Senate in its history (who at the time was one of the most liberal Republicans). A Republican hasn't been competitive for the Senate in more than 20 years.

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

    If the GOP were a party that cared about its base, it would be demanding affirmative action for whites in Hawaii, along with Voting Rights Act gerrymandered districts like those used to elect blacks in the rural South.
    , @Anonymous
    If the election is not in play, always vote third party. Which third party doesn't much matter.
    , @AB-

    The only threat to the Democrats is that some of their fringes will get fed up with the Wall Street/ Davos owned Democratic Party and start making socialist parties like the Greens the new second party.
     
    You're right on the money with that. Those Bernie Bro's really brought that to light.

    With Trump, we've already seen the beginnings of a new party; one that isn't owned by the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Steet.
  28. His whole re-evaluation relies on the following:

    Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice.

    Which is BS. Non-whites can identify as white only as long as that BS is maintained and “whiteness” is defined in SWPL terms–Patagonia jackets, artisanal sandwiches, and tolerance.

    I used to work with an Asian who grew up in the US. As long as conversations revolved around watching Family Guy, the US was a great place he wanted to get back to. As soon as the conversation became about anything connected to European civilization or politics, the US was full of horrible racists. He could be modern, global, ironic, cool, but he knew he wasn’t really white.

    There will be no “inclusively white identity politics” of the future. There is a chance for a coalition politics if Asians can figure out that NAMs degrade their quality of life in the long run. However, if people like Yan Shen keep virtue signaling by promoting the idea that Asians are better whites than whites are because of their superior tolerance and embrace of diversity, that is unlikely to happen. Yan Shen won’t bring any Asians into a citizenist camp–he’s keeping them out by promoting the fiction that Goodwhites are better people.

    Citizenism isn’t tolerance-in-place-of-separatism, it’s paternalism-in-place-of-separatism. There’s a big difference, and if Asians can get paternalistic, maybe we can have a coalition politics based on having Patagonia jackets and artisanal sandwiches without tolerance.

    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie

    "I used to work with an Asian who grew up in the US. ... but he knew he wasn’t really white". -- Chrisnonymous
     
    Me too, I used to work with a Japanese-American guy who grew up here but knew he wasn't white, but that was, let's see, about 50-60 years ago. Japanese-Americans today, they know that they're White. However, there are certainly recidivist white gangs, like black gangs too, who could use the Japanese thing as an excuse for gratuitous bullying or worse. Also, Japanese-Americans know that their non-whiteness may be valuable in such matters as university admissions.

    Going back that 50-60 years, I made a remark during a conversation at work, about I don''t remember what, to this effect: "Who cares if we're talking about Japanese or Chinese? They're basically the same, aren't they?" (I guess maybe I was thinking from a Korean POV!) Well, it was weeks before t he Japanese-American guy would even speak to me, although during that time I became friends with another co-worker, a Chinese guy from Hong Kong who must have known that he wasn't English, but who didn't seem to be concerned about race or color at all.

    Here are some further points relating to "whiteness":

    1. When the Portuguese, as the first Europeans to arrive en masse, entered northeast Asia from around the Cape of Good Hope and the Straights of Malacca, they identified the locals as white. There is this thing, you know, called the olive skin-tone, which might be applied to the Portuguese themselves, who nonetheless are considered by the Census to be white, they are not even Hispanic -- of course, if Portugal means anything, it's that they are not part of Spain!

    2. Back during the first Bush administration (Bush I), I believe, I read somewhere like in the New Yorker about a Saudi Arab who wrote of his experience on a plane coming for the first time to America. He relates how surprised -- even shocked -- he was, when he opened his USA visa, for the first time, to discover that he was "white". I have always seen that as a simple calculation that was made by DoS that any people that control that much oil ... well, they must be white, d'ja think?

    3. On the other hand, in post-colonial Africa, where many countries refuse(d) to allow whites to work, but where there are no qualified blacks to fill many needed specialties, Lebanese have filled the breech ... so apparently the "olive skin-tone" thing can work two ways, at least sometimes, if it is useful.

    4. Ben Franklin, we know, wrote of the German immigrants that they weren't white.

    5. A Filipino businessman, back around 1970, told me how in Tennessee where he was attending Vanderbilt back in the 1950s, he was never considered to be white, even though he was 100% Spanish derived. To me, he looked white and I told him so. He said, embarrassed in a way, "Yeah, I know."

    6. Another guy I know who even has "native Alaskan" privileges and grew up in a native village in southeast Alaska before he escaped to Anchorage, told me that he was cruelly persecuted in that village because he had maybe half Russian blood, so he was way too white. A friend, I totally took him at his word.

    7. I have witnessed terrible treatment, really atrocities, of some whites by other whites just as much as I know of terrible what should, if we would be consistent, have to be identified as 'hate-crime' atrocities perpetrated upon innocent white children by ghetto blacks.

    8. On the other hand, I know blacks who want no part of the 'black' thing and reuse to buy in. I am certain that it's possible, if difficult, for blacks and whites to be friends.

    9. On the other hand, I know of a case of a youth gang who manipulated big-city cops to bring charges against white outsiders, and when it came time for Discovery prior to trial, everyone was surprised that all of the gang identified as "black" - probably to collect statutory -- what else can we call it? -- black privileges. None of them looked black, at least not significantly.

    I could go on and on, but the point is clear: a lot of this black-white stuff, now in America, in the third millennium, it's just bogus BS. Corollary: there is great discretion available to many, if not all, Americans as to if and how much they call themselves "white" ... or "black" ... or whatever. That's a fact even though it has been denied in some of the comments here in this comment-stream.
    , @Grandpa Charlie
    The GOP's anti-Americans-First immigration strategy

    Steve quotes Judis: "Cuban-Americans in Miami vote very differently from Mexican-Americans in Los Angeles." Yes, and that Miami Cuban vote for the GOP is only one instance of the success of a GOP strategy to support unlimited immigration of any "refugees" who paint themselves as fleeing from Communism. Of course, some immigrants from Communist countries actually earned that political refugee status, but many merely opportunistically claimed it -- and were in fact economic refugees. That was one side of the coin: the other side is the opportunism of the GOP in utilizing an immigration strategy during the Cold War in which they were remarkably successful in framing the GOP as THE party of anti-Communism. So most immigrants who originated in a Communist country voted Republican.

    The GOP was only one of the parties of anti-Communism, (RFK served enthusiastically as an attorney for Joe McCarthy and the HUAC) but the GOP was actually THE party of anti-unionism, more or less, (or for intellectuals like here at UR, the GOP could be THE party of anti-collectivism). Meanwhile, many here at UR (Republicans?) are stuck in history/ideology such that unionism = Communism, just as a few posting here at UR (Democrats?) are stuck in history/ideology such that unionism = populism.

    So there we have it: the GOP has been as opportunist as the Democrats in employing an open immigration strategy -- neither including anything like "First, do we, the host country, have a full-employment economy? If not, then there's no immigration!" That has been the approach to legal immigration of many or most countries, e.g., until recently, of Canada. In other words, the dominant doctrine has been that legal immigration, if any, must be based on economic necessities of the host nation, not on the economic necessities of global migrations. That dominant paradigm shifted as corporate ()WTO) globalism became dominant: the ideology of "free-traders" (e.g., Mises Institute) said and says, if truth be told, that as trade barriers, including raw materials, come down, the desired efficiencies can only be obtained if migration barriers also come down. After all, labor is an input to production as much as are any other raw materials.

    The Democrats' anti-Americans-First immigration policy

    The GOP based their pro-immigration strategy on the ideological state religion of anti-Communism, now updated to anti-Terrorism or anti-Evil (as in the 'Axis of Evil'), whereas the Democrats today base their pro-immigration on the ideological state religion of multiculturalism. Both leave people like myself who oppose all state religions especially ideological out of the picture, while both accommodate the open-borders philosophy of corporate globalism.

    I was first exposed to this new (to me) religion of multiculturalism (fronted as ''diversity' to piggyback on "biodiversity"so as to tie in with that other state religion, scientism) when I volunteered about ten years ago to teach English as a Second Language and in that context took a required two-day crash course in education -- one day focused on cultural sensitivity training and the other day on how to teach reading to adult illiterates (not uncommonly, ESL students were illiterate even in their native language). The class was made up of all women, including the instructor, except for myself and one other "older gentleman." It all went along fine, at first, and then the instructor asked how a teacher should treat a student who is actively hostile and disruptive to the whole program. We were given a multiple choice, like a test, but we all took the test together as a discussion. I spoke up for an answer that was maybe marginally disciplinarian (namely, say to the problem student: "If you can't dig it, you can leave"), and the other guy in the glass looked at me with a sad expression and shook his head, as though to say "Don't you get it?" Eventually, I did get it, and that was my introduction to the New Education (like the New Math except that I personally don't think there's anything wrong with "the New Math" while the "New Education" has serious problems, imo). Anyway, I looked into it a little further and discovered that a required part of all teacher education throughout USA had come to include "multiculturalism" - which I wouldn't call Communism but I would call it un-American, like what ever happened to "the melting pot"?

    You get to a certain age and everything just amazes you.

    FAST FORWARD to 2016/17

    What was once the state religion of anti-Communism has now become the state religion of corporate (WTO) globalism -- endorsed (like the Cult of 9-11) by both major parties. That is the ideological basis for both parties to embrace and support practically unlimited immigration into the USA.

    For Republicans: globalism = unbridled capitalism = unlimited immigration.

    For Democrats: globalism = multiculturalism = unlimited immigration

    (See the huge difference between the two major parties?)


    For immigrants from such countries as Poland, it would likely be very easy to transfer the anti-Soviet mindset over to the anti-Russia mindset. And for many dumbed-down Americans, it's very easy to revive the old Cold War "Russia bad" meme. And that is the origin of the Democrats' (Hillary's) anti-Russia strategy -- which also had total support from Kissinger neocons as something helpful to the PRC -- the PRC being one of their main funding sources ("Yet none dare call it treason") -- as well as to themselves (neocons) since most of them do not want their "valuable" training and experience, their "expertise" in Eastern Europe to go unappreciated.

    Just as during the years of Democratic hegemony, Republican leadership embraced "liberal Republicans" (now known as RINOs) that generally mirrored the Democrats, so today, as Democratic hegemony fades off into the remote past, Democratic leadership seeks to mirror the GOP. Seeing the success of Republicans, Democrats have thought about the Republicans' successful immigration strategy during the Cold War and thought, "We'll go one better: we will advocate for unlimited immigration as good for the country ... and not only will we get the immigrant vote, but we will also have the support of our corporate sponsors such as technology billionaires.

    And then along came Donald Trump.The jury is still out as to whether Trump will institute a sane immigration policy, or not. He must choose between populism and corporate globalism!
  29. @TangoMan
    A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    https://i.imgur.com/8ayz1S8.png

    I think Judis is engaging in the (probably intentional) fallacy that because people in the 19th Century used to refer to the “Irish Race” or “Italian Race” where “Race” meant “People,” that they were distinguishing these peoples from “white people.” They probably did this because Nations – at least on the continent – were a fairly new phenomenon.

  30. @TangoMan
    A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    https://i.imgur.com/8ayz1S8.png

    The category I have seen on old census forms reads “color or race” such that black or white would be colors, not races. Also, people would put in some ethnic group as race. In the past, Germans, Slavs, Iberians, Chinese, etc., were considered races. These seemed to be changing all the time. I found a relative who was married to a Mexican who was listed as an octaroon on the census form. I have also seen where they wrote Mex. and it was crossed out and a W written in its place. The point is still race or color. It didn’t mean that your color is your race.

    • Replies: @11 Bravo

    In the past, Germans, Slavs, Iberians, Chinese, etc., were considered races.
     
    Peruse the bottom of this page (Chapter III) for the original naturalization act of 1790. It's only two paragraphs long. It limits naturalization to free whites of good character. It thus allowed Germans, Jews and other Euros to naturalize. It did not allow Chinese or white indentured servants to naturalize.
  31. @Bill Jones
    We all know that Pedophilia is the next depravity to be "normalized", right?
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/14/revised-uk-child-sexual-consent-guidelines-provoke-backlash.

    Singapore takes a harsher approach to pedophiles. Convictions bring long sentences in prison and caning to drive home the point. A recent case of one Joshua Robinson caused much outrage in the community as that pedophile only received 4 years in prison and no caning. UK magistrates and MPs should take note of how such depravity is viewed across their former lands. The Master may learn from the pupil when the time is right.

  32. 100% off topic:

    Great National Geographic article on orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra. Lots on their mating and how the orangutans on each island differ in their mating strategies. Orangutans are similar enough to us that human pregnancy tests can be used on them. Material here on their R and K reproductive strategies. _____ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/12/orangutans-behaviors-borneo-sumatra/

    Orangutans are under pressure from poachers who steal their young to sell on the pet market. They kill the mother to make it easier to take her baby orangutan. What a shame!

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    That's horrific
    , @It's All Ball Bearings
    "They kill the mother to make it easier to take her baby orangutan."

    There is a special place in Hell for those folks
  33. anon • Disclaimer says:

    I can see it. White = not Black. Diversity = immigrants. Who can be White enough. A city can function with a lot of diversity but not a lot of blacks.

    Eastern cities definitely prefer immigrants to a higher concentration of blacks. Maybe even blacks prefer diversity. They don’t want to live in Detroit either.

    If this is indeed what is going on, then there needs to be more emphasis on excluding Haitians and the least functional immigrants.

    I seriously doubt if European census figures bothered enumerating Whites — until recently. Why would they bother.

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    It's hard to imagine a positive future for American blacks. If you peruse the popular fiction of the forties in America there were many stories and articles taking a pro-black stance. Liberals wrote articles about how some blacks were being badly treated in the deep South.

    Those articles were probably true.

    But today the public has just about exhausted its sympathy for black causes. MLK was recruited to engage in a Gandhi-like non-violent crusade wrapped in a layer of Christianity. But Christianity has diminished in its power over the public and blacks now mean mindless violence not peaceable lunch counter sit-ins.

    White people are now afraid of blacks. They see the "knock-out game" on TV now - not Bull Connor loosing the dogs and fire hoses on those sweet peaceable negroes. Sidney Poitier, the black moral superman, has been replaced by Django - the avenging pistolero who kills whites for pleasure.

    If we all go to the barricades as the blacks seem to want - who will sympathize? Blacks seem to be content to be a permanent parasite race living on the largess of the hated whites. Hispanics and East Asians - the most numerous and the most successful of our minorities - are not natural allies of blacks. Blacks look to be on a death march from which they do not see a reason to slow down or veer away.
  34. /////

  35. BLM was a gift wrapped package the GOP was mostly too corrupt to utilize for fear of angering lobbyists.

  36. @AM

    Whites in Mississippi vote mostly Republican and whites in Vermont vote mostly Democratic.
     
    This is brand new, as of the 1960's in Vermont. Until then, VT was so reliably Republican it voted against FDR's second term.

    Two things have happened. Vermont had a reasonably large influx of French Canadians. In the 1960's they caught whatever was in the water and basically into turn secular, liberal socialists like their cousins north of the border. The Congregationalist natives also seem to have been infected by the same disease, although less pronounced.

    The other issue with VT has been a slow 1:1 replacement of conservative, poor rural mountain natives with liberal urbanites with outside income. Almost every VT politician within my lifetime are actually transplants, predominately from the NYC area. Before we left, I joked that the best place to hold the Vermont Republican conference is Florida. That's still largely true today, although you might need to split it between there and NC.

    If you ever scratch your head at VT's "rural" politics, think NYC's 6th borough with less traffic and more ski areas and the place makes much more sense. Much of the divide within white politics quite often comes down to city versus country/suburban. VT ironically seems to highlight the point.

    Two things have happened. Vermont had a reasonably large influx of French Canadians. In the 1960′s they caught whatever was in the water and basically into turn secular, liberal socialists like their cousins north of the border. The Congregationalist natives also seem to have been infected by the same disease, although less pronounced.

    I went skiing there a few times in the 80s-90s when I was a kid, and looking back it seemed like Vermont was home to whatever the transitional phase between 1960s Hippie and 2000s Hipster was. I think they were saddled with the epithet “Granolas.”

  37. @Cagey Beast
    Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice. A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    Colours exist on a spectrum, therefore colours do not exist. Same thing with races. Makes sense.

    A century ago, people fresh off the boat were exotic. Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are noticeably less exotic. Others noted the change and decided to include the native born descendants within the category "White". This just proves self-described White people were irrational bigots back then and still are now. Makes sense.

    “This town has 8,000,000 people,” a young Harry Truman wrote his cousin upon visiting New York City in 1918. “7,500,000 of ’em are of Israelish extraction. (400,000 wops and the rest are white people.)”

    I always like how a private joke is given the weight of a court ruling or the final report of a board of inquiry whenever they fell like it. Is it really so odd that a guy from Missouri found 1917 vintage New York Jews and Italians to be exotic? Considering how recently most of these people had arrived, they probably were downright alien to even the most broad-minded internationalist.

    “I always like how a private joke is given the weight of a court ruling or the final report of a board of inquiry whenever they fell like it”

    Agree. Truman didn’t put out a video where he’s lynches a young wop or israeli.

  38. How many different countries will make up the old United States of America in 2044? What coalitions will be built and how will the enegage with the outside world? How much influence will China have on the west coast and will they try to invade a non-nuclear American state?

  39. What Judis was not counting on

    The Indispensable Future of White Masculinity

    https://vid.me/nfrkr

    As our country heads towards even greater chaos and ruin folks will once again look towards a HUWHITE male to save the country.

    Even if Trump should cuck on DACA it would only clear the way for a Kris Kobach or Steve King to run in 2020 and win the Republican nomination. Who else would have a shot??? Paul Ryan??? This would completely solidify the Republicans as the HUWHITE party.

    The Democrats are now saddled with their Progressive Stack politics. They would have to run a Black and/or Woman with a likely Latino or maybe a Gay and/or Jew as VP. That is why Kamila Harris is now the front runner for 2020. Besides she is married to a Jewish Lawyer.

    I think Kamila Harris will be a worse candidate than Hillary and is even more likely to be humiliated by BLM and ANTIFA than Bernie Sanders was.

  40. I wish that this was right but I’m not convinced. 100 years after Truman’s visit to NYC, the Jews may be considered white by most people but they are still loyal Democrat voters – old habits are hard to break.

    Also, somehow in national elections, the Democrats have the mojo to stir up the base and get the prodigal son (and daughter) minorities to return to the ancestral fold.

    One of the reasons why the Democrats won’t renounce their Coalition of the Fringes formula is that they are convinced that it is going to start working again REAL SOON (as soon as they get a candidate whose initial are not HRC). Maybe they are wrong but maybe not. In big cities this formula has been working great for the last 70 years and shows every sign of working forever.

    • Replies: @AB-

    One of the reasons why the Democrats won’t renounce their Coalition of the Fringes formula is that they are convinced that it is going to start working again REAL SOON (as soon as they get a candidate whose initial are not HRC). Maybe they are wrong but maybe not. In big cities this formula has been working great for the last 70 years and shows every sign of working forever.
     
    About 70 years ago is when white conversatives starting leaving the big cities; they got replaced by feral and semi-feral minorities that like getting free shit from the rest of us.

    I don't see today's whites leaving the country, they'll fight for it...leaving NYC or Detroit was easy and smart.
  41. • Replies: @c matt
    1st: 12% want smaller gov't

    2nd: 22% want smaller gov't

    3rd: 36% want smaller gov't

    Notice a trend here? By fifth generation they're damn Republicans.
    , @Seth Largo
    If you want to win elections for small government, though, you really shouldn't alienate that important 30% of Hispanics (and Asians) that have assimilated to a right-ish American norm. And a tweet like that would certainly alienate them.

    About 30% of Hispanics and Asians vote Right. Trump was a great test. If that 30% stat held even for HIM, you know there's a non-trivial right-leaning impulse among Hispanics and Asians. Here's how that plays out by 2065:

    Whites: 45% of population.
    Hispanics: 24%
    Asians: 14%
    Black: 13%
    Other: 3%

    Say whites split 60/40 in an election for the Right candidate*: 27%
    30/70 Hispanic: 7%
    30/70 Asian: 4%
    10/90 Black: 1%
    Other: 1%

    So, going by today's trends, future Right candidates will get ~40% of the vote in a majority-minority country. That means they lose, of course, but not by impossible landslides. The question becomes: Between now and 2065, how do you package The Right in a way that appeals to just another ~5% of whites, ~3% of Asians, and ~3% of Hispanics? You get those tiny percentages to switch teams and the Right survives just fine.

    So what's your plan?

    *I'm assuming here a consolidation of white identity politics by 2065: a big and probably wrongheaded assumption, of course. If whites are voting Left in huge numbers in 2065, my numbers go out the window. But that's the fault of whites---you can't blame the changing demographics.

    , @Ck1
    This is a bad survey. Most small government people aren't going to answer a survey in the first place and they only asked 1200 people. As usual small government people are underrepresented in polls because of image independence and distrust.
  42. If I remember right John Judis and Ruy Teixeira started writing a series of articles for The New Republic in the 1980s that finally provided the basis for The Emerging Democratic Majority in 2002.

    So John Judis who pretended to be an old school pro-worker populist in his early years has been advocating for the replacement of white America for a very long time.

    This is why you need to watch this Vertigo Politix video. TWMNBN have been hard at work planning for the demise of white America for a very long time.

    The Tactics of Immigration
    https://vid.me/Do4lB

  43. @AM

    Seriously, the reason why the Democrats’ KKKrazy Glue plan to demonize whites as Ku Klux Klanners and Nazis might not work in attracting Asian and Latino enthusiasm
     
    It does for the moment, I think in part because it's a whole lot of fun to trash someone else's history. This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I "get" them and respect them, but I'm not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think? Democrats have instinctively been able to reach out to immigrants in way that the Republicans have not.

    Economically what holds the Dems together is welfare. If that can ever be knocked out (and I think will have to at some point, given our debt), what do they have? In a real way, the Democrats absolutely rely on ever so slight white majority to stay in power. Once the whites are minorities collectively, how does welfare get paid for? Once the welfare is gone, what exactly interests minorities used to the dole in anything but how to get back, using violence if necessary?

    I have hard time being even vaguely optimistic about the ability to manage a republic if the trends continue. In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing. We're creaking along on borrowed time because we can't maintain the Constitution anymore. It's easy to argue we're hardly acknowledging now - more like a passing nod as we lurch from one set of regs to another.

    In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing.

    In 1919 all of the Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, and nearly all Americans were Constitutional originalists. If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.

    Today, however, most Americans, most Congressmen, and most Supreme Court Justices subscribe to the bogus concept they’ve been raised on that the U.S. Constitution is a living document. Now instead of passing an Amendment to grant a right not listed in the Constitution Supreme Court Justices merely read that new right into the supposedly living document.

    In that way the Constitution is not less flexible, it’s far more flexible. That’s a bad thing. The Constitution’s drafters intended the amendment process to be exceptionally difficult to preserve the integrity of the original Constitution. Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.

    • Replies: @Hare Krishna
    In 1919 living constitutionalism had already established a foothold on the Supreme Court, via Lochner v. New York and "economic due process" . It was just used for ends that progs today would disapprove of.
    , @dr kill
    Thread winner. TY
    , @Jim Don Bob

    Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.
     
    Congress can rein in SCOTUS anytime it wants to: Article 3, Section 2: 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    But, yeah. You're right.

    , @Bill
    This is a lost battle. Embrace the aftermath. Our job is to get people on the SC who will ignore the constitution in our favor.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.
     
    Hardly:

    http://www.history.com/news/the-state-where-women-voted-long-before-the-19th-amendment

    15 states had full suffrage for women before 1920.

    There was also partial suffrage. Twice as many votes were cast for presidential electors than for governor in Illinois in 1916; the difference was that women could vote for the former.

    They couldn't, however, vote for alderman. Some offices are just too sacrosanct.
  44. “This town has 8,000,000 people,” a young Harry Truman wrote his cousin upon visiting New York City in 1918. “7,500,000 of ’em are of Israelish extraction. (400,000 wops and the rest are white people.)”

    I am having trouble verifying that quote. Searching on +”Israelish extraction” did not yield anything convincing. So I am calling BS on that quote. I also coukd not find evidence of Truman using the W– word. Mr intetnet says nyc population 5.6 million in 1918 +- a few Spanish flu deaths.

    • Replies: @whoever
    If that quote had a good possibility of being real, I thought it would be in Merle Miller's biography of Truman, Plain Speaking, which is full of pithy Trumanisms, such as describing someone as "an eight-ulcer man in a four-ulcer job." But I couldn't find it there.
    I did find the quote in Nixon's Prejudices, an article in the New York Sun from some years ago, which attributes it to Truman and Israel, by Michael J. Cohen, published by the University of California Press.
    I haven't read that book and don't have immediate access to it, but if the quote is actually in there, there's a good chance it is true.
  45. Inside every ____ is an American trying to get out, and inside every American is a _____ trying to get in.

  46. @TangoMan
    A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    https://i.imgur.com/8ayz1S8.png

    A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    Of course they were seen as whites… but old-stock bluebloods and Progressives saw them as white trash.

    Still, there was always a significant difference between “white trash” and “nonwhite” in this country. It is only recently that the Progressives and SJWs have come to regard white trash as inferior to nonwhites. I find this odd, because many of the negative stereotypes about white trash — fat, uneducated, Christian, on welfare, making babies at fifteen, etc. — are more prevalent among blacks, yet blacks are sanctified by the leftist elites while white trash are demonized.

  47. @Alfa158
    If Judis now thinks that demographics don't favor the Democrats, then I guess he never heard of this exotic place called "California". He should visit us, I think it will cheer him right up. This is now a one party state in which statewide elections increasingly don't even have a Republican candidate, and the handful of Republican legislators basically sit in the corner of the hall making ineffectual little squeaking noises while the Dems pass anything that is in fashion.
    The only threat to the Democrats is that some of their fringes will get fed up with the Wall Street/ Davos owned Democratic Party and start making socialist parties like the Greens the new second party.

    California liberals are ultimately constrained by money. They can be as brown and gay as they want but the way the trends are going, it will become ungovernable and far less livable. Jerry Brown has slowed down the day of reckoning but once he is gone, a younger more radical generation will piss through what is left of the Golden State’s finances.

    • Agree: Bill
  48. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all"

    Wonder what James Watson would have to say in response to this. Or Charles Darwin.

    Probably the obvious truth: that whiteness is part genetic and part socially constructed.

  49. @Alec Leamas
    Are we certain that Judis is sincere? Or is this perhaps Judis noticing that the great white middle has been noticing the ever increasing anti-white cacophony and he thinks the Democrats would be better off putting the plan back on the down low for a while?

    Insincerity and concern-trolling all in one.

  50. @Clyde
    100% off topic:

    Great National Geographic article on orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra. Lots on their mating and how the orangutans on each island differ in their mating strategies. Orangutans are similar enough to us that human pregnancy tests can be used on them. Material here on their R and K reproductive strategies. _____ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/12/orangutans-behaviors-borneo-sumatra/

    Orangutans are under pressure from poachers who steal their young to sell on the pet market. They kill the mother to make it easier to take her baby orangutan. What a shame!

    That’s horrific

  51. The most poignant quote from the article:

    [T]he Democrats are a party of the minorities.

    I suspect this is why they support all the immigration measures, to make sure there’s a constant stream of “minorities” coming into the U.S. Once you reach third (or even second) generation of immigrants, they would no longer identify themselves as part of the minority group.

    In fact, you could go on step further and accuse the Dems of actively discouraging assimilation of immigrants in order to keep these social cleavages.

  52. While many on the right and left want to make white vs non-white the primary racial fault line in this country, as it’s been pointed out, in reality the real fault line is black vs non-black. We see this over and over.

    • Replies: @anon
    Traditional White
    Other Non-Blacks
    Blacks

    Too bad I can't draw a Venn diagram.

    This is an astute observation. It is critical how issues are framed. Virtually all cultural issues are Non-Black vs Black. Ghetto culture, TRAP music, etc. That simply isn't the compatible with the typical immigrant profile.

    If it divides into Non-Black/Black, then Judis's revisionist position is correct.

    If it is White/Non-White, then we are in trouble.

    I suppose the anti-racism and political correctness will make a proper delineation difficult. Or impossible. But maybe not.

    , @Kevin C.
    So you're fine with MS13 operating in America? Or Guatemalan Indios who don't even speak Spanish (only whatever Mayan language)? Or the Chinese doing to Californian cities what they've done to Hongcouver Vancouver?
    , @Flip
    This actually follows the genetics as all non-blacks are more closely related to each other than to blacks.
  53. @Alfa158
    If Judis now thinks that demographics don't favor the Democrats, then I guess he never heard of this exotic place called "California". He should visit us, I think it will cheer him right up. This is now a one party state in which statewide elections increasingly don't even have a Republican candidate, and the handful of Republican legislators basically sit in the corner of the hall making ineffectual little squeaking noises while the Dems pass anything that is in fashion.
    The only threat to the Democrats is that some of their fringes will get fed up with the Wall Street/ Davos owned Democratic Party and start making socialist parties like the Greens the new second party.

    Hawaii has never had a white majority, and it has elected only one Republican to the Senate in its history (who at the time was one of the most liberal Republicans). A Republican hasn’t been competitive for the Senate in more than 20 years.

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

    If the GOP were a party that cared about its base, it would be demanding affirmative action for whites in Hawaii, along with Voting Rights Act gerrymandered districts like those used to elect blacks in the rural South.

  54. @Alfa158
    If Judis now thinks that demographics don't favor the Democrats, then I guess he never heard of this exotic place called "California". He should visit us, I think it will cheer him right up. This is now a one party state in which statewide elections increasingly don't even have a Republican candidate, and the handful of Republican legislators basically sit in the corner of the hall making ineffectual little squeaking noises while the Dems pass anything that is in fashion.
    The only threat to the Democrats is that some of their fringes will get fed up with the Wall Street/ Davos owned Democratic Party and start making socialist parties like the Greens the new second party.

    If the election is not in play, always vote third party. Which third party doesn’t much matter.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Or register Democrat and vote for the most extreme idiot on the ticket, then call your reps and sens and tell them you want them to exponential down on the silliest issue in The Current Voting Year.
    , @Alfa158
    That is generally what I do. I admit that I made an exception and voted for Kamala Harris in her election against Loretta Sanchez.
    1. Kamala had to bang Willie Brown to get her break in politics so I actually felt sorry for her.( yes I know, there goes that suicidal White empathy for people outside our tribe at work again.)
    2. Having met Sanchez, I knew how bone-deep dim she is so we could at least spare California being embarrassed by another Boxer level intellect as Senator. She was too dumb to even figure out that she was being set up as a patsy to take a dive for the Inner Party's Designated Next Senator.
    3. It would be nice to see Harris take the next step to being the Dem candidate for President. She is not as dim as Sanchez, but is still too dim to mask her snarling hostility toward White Goyim, and therefore would give some sort of a Republican a chance at winning. (Admittedly, not that that does us a whole lot of good, but it marginally is better to have any member of the Stupid Party in the White House as opposed to any member of the Crazy Party).
  55. @27 year old
    >dogma in which the Most Racist Thing Ever was to say “all lives matter.”

    It's really shameful that there was no significant pushback against this.

    I believe one of the Becky subtypes in the anti-White 5 types of Becky article was described as "thinks all lives matter".

    This should have been a slam dunk. They're saying that we are bad people for believing all lives matter. But, we mostly just let it happen.

    White people have been mostly just letting it happen to us for 50 years.

  56. @Forbes
    Imagine that! It only took 15 years for Judis to recognize that things (demographics, self-identity, politics) didn't turn out as he assumed. Funnily, the factors he uses to explain the variance from his predictions could have been made as assumptions in 2002 (as Steve mostly points out), but for his own partisan bias...

    This post represents so much that is fundamentally wrong about Steve Sailer’s worldview.

    To make it perfect he would have to add references to Ockham’s Razor, Regression to the Mean and of course a picture of a golf course.

    The future of Core America is California, Houston, Miami as well as pretty much every big city and every massive college campus.

    It’s also the massive inundation of non-White people into rural and small town America with their much higher birth rates replacing the older depleted, drugged up and dying White locals.

    America’s shrinking White fringe isn’t going to be saved by mestizos pretending to be White.

    Or by Steve Sailer hiding in his wife’s house pretending that America in 2017 is 1950s San Fernando Valley California or even reruns of the Brady Bunch.

    Or that the current majority White and heavily White dominated (donors, senators, governors, , hacks, wonks, academics) Democrat party is the equivalent of an episode of Good Times or the Cosby Show.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    TD, where ya been?
  57. In his new book, fittingly titled The Optimistic Leftist, Teixeira notes that by the 2050s, eleven of the 15 largest states will be “majority-minority.”

    So for the Left the fact that whites will soon be a minority in most of the largest states is cause for “optimism.”

    But remember, it’s Republicans who engage in identity politics.

    I suspect that Judis has just realized that white voters have caught on to the racist, anti-white identity politics of the Left, and he’s just walking back his rhetoric to give himself some deniability while (of course) having no intention of changing where he stands on policy.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The working class whites are voting at polarization levels similar to Hispanics and Asians. Those indoctrinated by Cultural Marxism are the ones holding back white identity bloc voting.
  58. “nobody seems to know what the Trump Administration will do about the Obama Administration’s plan” [for the 2020 census]

    Steve – how about a longer post on how you would design the census?

  59. @TangoMan
    A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites.

    https://i.imgur.com/8ayz1S8.png

    Thomas Jefferson certainly saw Italians as white people, and he admired many aspects of Italian culture.

  60. @Lot
    You would be a better commentator if you cut out the constant slurs against white women over behavior less than 10% engage in, as well as take care to not get your numbers wrong by a factor of 10, as you do here.

    The trend the last three decades by the way is for women of all races to be more sexually restrained.

    You would be a better commentator if you cut out the constant slurs against white women over behavior less than 10% engage in, as well as take care to not get your numbers wrong by a factor of 10, as you do here.

    Whiskey has serious issues that aren’t going away. His sexual paranoia, cuckoldphobia and virgin’s inadequecy, his over the top Christian paranoid’s Judeo-phillia.

    That’s just who he is.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Hmmm. Spot on. (At least he dropped his moldboard plow fetish.)
  61. @Cwhatfuture
    Have my grandfather's and father's records from 1917 and prior and few years after, including birth certificate, grandfather's draft registration card, marriage certificate. Marked as "white", even though we are Jewish. Apparently before modern science, before we knew better, in the age of superstition and ignorance, "white" was considered somehow related to genetic inheritance. Crazy.

    BTW, Harry Truman had an "Israelish" business partner.

    Thing is, it’s easy to cherry-pick old quotes to prove certain groups weren’t considered “white” because “white” was once used in an informal sense to indicate WASPs — this is the sense in which Truman was using the term. It was clearly understood that this was a slang term and not a scientific category. (Echoes of this usage persist today, particularly among blacks.)

    If a guy as smart as Judis doesn’t know this about our past, it’s kind of funny to try to imagine the linguistic misunderstandings future writers will have about our own era.

    • Replies: @guest
    I shudder to think what future writers will say about PC-speak. Possibly they won't be allowed to think about it on penalty of visiting Room 101.

    If it goes the other way, a good predictor of what they'll say can be found in the funny little book Mediocracy, by Fabian Michael Tassano.

    As for the social history of whiteness, or whatever, they can basically say anything they want. Racial attitudes of the past are officially Icky, and though scholars probably peruse a Stoddard here and a Grant there, the subject is basically the Dark Ages to them.

  62. @Joe Schmoe
    The category I have seen on old census forms reads "color or race" such that black or white would be colors, not races. Also, people would put in some ethnic group as race. In the past, Germans, Slavs, Iberians, Chinese, etc., were considered races. These seemed to be changing all the time. I found a relative who was married to a Mexican who was listed as an octaroon on the census form. I have also seen where they wrote Mex. and it was crossed out and a W written in its place. The point is still race or color. It didn't mean that your color is your race.

    In the past, Germans, Slavs, Iberians, Chinese, etc., were considered races.

    Peruse the bottom of this page (Chapter III) for the original naturalization act of 1790. It’s only two paragraphs long. It limits naturalization to free whites of good character. It thus allowed Germans, Jews and other Euros to naturalize. It did not allow Chinese or white indentured servants to naturalize.

  63. @Frank DeScushin

    In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing.
     
    In 1919 all of the Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, and nearly all Americans were Constitutional originalists. If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.

    Today, however, most Americans, most Congressmen, and most Supreme Court Justices subscribe to the bogus concept they've been raised on that the U.S. Constitution is a living document. Now instead of passing an Amendment to grant a right not listed in the Constitution Supreme Court Justices merely read that new right into the supposedly living document.

    In that way the Constitution is not less flexible, it's far more flexible. That's a bad thing. The Constitution's drafters intended the amendment process to be exceptionally difficult to preserve the integrity of the original Constitution. Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.

    In 1919 living constitutionalism had already established a foothold on the Supreme Court, via Lochner v. New York and “economic due process” . It was just used for ends that progs today would disapprove of.

  64. @Alfa158
    If Judis now thinks that demographics don't favor the Democrats, then I guess he never heard of this exotic place called "California". He should visit us, I think it will cheer him right up. This is now a one party state in which statewide elections increasingly don't even have a Republican candidate, and the handful of Republican legislators basically sit in the corner of the hall making ineffectual little squeaking noises while the Dems pass anything that is in fashion.
    The only threat to the Democrats is that some of their fringes will get fed up with the Wall Street/ Davos owned Democratic Party and start making socialist parties like the Greens the new second party.

    The only threat to the Democrats is that some of their fringes will get fed up with the Wall Street/ Davos owned Democratic Party and start making socialist parties like the Greens the new second party.

    You’re right on the money with that. Those Bernie Bro’s really brought that to light.

    With Trump, we’ve already seen the beginnings of a new party; one that isn’t owned by the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Steet.

  65. blah, blah, blah…they said. Even tonight, after decades: an Iranian friend referred to himself as Persian. We are still trying to figure out what we should call his half Norwegian – half Iranian adult children. BTW, he converted to Christianity 2.5 decades ago and his Norwegian wife was a close friend of mine who died from a rare, non genetic disease.

  66. — the point is the brazen public nature of the thing. The woman has no shame, as she sees the Immavader as the new owner of Italy. And its the FAILURE of other women to censure this behavior, and lots of other stuff like it, that makes White women the eternal enemy of the White man. Yeah sure even or especially if she was a prostitute she’d not care about other men seeing her — but she’s sure care about her own women.

    This is always the case — women side with whatever men dominate in that moment, and that is Africans and Muslims now in the West.

    Yep, I sure see all that sexual restraint on Twitter and Instagram.

    TL:DR — I’ll see you the coffee asking out rape, and raise you that picture.

  67. @Jack D
    I wish that this was right but I'm not convinced. 100 years after Truman's visit to NYC, the Jews may be considered white by most people but they are still loyal Democrat voters - old habits are hard to break.

    Also, somehow in national elections, the Democrats have the mojo to stir up the base and get the prodigal son (and daughter) minorities to return to the ancestral fold.

    One of the reasons why the Democrats won't renounce their Coalition of the Fringes formula is that they are convinced that it is going to start working again REAL SOON (as soon as they get a candidate whose initial are not HRC). Maybe they are wrong but maybe not. In big cities this formula has been working great for the last 70 years and shows every sign of working forever.

    One of the reasons why the Democrats won’t renounce their Coalition of the Fringes formula is that they are convinced that it is going to start working again REAL SOON (as soon as they get a candidate whose initial are not HRC). Maybe they are wrong but maybe not. In big cities this formula has been working great for the last 70 years and shows every sign of working forever.

    About 70 years ago is when white conversatives starting leaving the big cities; they got replaced by feral and semi-feral minorities that like getting free shit from the rest of us.

    I don’t see today’s whites leaving the country, they’ll fight for it…leaving NYC or Detroit was easy and smart.

    • Replies: @Bill

    I don’t see today’s whites leaving the country,
     
    I wonder. There's nothing wrong with Argentina that a massive influx of English-speaking Northern Europeans couldn't fix. For example. It's cool to go live in Portland. Why shouldn't it become cool to go live in Buenos Aires? You know for not-even-slightly-racist, I-hate-America, fully multicultural reasons.
    , @Flip
    I think whites concentrate in majority white areas of the country. Property in Boise and Salt Lake City is a buy.
  68. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all"

    Wonder what James Watson would have to say in response to this. Or Charles Darwin.

    Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all.

    Yet when white people copulate with each other, we invariably produce white offspring….

    It’s a puzzle.

  69. @Frank DeScushin

    In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing.
     
    In 1919 all of the Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, and nearly all Americans were Constitutional originalists. If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.

    Today, however, most Americans, most Congressmen, and most Supreme Court Justices subscribe to the bogus concept they've been raised on that the U.S. Constitution is a living document. Now instead of passing an Amendment to grant a right not listed in the Constitution Supreme Court Justices merely read that new right into the supposedly living document.

    In that way the Constitution is not less flexible, it's far more flexible. That's a bad thing. The Constitution's drafters intended the amendment process to be exceptionally difficult to preserve the integrity of the original Constitution. Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.

    Thread winner. TY

  70. @AM

    Seriously, the reason why the Democrats’ KKKrazy Glue plan to demonize whites as Ku Klux Klanners and Nazis might not work in attracting Asian and Latino enthusiasm
     
    It does for the moment, I think in part because it's a whole lot of fun to trash someone else's history. This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I "get" them and respect them, but I'm not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think? Democrats have instinctively been able to reach out to immigrants in way that the Republicans have not.

    Economically what holds the Dems together is welfare. If that can ever be knocked out (and I think will have to at some point, given our debt), what do they have? In a real way, the Democrats absolutely rely on ever so slight white majority to stay in power. Once the whites are minorities collectively, how does welfare get paid for? Once the welfare is gone, what exactly interests minorities used to the dole in anything but how to get back, using violence if necessary?

    I have hard time being even vaguely optimistic about the ability to manage a republic if the trends continue. In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing. We're creaking along on borrowed time because we can't maintain the Constitution anymore. It's easy to argue we're hardly acknowledging now - more like a passing nod as we lurch from one set of regs to another.

    This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I “get” them and respect them, but I’m not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?

    Please help me understand how your reasoning, supra, materially differs from this reasoning:

    This native Southerner tends to find the whole Democratic, northern, congregationalist culture off-putting. I think I get them and I respect them, but I’m not going to fit in anytime soon; and if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?

    You seem to be simply assuming something about one regional subculture in what used to the the U.S.A. is somehow intrinsically more appealing to, say, a Mohammedan Indonesian, a Peruvian mestizo, an animist Negro from Lesotho for some unexplained reason?

    Is your reasoning only meant to apply to Canadiennes on the grounds they are more like New Englanders than they are like Southerners? Heck, when I lived in Maine my girlfriend was a Canadienne (she lived in Grand-Sault), and her people were essentailly on the same length as many Southerners: rural, independent folk who liked to hunt and so forth – for that matter, Cajuns are merely displaced Acadians. I genuinely don’t follow you.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    my girlfriend was a Canadienne
     
    Canadian, Russian, Columbian...

    Is there no Autochthona for thee, Autochthon? Why do you hate America so much?

    I am just joking. Don't get riled up.
    , @Logan
    There is a subtext in what AM says.

    His people are "normal," while Southern Baptists are weird.

    Immigrants will assimilate more easily and completely into a normal culture than a weird one.
    , @AM

    You seem to be simply assuming something about one regional subculture in what used to the the U.S.A. is somehow intrinsically more appealing to,
     
    Yes, actually and the Democrats have historically tapped into that. It's not a superiority thing. Republican historically have been a WASP crowd, with certain set of cultural values.

    Logan called it correctly. My culture is normal to me and from it I draw conclusions about "friendly", "weird", etc. My culture is not all that far removed from that sort of South Baptist type in the suits I'm thinking about, but I still find it strange. And from that vantage point, I'm thinking others might also find it off putting.

    Anyway, even if you think all that reasoning is garbage, I'm only pointing out the weather here. Republicans have traditionally attracted native stock (or those native after about 2-3 generations). Democrats attract those off the boat and those who feel disaffected by the native stock.

    "Heck, when I lived in Maine my girlfriend was a Canadienne (she lived in Grand-Sault), and her people were essentailly on the same length as many Southerners: rural, independent folk who liked to hunt and so forth – for that matter, Cajuns are merely displaced Acadians. I genuinely don’t follow you."

    Yes, absolutely. One of the reasons I like visiting Southern mountains is to visit people who are much more like the rural Vermont I remember. (After the great colonization by NYC, they're mostly granolas.)

    However, from the relative viewpoint of the culture I grew up in, they're culture is kind of trashy. My Dad, who is really too much of a redneck, doesn't like to think of himself as being part of that culture. He *sniffs* about rednecks - the man who plays par 3 courses, has maybe owned 3 suits in his life, and loves a T-shirt with a giant angry cat on it. I suspect like many French Canadians who found themselves on this of the border, they were maybe trying to fit in with the local elite, in their own way.

    Until very recently the very rural south was solidly Democrat, which is why there has been so much glee about Democrats Being the Real Racists. Having the Democrats nab some urban elitists from the Republican crowd has a been boon in getting and retaining people like my Dad. The problem is they're losing the working whites who don't have a problem with themselves as they are, who voted Trump.
  71. @Alec Leamas
    Are we certain that Judis is sincere? Or is this perhaps Judis noticing that the great white middle has been noticing the ever increasing anti-white cacophony and he thinks the Democrats would be better off putting the plan back on the down low for a while?

    “Are we certain that Judis is sincere?”

    Judis is sincere. My mother said the same thing to me 30 years ago as well. As the percent of white people shrink, white looking/successful Asians and Hispanics will become white via intermarriage with and incorporation into the general white population. The people who ghettoize themselves in those populations will in the meantime become poorer and ever more like blacks.

    Look at the small scale of your personal friends and I’m sure you already see many white-Asian and white-Latino mixed couples. When their kids marry, chances are it will be to a white person, and so on, and thus their blood will dilute. It’s an open question what a white kid who is 1/4 or 1/8 Chinese will think he is or what his politics will be, but I’d bet on Asian blood becoming an exotic marker of pride like being part Cherokee, instead of it being divisive and separating that person from the people.

    Also not discussed is ongoing changes in the internal composition of the white population. Gen X and Millenial liberal whites are marrying much later and having fewer kids. Where a conservative couple might marry in their 20’s and have 3 kids by 30, liberals are waiting until late 30’s or early 40’s to have 1 or 2 kids. The conservatives will have 3 generations in the time the liberals have 2. And that’s the liberals who breed. Many more in the cities today are not marrying and are going childless. Then there is the differential toll taken by the abortion industry and homosexual identity. The future (eventually) belongs to those who show up.

    The most right wing section of the population is late Boomers and early Gen X (born 1954 to 1976), while the older boomers are highly liberal and late Silents are moderate. As the latter two groups start passing in major numbers and are replaced by Gen Z, the white electorate will actually tilt further to the right over the next 20 years.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    As the percent of white people shrink, white looking/successful Asians and Hispanics will become white via intermarriage with and incorporation into the general white population.
     
    Probably. "White" will be a status marker more than a race. Sort of the way "Jewish" has become a status marker for whites the way Episcopalian used to be.
    , @AM

    The most right wing section of the population is late Boomers and early Gen X (born 1954 to 1976), while the older boomers are highly liberal and late Silents are moderate.
     
    Somewhere, though, I think is a section of highly liberal late Boomers. My early Boomer Dad is in some ways much more conservative than my mid-late Boomer aunt. The people spitting on returning Vietnam vets were younger those going, all of whom are Boomers.

    That said, I'm sure both my Aunt and Dad voted Clinton and I know myself to be much further right. My sister is pretty well infected with feminism which makes her center left.

    As the latter two groups start passing in major numbers and are replaced by Gen Z, the white electorate will actually tilt further to the right over the next 20 years.
     
    This I agree with and in part, it's hard to see how we can go further left without just throwing in the towel and trying communism again.
    , @Kevin C.

    Look at the small scale of your personal friends and I’m sure you already see many white-Asian and white-Latino mixed couples.
     
    Nope. My personal circle is pretty much all white, save for one who's part Tlingit. But then, I live in the frozen north. (And much of our Asians are Hmong.)
  72. @Flip
    The percentage of whites voting Republican goes up as they become a lower percentage of the population. Whites in Mississippi vote mostly Republican and whites in Vermont vote mostly Democratic.

    Didn’t happen in California though. Whites got more Democratic as they became a minority.

    • Replies: @AM

    Didn’t happen in California though. Whites got more Democratic as they became a minority.
     
    It's a boiled off population. Unhappy conservatives in California moved, usually for economic reasons but finding a new happier political home didn't work. Meanwhile, California's Dems stayed (it's only just!) and attracted more Dems.
  73. Here’s poor Martin O’Malley losing any chance he ever had of becoming a contender in the Democratic Primary:

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Thanks for reminding me how much I hate these people.
  74. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “The percentage of whites voting Republican goes up as they become a lower percentage of the population.”

    Perhaps a better measure would be the percentage of white voters who don’t vote democrat. The New Yorker may have observed that Hillary received more votes than any white male in history, but the two white males in last year’s election (Johnson and Trump) combined trounced the two white females together (Rodham and Stein).

  75. I don’t know about 99% culturally white for Obama. He had Frank Marshall Davis to school him. Though it was after he decided to be a cold, calculating politician, he courted Michelle. By taking her to see a Spike Lee joint, no less. Then again, maybe it would’ve been more black to go after white women.

    He likes basketball and Al Green.

    Also, there had to be at least a bit of Hawaiian and Indonesian ruboff.

  76. @Wilkey
    In his new book, fittingly titled The Optimistic Leftist, Teixeira notes that by the 2050s, eleven of the 15 largest states will be “majority-minority.”

    So for the Left the fact that whites will soon be a minority in most of the largest states is cause for "optimism."

    But remember, it's Republicans who engage in identity politics.

    I suspect that Judis has just realized that white voters have caught on to the racist, anti-white identity politics of the Left, and he's just walking back his rhetoric to give himself some deniability while (of course) having no intention of changing where he stands on policy.

    The working class whites are voting at polarization levels similar to Hispanics and Asians. Those indoctrinated by Cultural Marxism are the ones holding back white identity bloc voting.

    • Replies: @SND

    Those indoctrinated by Cultural Marxism are the ones holding back white identity bloc voting.
     
    Well, I can tell you this: John Judis, one other dude & I formed the "Marxist Study Group" as grad students at the newly (just that year) founded Graduate History Department of the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1970. But that was "economic Marxism." Our bible at the time was Baran & Sweezy's Monopoly Capital. Judis soon morphed into the sociologically oriented journalist you see now. More like "Cultural Marxism," indeed.
  77. @Lot
    I read this article this morning and noticed he never actually said anything about the GOP white vote share going up slowly but consistently for the foreseeable future.

    Instead he says Dems can't just assume they will do well with Asians and Hispanics, or that they won't become white through intermarriage and assimilation.

    It is kind of crazy that someone goes into the fraught area for the MSM of racial vote share analysis and then fails to say anything interesting. A 1 pt boost in the white share of the GOP has a bigger boost to the party than 5 pts from hispanics or 10 from Asians. And it is a far easier goal.

    We may not even need to do anything to get our 1 or 2 point white vote boost per cycle, with BLM and SJW white hate becoming more prevalent and obvious each year.

    A 1 pt boost in the white share of the GOP has a bigger boost to the party than 5 pts from hispanics or 10 from Asians. And it is a far easier goal.

    We may not even need to do anything to get our 1 or 2 point white vote boost per cycle, with BLM and SJW white hate becoming more prevalent and obvious each year.

    Yes, but each year that ratio becomes less and less favorable. Furthermore, what is a trickle of erosion now will shortly become a flood when the massive, overwhelmingly white baby boomer generation begins to kick the bucket and unmasks what the last 50 years of demographic change have wrought on succeeding generations. This is not some distant future, this is the next couple of presidential elections. It’s not the fall that kills you, it’s the landing, and the landing is yet to come when the boomers die. This is doubly true for states like Texas where white births have long accounted for less than a third of total births and which are like demographic dead men walking.
    _________
    I doubt the coalition of the fringes will fracture. Not only are there massive, powerful forces at the very top hard at work to make sure it doesn’t happen, but there is a bottom-up logic to the PoC remaining cohesive as well. Whites will maintain their plurality for decades after they lose outright majority, so the “people of color” need each other to assert political dominance, and we all know they want to assert political dominance. I’m sure the blacks would prefer to get all the spoils, but they’ll settle for sharing them with the Hispanics and Asians because without their help in outvoting increasingly racially conscious whites they’ll get no spoils at all. They’re not that stupid (I think).

    It’s also very unlikely a member of the coalition will break away to ally with whites against the remainder of the coalition for the simple reason that whites have all the goodies so what would be the point? To put it crudely, whites have all the blonde bimbos and the PoC want those bimbos. There is nothing the blacks have that that the Asians want, or that the Asians have that the Hispanics want. Or maybe there is, but it pales into insignificance compared to what whites have that the Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics want and if they have to hold their noses and work together to take it, they will.

    • Replies: @KM32
    But what "spoils" do Asians and middle to upper class Hispanics want? They want the same thing that the average white voters want, with maybe universal health care thrown in. Those two groups live mixed among the native population and want good schools, safe streets, etc.

    The existential threats are:

    1. a growing African derived population
    2. hostile Muslims
    3. a large, dumb underclass of any race
  78. @27 year old
    >dogma in which the Most Racist Thing Ever was to say “all lives matter.”

    It's really shameful that there was no significant pushback against this.

    I believe one of the Becky subtypes in the anti-White 5 types of Becky article was described as "thinks all lives matter".

    This should have been a slam dunk. They're saying that we are bad people for believing all lives matter. But, we mostly just let it happen.

    In his infamous post-Charlottesville pushback against the press when he said there “was blame on both sides,” it would be awesome if Trump had added,

    I denounce neo-Nazis, the KKK, white supremacists, Communists, anarchists, and black supremacists.

    (Cue tidal wave of “Whaaaat!” from the assembled idiot reporters.)

    There is this group, what is it—Black Lives Matter—that was there at Charlottesville. Awful, awful people. Violent people. During the campaign, —hold on. You had your turn. Excuse me. Excuse me.

    During the presidential campaign, Black Lives Matter got upset when people reminded them that all lives matter. Black Lives Matter-inspired terrorists murdered many, many police officers. They are a black supremacist terrorist group. Right? If a group promotes hate and supremacy, that’s bad, right?

    According to most of you here representing Fake News, Black Lives Matter is great, they’re great people. Shit like this is why I won.

    • Replies: @Andrew
    What would really be awesome is a politician not denouncing right wing Americans exercising their constitutional rights in a legal manner and welcoming their support.

    I'm waiting for a politician to say:

    "Denounce them and denounce their support for me? No I am not going to do that.

    "The First Amendment guarantees the right of American citizens to peacefully assemble and speak their mind about government policies. The demonstrators you are asking me to denounce are American citizens who were availing themselves of these rights in a legal manner and had a permit for their gathering. You may disagree with what they said, but it is their right to be able to say it and the government's job to ensure they aren't assaulted for doing so.

    "Other people who wish to protest their presence or what this group were saying or doing have similar rights provided they do not attack the first group and follow legal norms with respect to obtaining permits to allow public safety, peace, and order to be maintained.

    "As far as denouncing the political support of the demonstrators for me, I not only do not denounce it, I welcome their backing. They are American citizens with the right to vote in our elections, unlike many of the protestors who were felons or not even American citizens. I've stated my political program very plainly, and I welcome the electoral support of any and all American citizens for my campaign and my programs."
     
  79. @Alec Leamas
    Are we certain that Judis is sincere? Or is this perhaps Judis noticing that the great white middle has been noticing the ever increasing anti-white cacophony and he thinks the Democrats would be better off putting the plan back on the down low for a while?

    There are rumblings on the soft left along the lines of, “Hmm, maybe identity politics wasn’t such a grand idea.” They say this in public, no less. Which I interpret as more “Cheese it, they’re onto us!” than “hey, everybody, let’s take a chill pill and reassess where we’re going.”

    Per usual, it’s a ploy to get our side to unilaterally disarm. Identity politics was just fine until white people got in the game. Suddenly it’s wrong and we have to stop. We, not them. Because they can’t stop. They’ll go on the DL and avoid creating real Nazis, like Dr. Frankenstein, and setting off more riots.

    I must reiterate the above point: they can’t stop. They’re on a runaway train. The only hope for those serious about avoiding virtual race war is for our side to switch tracks and thus avoid a headon collision. Then they can maintain the post-civil rights movement colorblindness in whites, which has been oh-so useful to them.

  80. @Mr. Blank
    Thing is, it's easy to cherry-pick old quotes to prove certain groups weren't considered "white" because "white" was once used in an informal sense to indicate WASPs -- this is the sense in which Truman was using the term. It was clearly understood that this was a slang term and not a scientific category. (Echoes of this usage persist today, particularly among blacks.)

    If a guy as smart as Judis doesn't know this about our past, it's kind of funny to try to imagine the linguistic misunderstandings future writers will have about our own era.

    I shudder to think what future writers will say about PC-speak. Possibly they won’t be allowed to think about it on penalty of visiting Room 101.

    If it goes the other way, a good predictor of what they’ll say can be found in the funny little book Mediocracy, by Fabian Michael Tassano.

    As for the social history of whiteness, or whatever, they can basically say anything they want. Racial attitudes of the past are officially Icky, and though scholars probably peruse a Stoddard here and a Grant there, the subject is basically the Dark Ages to them.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  81. @willieskull68
    Who can forget, Benjamin was sold into slavery. How can anyone who says such a thing be taken seriously? And I am the only one who burns when I read "people of color"? Its as bad as the "c" word.
    You know "community". The democrats just may find that the bus doesn't get filled up all the way to the back.

    Don’t forget “social construct”. They are the three key markers to know when you are dealing with autistic liberals.

  82. @Maj. Kong
    The working class whites are voting at polarization levels similar to Hispanics and Asians. Those indoctrinated by Cultural Marxism are the ones holding back white identity bloc voting.

    Those indoctrinated by Cultural Marxism are the ones holding back white identity bloc voting.

    Well, I can tell you this: John Judis, one other dude & I formed the “Marxist Study Group” as grad students at the newly (just that year) founded Graduate History Department of the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1970. But that was “economic Marxism.” Our bible at the time was Baran & Sweezy’s Monopoly Capital. Judis soon morphed into the sociologically oriented journalist you see now. More like “Cultural Marxism,” indeed.

  83. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Forbes
    Imagine that! It only took 15 years for Judis to recognize that things (demographics, self-identity, politics) didn't turn out as he assumed. Funnily, the factors he uses to explain the variance from his predictions could have been made as assumptions in 2002 (as Steve mostly points out), but for his own partisan bias...

    My family has been in the U.S. for hundreds of years. We’ve never thought of the U.S. as a place to “get rich.” Why do immigrants think of it that way? If you look at Americans over the years, many have had to work very hard just to break even or to have a nice middle class life. What is all of this “get rich” crap that so many immigrants imagine?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Sorry, I posted this in the wrong forum.
  84. @Anonymous
    My family has been in the U.S. for hundreds of years. We've never thought of the U.S. as a place to "get rich." Why do immigrants think of it that way? If you look at Americans over the years, many have had to work very hard just to break even or to have a nice middle class life. What is all of this "get rich" crap that so many immigrants imagine?

    Sorry, I posted this in the wrong forum.

  85. @AM

    Seriously, the reason why the Democrats’ KKKrazy Glue plan to demonize whites as Ku Klux Klanners and Nazis might not work in attracting Asian and Latino enthusiasm
     
    It does for the moment, I think in part because it's a whole lot of fun to trash someone else's history. This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I "get" them and respect them, but I'm not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think? Democrats have instinctively been able to reach out to immigrants in way that the Republicans have not.

    Economically what holds the Dems together is welfare. If that can ever be knocked out (and I think will have to at some point, given our debt), what do they have? In a real way, the Democrats absolutely rely on ever so slight white majority to stay in power. Once the whites are minorities collectively, how does welfare get paid for? Once the welfare is gone, what exactly interests minorities used to the dole in anything but how to get back, using violence if necessary?

    I have hard time being even vaguely optimistic about the ability to manage a republic if the trends continue. In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing. We're creaking along on borrowed time because we can't maintain the Constitution anymore. It's easy to argue we're hardly acknowledging now - more like a passing nod as we lurch from one set of regs to another.

    “which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing.”

    For the hoi polloi, maybe.

    For SCOTUS, the Constitution is a free-for-all, constrained only by polite elite opinion. How much more flexible can it be when you can cram a right to gay marriage in there?

  86. Arguably the best way to think of the two parties is to view the Dems as the urban party and the Republicans as the rural/suburban party. Hence SWPLs, minorities, Jews and white leftists vote Democrat and rural/suburban whites vote Republican. Given this pattern the big problem for the Dems is trying to hold together a very economically diverse voter base. For example, Jews and SWPLs don’t vote Democrat because they are economically left-wing, but because they are left-wing on social issues and oppose spending on things that don’t benefit them (like the military industrial complex that benefits Southern conservatives).

    In the last election, the Bernie/Clinton divide meant that the Dems lost crucial support from working class white women and white economic leftists, while Trump was able to attract a wider range of white voters in key marginal seats

  87. @Andrew
    "Are we certain that Judis is sincere?"

    Judis is sincere. My mother said the same thing to me 30 years ago as well. As the percent of white people shrink, white looking/successful Asians and Hispanics will become white via intermarriage with and incorporation into the general white population. The people who ghettoize themselves in those populations will in the meantime become poorer and ever more like blacks.

    Look at the small scale of your personal friends and I'm sure you already see many white-Asian and white-Latino mixed couples. When their kids marry, chances are it will be to a white person, and so on, and thus their blood will dilute. It's an open question what a white kid who is 1/4 or 1/8 Chinese will think he is or what his politics will be, but I'd bet on Asian blood becoming an exotic marker of pride like being part Cherokee, instead of it being divisive and separating that person from the people.

    Also not discussed is ongoing changes in the internal composition of the white population. Gen X and Millenial liberal whites are marrying much later and having fewer kids. Where a conservative couple might marry in their 20's and have 3 kids by 30, liberals are waiting until late 30's or early 40's to have 1 or 2 kids. The conservatives will have 3 generations in the time the liberals have 2. And that's the liberals who breed. Many more in the cities today are not marrying and are going childless. Then there is the differential toll taken by the abortion industry and homosexual identity. The future (eventually) belongs to those who show up.

    The most right wing section of the population is late Boomers and early Gen X (born 1954 to 1976), while the older boomers are highly liberal and late Silents are moderate. As the latter two groups start passing in major numbers and are replaced by Gen Z, the white electorate will actually tilt further to the right over the next 20 years.

    As the percent of white people shrink, white looking/successful Asians and Hispanics will become white via intermarriage with and incorporation into the general white population.

    Probably. “White” will be a status marker more than a race. Sort of the way “Jewish” has become a status marker for whites the way Episcopalian used to be.

  88. This bullshit that irish were not considered white who buys that.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    We're too pink faced not to be white.
  89. If blacks were content to merely let the media demonize whites, this long-term Democratic strategy would have a fair chance of working.

    Really not sure about that. I’m doubtful you are either Mr. Sailer – maybe a little too much stream-of-consciousness?
    My own experience across time and places is nearly unanimous that the flagellation we see, is self-flagellation, and while witnessed, is not at all demanded. Very much a self-inflicted matter, and self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating.

  90. It projects that the same percentage of people who currently identify themselves as “Latino” or “Asian” will continue to claim those identities in future generations. In reality, that’s highly unlikely. History shows that as ethnic groups assimilate into American culture, they increasingly identify themselves as “white.”

    This is rather old news.

    See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/17/mixed-marriages-are-changing-the-way-we-think-about-our-race/

    Among the first-generation Latin-American immigrants — people born in one of those five places — 98.6 percent checked the “Hispanic” box. Likewise, 96.3 percent of the first-generation Asian immigrants identified as Asian.

    But the second-generation immigrants were less likely to identify as Hispanic or Asian. Only 93 percent of people with a parent born in a Latin-American country themselves identified as Hispanic. The difference was more dramatic for Asians. Only 79.1 percent of second-generation Asian immigrants identified as even part-Asian.

    It’s important to remember that the CPS allows people to check multiple boxes for race. You can be any combination of black, Asian, white, Native American, and so forth. On top of that, the government also asks a separate question about whether you are Hispanic. This means you can be white and Hispanic, black and Hispanic, even white-black-Asian triracial and Hispanic.

    The point is that it’s easy for people to indicate complex heritages on the survey form. Yet, many who are multi-racial are not doing this.

    They might have Hispanic grandparents, but don’t consider themselves Hispanic. They might have an Asian and a black parent, but only consider themselves black.

    Duncan and Trejo also have some data on the children of second-generation immigrants, where the trend continues. The CPS asks parents to provide racial information about their kids. Of the kids with at least one Latin-American grandparent, only 81.7 percent were marked down as Hispanic. Of the kids with at least one Asian grandparent, only 57.5 percent were marked down as Asian.
    [Boldfaces mine.]

    In other words, among the third generation Americans with at least one Asian grandparent, 42.5% identify PURELY AS WHITES. And that’s on the Census form, not in real life, which is to say, that even among the 57.5% that identify at least partly as Asian, there is likely a substantial fraction that “acts white” for all intents and purposes in daily life.

    • Replies: @Tim Howells

    In other words, among the third generation Americans with at least one Asian grandparent, 42.5% identify PURELY AS WHITES. And that’s on the Census form, not in real life, which is to say, that even among the 57.5% that identify at least partly as Asian, there is likely a substantial fraction that “acts white” for all intents and purposes in daily life.
     
    Interesting observation. Maybe there's something like the one-drop rule going on with White/Asian mixes.
    , @3g4me
    @89 Twinkie: "In other words, among the third generation Americans with at least one Asian grandparent, 42.5% identify PURELY AS WHITES."

    It matters little what one "identifies" as. What matters is what group is willing to accept you. Any group or any racial mixture can call themselves Viking's spawn, but it won't change their genetic heritage. Certain Whites and far more non-Whites under certain circumstances categorize all sorts of people as White or not White - one reads that here at Sailer's all the time - some commenter insisting this or that Arab or Jew or Mexican or whatever is actually White. And at other fora I've read disputes where others claim southern Europeans are not really White, or Slavs aren't White. There are endless distinctions and subgroups and varying degrees of overlap.

    It's not merely skin color (as others have noted, many Asians and Jews are quite fair skinned) and it's not even just pure genetics, far less what one "identifies" as. What counts is what group considers you one of their own, when the chips are down. Right now the "chips" - and pretty much everything else - is "down" against Whites. And based on voting patterns, social media, worship habits, and any other metric one chooses, roughly 75-90% of Jews, Mexicans, Asians, Negroes, and even various "caucasoid" Armenians, Chechens, and north Africans have made it abundantly clear where their loyalties lie - at precisely the same time they claim to be or identify as what they dedicate their lives to eradicating. Recall all those "Hate Whitey" essays Steve has opined on where said Chinese or Hindu or Negro is actually married to a self-hating White. Whatever their children's genetic composition, and no matter what they tell the census taker, they know whose side they're on and what group they're part of.

    I repeat, the ONLY thing that ultimately matters is what group is willing to claim you as one of their own.
  91. I love how someone who speaks openly of crushing his enemies through demographic transformation puts the term “identity politics” in quotes as if it were a figment of reactionary imaginations.

  92. @Twinkie

    It projects that the same percentage of people who currently identify themselves as “Latino” or “Asian” will continue to claim those identities in future generations. In reality, that’s highly unlikely. History shows that as ethnic groups assimilate into American culture, they increasingly identify themselves as “white.”
     
    This is rather old news.

    See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/17/mixed-marriages-are-changing-the-way-we-think-about-our-race/

    Among the first-generation Latin-American immigrants — people born in one of those five places — 98.6 percent checked the “Hispanic” box. Likewise, 96.3 percent of the first-generation Asian immigrants identified as Asian.

    But the second-generation immigrants were less likely to identify as Hispanic or Asian. Only 93 percent of people with a parent born in a Latin-American country themselves identified as Hispanic. The difference was more dramatic for Asians. Only 79.1 percent of second-generation Asian immigrants identified as even part-Asian.

    It’s important to remember that the CPS allows people to check multiple boxes for race. You can be any combination of black, Asian, white, Native American, and so forth. On top of that, the government also asks a separate question about whether you are Hispanic. This means you can be white and Hispanic, black and Hispanic, even white-black-Asian triracial and Hispanic.

    The point is that it’s easy for people to indicate complex heritages on the survey form. Yet, many who are multi-racial are not doing this.

    They might have Hispanic grandparents, but don't consider themselves Hispanic. They might have an Asian and a black parent, but only consider themselves black.

    Duncan and Trejo also have some data on the children of second-generation immigrants, where the trend continues. The CPS asks parents to provide racial information about their kids. Of the kids with at least one Latin-American grandparent, only 81.7 percent were marked down as Hispanic. Of the kids with at least one Asian grandparent, only 57.5 percent were marked down as Asian.
    [Boldfaces mine.]
     
    In other words, among the third generation Americans with at least one Asian grandparent, 42.5% identify PURELY AS WHITES. And that's on the Census form, not in real life, which is to say, that even among the 57.5% that identify at least partly as Asian, there is likely a substantial fraction that "acts white" for all intents and purposes in daily life.

    In other words, among the third generation Americans with at least one Asian grandparent, 42.5% identify PURELY AS WHITES. And that’s on the Census form, not in real life, which is to say, that even among the 57.5% that identify at least partly as Asian, there is likely a substantial fraction that “acts white” for all intents and purposes in daily life.

    Interesting observation. Maybe there’s something like the one-drop rule going on with White/Asian mixes.

  93. @Autochthon

    This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I “get” them and respect them, but I’m not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?
     
    Please help me understand how your reasoning, supra, materially differs from this reasoning:

    This native Southerner tends to find the whole Democratic, northern, congregationalist culture off-putting. I think I get them and I respect them, but I’m not going to fit in anytime soon; and if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?
     
    You seem to be simply assuming something about one regional subculture in what used to the the U.S.A. is somehow intrinsically more appealing to, say, a Mohammedan Indonesian, a Peruvian mestizo, an animist Negro from Lesotho for some unexplained reason?

    Is your reasoning only meant to apply to Canadiennes on the grounds they are more like New Englanders than they are like Southerners? Heck, when I lived in Maine my girlfriend was a Canadienne (she lived in Grand-Sault), and her people were essentailly on the same length as many Southerners: rural, independent folk who liked to hunt and so forth – for that matter, Cajuns are merely displaced Acadians. I genuinely don't follow you.

    my girlfriend was a Canadienne

    Canadian, Russian, Columbian…

    Is there no Autochthona for thee, Autochthon? Why do you hate America so much?

    [MORE]

    I am just joking. Don’t get riled up.

  94. @Autochthon

    This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I “get” them and respect them, but I’m not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?
     
    Please help me understand how your reasoning, supra, materially differs from this reasoning:

    This native Southerner tends to find the whole Democratic, northern, congregationalist culture off-putting. I think I get them and I respect them, but I’m not going to fit in anytime soon; and if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?
     
    You seem to be simply assuming something about one regional subculture in what used to the the U.S.A. is somehow intrinsically more appealing to, say, a Mohammedan Indonesian, a Peruvian mestizo, an animist Negro from Lesotho for some unexplained reason?

    Is your reasoning only meant to apply to Canadiennes on the grounds they are more like New Englanders than they are like Southerners? Heck, when I lived in Maine my girlfriend was a Canadienne (she lived in Grand-Sault), and her people were essentailly on the same length as many Southerners: rural, independent folk who liked to hunt and so forth – for that matter, Cajuns are merely displaced Acadians. I genuinely don't follow you.

    There is a subtext in what AM says.

    His people are “normal,” while Southern Baptists are weird.

    Immigrants will assimilate more easily and completely into a normal culture than a weird one.

    • Replies: @Logan
    No idea how that happened. Sorry.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    There is a subtext in what AM says.

    His people are “normal,” while Southern Baptists are weird.
     
    AM is a lady.
  95. @Logan
    There is a subtext in what AM says.

    His people are "normal," while Southern Baptists are weird.

    Immigrants will assimilate more easily and completely into a normal culture than a weird one.

    No idea how that happened. Sorry.

  96. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR
    While many on the right and left want to make white vs non-white the primary racial fault line in this country, as it's been pointed out, in reality the real fault line is black vs non-black. We see this over and over.

    Traditional White
    Other Non-Blacks
    Blacks

    Too bad I can’t draw a Venn diagram.

    This is an astute observation. It is critical how issues are framed. Virtually all cultural issues are Non-Black vs Black. Ghetto culture, TRAP music, etc. That simply isn’t the compatible with the typical immigrant profile.

    If it divides into Non-Black/Black, then Judis’s revisionist position is correct.

    If it is White/Non-White, then we are in trouble.

    I suppose the anti-racism and political correctness will make a proper delineation difficult. Or impossible. But maybe not.

    • Replies: @Ed
    The divide will remain non-Black/black. Your average immigrant is far more likely to encounter a vicious black than a vicious white. They're far more likely to have been or known someone that was a victim of a crime committed by blacks or bullied in school by them.

    Also the irrational nature of black politics which is constantly focused on victimhood & obsession over whites will strike others as weird.

    Coates when on Chris Hayes show and if his thinking becomes the theme of black politicos, Trump wins running away in '20.

    https://twitter.com/deray/status/908857144329605120
  97. It seems to me that the white intraethnic squabbling is gone. Maybe as different ethnic groups fled the cities and ethnic neighborhoods, and were distanced from the grandma who insisted on the old ways, they assimilated, gave up on old customs, intermarried, and generally forgot what it was that made them different. Living close to Ellis Island, the white population is a mix of all of the ethnic groups of Europe. There are still recognizable Italian areas, but that seems to be because they are more fond of living in urban areas. Without turf to defend, there is not much reason to point out differences between the groups, and it is increasingly rare to meet any white person whose parents are both 100% Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. Nonna might have some heartache if her favorite grandson brings home a girl who is part Irish and part Polish, but at least she is Catholic, and she can insult her cooking. White ethnics still feels some pride in their group, but it is usually not expressed in ethnic favoritism, and does not result in ethnic disputes.

    In contrast, most of the various Hispanic, black, and Asian groups are still jockeying for position, live in identifiable ethnic neighborhoods, and have turf disputes, whether actual turf or otherwise. Who knows how they will work their disputes out, internally and otherwise. Perhaps they will assimilate internally to the same degree as whites, but that seems doubtful other than for blacks, and more African immigration would probably interfere with that.

  98. @Forbes
    Imagine that! It only took 15 years for Judis to recognize that things (demographics, self-identity, politics) didn't turn out as he assumed. Funnily, the factors he uses to explain the variance from his predictions could have been made as assumptions in 2002 (as Steve mostly points out), but for his own partisan bias...

    It only took 15 years for Judis to recognize that things (demographics, self-identity, politics) didn’t turn out as he assumed

    I wonder how many critics he’s accused of being “racists” and “haters” in the meantime for criticising his theory?

  99. Josh says:
    @AM

    After all, who can forget the dramatic scene during the Civil War in which Jefferson Davis discovered that Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin was not white and immediately had his right hand man sold into slavery?
     
    LOL right here.

    After all, who wouldn’t want all that White Privilege everybody keeps hearing about?
     
    Don't I know it - it's automatic checks in the mail, hobnobbing with celebs, and maids to clean up my house. Oh wait, that's Beyonce, not my life. My bad.

    To be fair, Steve keeps making the scarlet O’Hara sold into slavery joke, but he knows a) that slavery was not based on race but matrilineal status, and more importantly b) that black/white was not the primary ethnic divide in northern cities before the 30s at least and really until the 60s.

  100. OT: From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

    Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection

    http://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9314.full.pdf

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Un-f'ing believable. It really has come to this. Just drug 'em.
  101. To judge by the way he uses the Truman quote, this moron Judis is entirely unfamiliar with the concept of a “joke”.

  102. “In fact, it’s already happening. In the 2010 Census, 53 percent of Latinos identified as “white,” as did more than half of Asian Americans of mixed parentage.”

    I can understand why Asian Americans of mixed parentage might identify as white. After all, a disproportionate number of them were fathered by white nationalists.

  103. Yeah, yeah yeah we all know that the Coalition of the Fringes are a bunch of flakes.

    What I didn’t appreciate until Trump was inaugurated is that our side, call it the Coalition of the Core, is just as flaky. As things stand there’s three main demographic power centers for us: the populists, the conservatives, and the Main Street business interests/donors.

    This ought to be a winning coalition, but it’s not. For reasons I find very difficult to fathom, there is an insatiable appetite among our three factions (as I have laid them out) to denigrate the other factions and instigate conflict between them. And typically, those who are doing the most infighting, are also likely to be bitching the loudest about how woeful it is if the other side takes over.

    I’m not getting it. It is our coalition which, at least in theory, protects us and gives us strength, why are we gratuitously trashing it?

    • Replies: @Felix...

    What I didn’t appreciate until Trump was inaugurated is that our side, call it the Coalition of the Core, is just as flaky. As things stand there’s three main demographic power centers for us: the populists, the conservatives, and the Main Street business interests/donors.

    .......

    I’m not getting it. It is our coalition which, at least in theory, protects us and gives us strength, why are we gratuitously trashing it?
     

    I'm not sure if you're joking or just shilling. It's not a coalition if one faction sees and uses the others as cheap cannon fodder and to be used and given nothing in return. Hell, I'd settle for having "business interests/donors" merely not actively working towards our destruction. They are "us" the same way a cancer is "us": not because we want them or because they are beneficial, but because they are a scourge we can't root out.
  104. @Arclight
    The key is not to be apologetic - no one respects someone who hangs their head or is always ready to defer to whoever speaks the loudest. This is what whites on the left are all about and it's why identity politics picked up so much steam.

    If the right wants to attract Hispanics and Asians to their side, they can't be bashful about talking about the superiority of the culture they want to preserve and ideas behind it. Act like winners, not like less committed Democrats.

    “Never apologize, mister. It’s a sign of weakness.” John Wayne, “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon”

  105. @Rifleman

    @Whiskey

    You would be a better commentator if you cut out the constant slurs against white women over behavior less than 10% engage in, as well as take care to not get your numbers wrong by a factor of 10, as you do here.
     
    Whiskey has serious issues that aren't going away. His sexual paranoia, cuckoldphobia and virgin's inadequecy, his over the top Christian paranoid's Judeo-phillia.

    That's just who he is.

    Hmmm. Spot on. (At least he dropped his moldboard plow fetish.)

  106. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    In his infamous post-Charlottesville pushback against the press when he said there “was blame on both sides,” it would be awesome if Trump had added,

    I denounce neo-Nazis, the KKK, white supremacists, Communists, anarchists, and black supremacists.

    (Cue tidal wave of “Whaaaat!” from the assembled idiot reporters.)

    There is this group, what is it—Black Lives Matter—that was there at Charlottesville. Awful, awful people. Violent people. During the campaign, —hold on. You had your turn. Excuse me. Excuse me.

    During the presidential campaign, Black Lives Matter got upset when people reminded them that all lives matter. Black Lives Matter-inspired terrorists murdered many, many police officers. They are a black supremacist terrorist group. Right? If a group promotes hate and supremacy, that’s bad, right?

    According to most of you here representing Fake News, Black Lives Matter is great, they’re great people. Shit like this is why I won.
     

    What would really be awesome is a politician not denouncing right wing Americans exercising their constitutional rights in a legal manner and welcoming their support.

    I’m waiting for a politician to say:

    “Denounce them and denounce their support for me? No I am not going to do that.

    “The First Amendment guarantees the right of American citizens to peacefully assemble and speak their mind about government policies. The demonstrators you are asking me to denounce are American citizens who were availing themselves of these rights in a legal manner and had a permit for their gathering. You may disagree with what they said, but it is their right to be able to say it and the government’s job to ensure they aren’t assaulted for doing so.

    “Other people who wish to protest their presence or what this group were saying or doing have similar rights provided they do not attack the first group and follow legal norms with respect to obtaining permits to allow public safety, peace, and order to be maintained.

    “As far as denouncing the political support of the demonstrators for me, I not only do not denounce it, I welcome their backing. They are American citizens with the right to vote in our elections, unlike many of the protestors who were felons or not even American citizens. I’ve stated my political program very plainly, and I welcome the electoral support of any and all American citizens for my campaign and my programs.”

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    What would really be awesome is a politician not denouncing right wing Americans exercising their constitutional rights in a legal manner and welcoming their support.

    I’m waiting for a politician to say: (…)
     
    The only politician whose words have yuge immediate impact is Trump. A plaintive plea from some random pol with lesser influence won’t matter. What you wrote is fine, but not Trump’s style. Plus it leads to the ongoing refrain “You welcome the support of Nazis? OMG!” Strategically, Trump should avoid either denouncing or praising the racialist right. In fact he handled that part well when he said there were fine people “on both sides.”

    Trump worked the presser as best he could (and my preceding fantasy quote was meant to be pushed to the edge of plausibly Trumpian), but yeah, it would be awesome for him, as President, to lambaste the press about their hypocrisy regarding the First Amendment. He could have dubbed them, due to their selective outrage, communist sympathizers (based on the presence of violent antifa, etc. in Charlottesville) and reminded them that communism around the world has killed even more people than Nazism. If Steven Miller had prepped him especially well, he could have also mentioned 20th century anarchist violence that likely resulted in the bombing of Wall Street.

    But instead of merely deploying a whatabout-ist tu quoque defense, the best way to handle a combative, hypocritical opponent that one ‘outranks’ is to go on offense: “Agree and amplify” with reductio ad absurdum logic turned against them. He could’ve asked (in a tone sarcastically calibrated to provoke maximum MSM paranoia and sputtering)—

    If you all here that are part of Fake News think it’s okay that fellow citizens should have their First Amendment rights shut down by the government, like in Charlottesville, because you don’t like what they’re saying, or who they are, maybe you’re onto something. Maybe government should investigate and shut down Fake News.

    I’ve seen a lot of stuff that you people put out—it’s inflammatory, it’s lies, it contributes to a lot of hate and violence. Maybe the FCC should look at broadcast licenses. Maybe newspaper editors should be arrested for causing hysteria. Cause why not? If we don’t care about the First Amendment anymore, why not?
     
  107. I maintain that the demographic future of the country is weirder than either side expects.

    The left is right that over time (centuries, not the next twenty years) there will be few “pure” whites left. In skin tone, the US will come to resemble maybe Argentina, or Brazil a few shades lighter.

    Where they are wrong is thinking that will change anything permanently. “White” and “Black” are not completely racial terms in the US, they are partially class terms. Think of it like this: hispanic immigrant comes to the US, does well, where does he go? The suburbs, smaller towns etc. His children will have a much higher chance of intermarrying with whites, and his great-grandchildren will be majority white, perhaps with a last name of Lopez. Same goes for high-achieving blacks born here. Barack Obama may be the first black president, but his great-grandchildren will be white.

    So too, asians become white, Indians become white, everyone over time becomes white unless they are trash, in which case they live in bad neighborhoods with high black underclass populations and their grandkids are black.

    Given enough time, we will stratify into several racial/class categories which correlate pretty closely to skin tone. The crime, IQ and dysfunction of the black community ensures that they will always stay at the bottom. The only way up is to become white(r).

  108. @Autochthon

    This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I “get” them and respect them, but I’m not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?
     
    Please help me understand how your reasoning, supra, materially differs from this reasoning:

    This native Southerner tends to find the whole Democratic, northern, congregationalist culture off-putting. I think I get them and I respect them, but I’m not going to fit in anytime soon; and if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think?
     
    You seem to be simply assuming something about one regional subculture in what used to the the U.S.A. is somehow intrinsically more appealing to, say, a Mohammedan Indonesian, a Peruvian mestizo, an animist Negro from Lesotho for some unexplained reason?

    Is your reasoning only meant to apply to Canadiennes on the grounds they are more like New Englanders than they are like Southerners? Heck, when I lived in Maine my girlfriend was a Canadienne (she lived in Grand-Sault), and her people were essentailly on the same length as many Southerners: rural, independent folk who liked to hunt and so forth – for that matter, Cajuns are merely displaced Acadians. I genuinely don't follow you.

    You seem to be simply assuming something about one regional subculture in what used to the the U.S.A. is somehow intrinsically more appealing to,

    Yes, actually and the Democrats have historically tapped into that. It’s not a superiority thing. Republican historically have been a WASP crowd, with certain set of cultural values.

    Logan called it correctly. My culture is normal to me and from it I draw conclusions about “friendly”, “weird”, etc. My culture is not all that far removed from that sort of South Baptist type in the suits I’m thinking about, but I still find it strange. And from that vantage point, I’m thinking others might also find it off putting.

    Anyway, even if you think all that reasoning is garbage, I’m only pointing out the weather here. Republicans have traditionally attracted native stock (or those native after about 2-3 generations). Democrats attract those off the boat and those who feel disaffected by the native stock.

    “Heck, when I lived in Maine my girlfriend was a Canadienne (she lived in Grand-Sault), and her people were essentailly on the same length as many Southerners: rural, independent folk who liked to hunt and so forth – for that matter, Cajuns are merely displaced Acadians. I genuinely don’t follow you.”

    Yes, absolutely. One of the reasons I like visiting Southern mountains is to visit people who are much more like the rural Vermont I remember. (After the great colonization by NYC, they’re mostly granolas.)

    However, from the relative viewpoint of the culture I grew up in, they’re culture is kind of trashy. My Dad, who is really too much of a redneck, doesn’t like to think of himself as being part of that culture. He *sniffs* about rednecks – the man who plays par 3 courses, has maybe owned 3 suits in his life, and loves a T-shirt with a giant angry cat on it. I suspect like many French Canadians who found themselves on this of the border, they were maybe trying to fit in with the local elite, in their own way.

    Until very recently the very rural south was solidly Democrat, which is why there has been so much glee about Democrats Being the Real Racists. Having the Democrats nab some urban elitists from the Republican crowd has a been boon in getting and retaining people like my Dad. The problem is they’re losing the working whites who don’t have a problem with themselves as they are, who voted Trump.

    • Replies: @Autochthon

    My culture is normal to me and from it I draw conclusions about “friendly,” “weird,” etc.
     
    Everyone does. You know what is normal and friendly to foreigners? Their own countries. You know what is weird to them? America (New England and Appalachia alike). You assumption that third parties are more comfortable with one alien culture (yours) than another just because that alien culture is yours represents unbelievable self-absorption and an unbelievable lack of self-awareness and logic here. All of America is weird to a foreigner. He is no more familiar with one subculture than another. The worlds of Jeff Foxworthy; The Red Green Show (Canadian, but reflective of the rural, northern areas of America, too); Lake Woebegone; and Fast Times at Ridgemont High are all alien to such a person. He may more readily adapt to one than another, depending upon his own origins (a Singaporean used to polyglot megalopolises will probably more readily adjust to Manhattan; a farmer from rural Poland may prefer Nebraska...). He may as easily have exposure to the one via media as the other – indeed, my experience with foreigners is that they more readily associate America with traditional things that would suit the attendees of a show put on by Tim McGraw or Charlie Daniels than they do with such things as lobster pots, skiing in the Green Mountains, bean suppers, Moxie, and the town meetings traditional in your area.
  109. @Andrew
    "Are we certain that Judis is sincere?"

    Judis is sincere. My mother said the same thing to me 30 years ago as well. As the percent of white people shrink, white looking/successful Asians and Hispanics will become white via intermarriage with and incorporation into the general white population. The people who ghettoize themselves in those populations will in the meantime become poorer and ever more like blacks.

    Look at the small scale of your personal friends and I'm sure you already see many white-Asian and white-Latino mixed couples. When their kids marry, chances are it will be to a white person, and so on, and thus their blood will dilute. It's an open question what a white kid who is 1/4 or 1/8 Chinese will think he is or what his politics will be, but I'd bet on Asian blood becoming an exotic marker of pride like being part Cherokee, instead of it being divisive and separating that person from the people.

    Also not discussed is ongoing changes in the internal composition of the white population. Gen X and Millenial liberal whites are marrying much later and having fewer kids. Where a conservative couple might marry in their 20's and have 3 kids by 30, liberals are waiting until late 30's or early 40's to have 1 or 2 kids. The conservatives will have 3 generations in the time the liberals have 2. And that's the liberals who breed. Many more in the cities today are not marrying and are going childless. Then there is the differential toll taken by the abortion industry and homosexual identity. The future (eventually) belongs to those who show up.

    The most right wing section of the population is late Boomers and early Gen X (born 1954 to 1976), while the older boomers are highly liberal and late Silents are moderate. As the latter two groups start passing in major numbers and are replaced by Gen Z, the white electorate will actually tilt further to the right over the next 20 years.

    The most right wing section of the population is late Boomers and early Gen X (born 1954 to 1976), while the older boomers are highly liberal and late Silents are moderate.

    Somewhere, though, I think is a section of highly liberal late Boomers. My early Boomer Dad is in some ways much more conservative than my mid-late Boomer aunt. The people spitting on returning Vietnam vets were younger those going, all of whom are Boomers.

    That said, I’m sure both my Aunt and Dad voted Clinton and I know myself to be much further right. My sister is pretty well infected with feminism which makes her center left.

    As the latter two groups start passing in major numbers and are replaced by Gen Z, the white electorate will actually tilt further to the right over the next 20 years.

    This I agree with and in part, it’s hard to see how we can go further left without just throwing in the towel and trying communism again.

    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    This I agree with and in part, it’s hard to see how we can go further left without just throwing in the towel and trying communism again.
     
    How about continuing to double down on the "white privilege", LGBTQWERTY, and all the rest? The courts officially deciding "hate speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment? Homescooling being banned so that parents cannot opt out of the "teaching kindergardeners about trannies" and such? Using housing vouchers to "diversify" any neighborhood too white? Making family formation for whites even more unaffordable? Continuing the project of making "racists" and other Deplorables unemployable, with the ultimate end of turning any and all crimethinkers into Dalit- or Burakumin-style Untouchables? Forbidding any sort of government assistance, or possibly even Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/etc. to anyone who's ever been guilty of "hate"? Continuing to push all the Title IX kangaroo courts, "affirmative consent", "listen and believe" nonsense on all college campuses until heterosexual male sexuality is basically forbidden? More demands for "minority representation" in even medium-sized businesses? There's all kinds of ways they can keep pushing the Religion of Equality beyond old-school socialist redistribution.
  110. @Clyde

    BTW, Harry Truman had an “Israelish” business partner.
     
    Wah? He was Jewish and in the haberdashery business with Harry Truman. Truman struggled financially after leaving the White House. After this was when Presidential pensions were instituted.

    per Wiki-
    Edward "Eddie" Jacobson (June 17, 1891, New York City – October 25, 1955, Kansas City, Missouri) was a Jewish-American businessman. He was also a U.S. Army associate, business partner, and close friend of President Harry S. Truman.

    Truman Library - Edward Jacobson Papers
    www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/jacobson.htm
    The papers of Edward Jacobson document his life and business career; his relationship with Harry S. Truman; his role in advocating U.S. support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1947-48; and his involvement in the early history of the modern state of Israel.

    For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With ...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/business/for-harry-truman-the...
    Apr 10, 2016 · For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With Bankruptcy. ... Harry S. Truman, ... and who had worked for years in the haberdashery business.

    Must read on Harry Truman https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/harry-s-truman-suits-haberdasher/

    This tangential Truman discussion reminds me of one of the earlier memories I can recall from my childhood. I was too young in 1969 to understand what was going on among the adults when Ike died. But in 1972, I was old enough, and had learned enough history, to understand when Truman died on the day after Christmas why the adults were talking about it. He was among the last of the World War II era American leaders, so there was a sort of hushed respect and reflection among the adults discussing it. Interestingly, LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973), but I don’t remember the adults discussing him all that much, as they did with Truman. Perhaps because they had served in WWII or Korea, so Truman had a direct connection in their life.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973)
     
    From this date until August 9, 1974, there were no living ex-presidents. Nixon was all alone.
    , @ScarletNumber

    LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973)
     
    From this date until August 9, 1974, there were no living ex-presidents. Nixon was all alone.
  111. @Clyde

    BTW, Harry Truman had an “Israelish” business partner.
     
    Wah? He was Jewish and in the haberdashery business with Harry Truman. Truman struggled financially after leaving the White House. After this was when Presidential pensions were instituted.

    per Wiki-
    Edward "Eddie" Jacobson (June 17, 1891, New York City – October 25, 1955, Kansas City, Missouri) was a Jewish-American businessman. He was also a U.S. Army associate, business partner, and close friend of President Harry S. Truman.

    Truman Library - Edward Jacobson Papers
    www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/jacobson.htm
    The papers of Edward Jacobson document his life and business career; his relationship with Harry S. Truman; his role in advocating U.S. support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1947-48; and his involvement in the early history of the modern state of Israel.

    For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With ...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/business/for-harry-truman-the...
    Apr 10, 2016 · For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With Bankruptcy. ... Harry S. Truman, ... and who had worked for years in the haberdashery business.

    Must read on Harry Truman https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/harry-s-truman-suits-haberdasher/

    This tangential Truman discussion reminds me of one of the earlier memories I can recall from my childhood. I was too young in 1969 to understand what was going on among the adults when Ike died. But in 1972, I was old enough, and had learned enough history, to understand when Truman died on the day after Christmas why the adults were talking about it. He was among the last of the World War II era American leaders, so there was a sort of hushed respect and reflection among the adults discussing it. Interestingly, LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973), but I don’t remember the adults discussing him all that much, as they did with Truman. Perhaps because they had served in WWII or Korea, so Truman had a direct connection in their life.

  112. @Marty T
    Didn't happen in California though. Whites got more Democratic as they became a minority.

    Didn’t happen in California though. Whites got more Democratic as they became a minority.

    It’s a boiled off population. Unhappy conservatives in California moved, usually for economic reasons but finding a new happier political home didn’t work. Meanwhile, California’s Dems stayed (it’s only just!) and attracted more Dems.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    The conservative stronghold in SoCal had the defense industry as its economic underpinning. IIRC something like 25% of the economy of LA and Orange County used to be defense contracts. And that's not even considering the role of military bases in the California economy and demgraphics. That changed dramatically starting in the late 1980s with changes in the structure of the defense industry. After that, there was much less vested interest sustaining the conservative outlook of SoCal. Part of the change in outlook was also a generational change - the postwar SoCal migration had a large Bible Belt contingent but they landed in one of the most secular and cosmopolitan parts of the country.

    While California was a reliably Republican state for decades (the senior and junior Edmund Browns as the exception), it was a liberal Republican state. The rise of the religious right wing of the Republican Party drove Republican-leaning social liberals away from the party. The likes of Feinstein, Newsome, and Pelosi are much closer to the old patrician liberal outlook of California Republicans than are current-day California Republicans. They don't make California Republicans like Earl Warren anymore.
  113. @Twinkie

    my girlfriend was a Canadienne
     
    Canadian, Russian, Columbian...

    Is there no Autochthona for thee, Autochthon? Why do you hate America so much?

    I am just joking. Don't get riled up.
  114. @3g4me
    Sorry Steve, not buying it. If only those misguided people would stop pushing identity politics then the flight from White will cease and Jews, Han, Desi, Mestizo, and Negro Americans will all live together in citizenist harmony.

    I repeat: NO. You can call not-A whatever you wish, but it will never actually BE A.

    He missed the most important democrat strategy of them all. Above all else, they assumed (and still do) they could keep their pet demographics poor. Dependency is the key.

    • Replies: @Bill
    You sound like Thomas Sowell (spits on ground). The house theory hereabouts is that you don't actually have to do anything to keep blacks and browns poor because IQ and heredity. The Democrats are the ones who understand HBD.
  115. Martin O’Malley said “all lives matter” and the Blacks went bananas. Where is the middle-aged White politician who can appease the Black Lives Matter mob and still retain some ability to increase the White vote share for the Democrats? That White politician creature doesn’t exist, nor will it ever exist. The Blacks in the Southern primary states want to vote for somebody that is all about Black, Black, Black.

    Hillary Clinton was reduced to using the dreaded “Aunt Jemima” strategy to finish off Bernie Sanders in the Southern primary states. Black women voters determine the winner of Southern presidential primary contests. Hillary Clinton was no ways tired of riling up the Black lady voters against Bernie Sanders and any other bastard who was going to try to stop Hillary Clinton from winning the Democrat Party presidential nomination.

  116. @Rifleman
    This post represents so much that is fundamentally wrong about Steve Sailer's worldview.

    To make it perfect he would have to add references to Ockham's Razor, Regression to the Mean and of course a picture of a golf course.

    The future of Core America is California, Houston, Miami as well as pretty much every big city and every massive college campus.

    It's also the massive inundation of non-White people into rural and small town America with their much higher birth rates replacing the older depleted, drugged up and dying White locals.

    America's shrinking White fringe isn't going to be saved by mestizos pretending to be White.

    Or by Steve Sailer hiding in his wife's house pretending that America in 2017 is 1950s San Fernando Valley California or even reruns of the Brady Bunch.

    Or that the current majority White and heavily White dominated (donors, senators, governors, , hacks, wonks, academics) Democrat party is the equivalent of an episode of Good Times or the Cosby Show.

    TD, where ya been?

  117. History shows that as ethnic groups assimilate into American culture, they increasingly identify themselves as “white.”

    Oops. He let the cat out of the bag there. Historically, immigrants were white. That’s our “melting pot.” When they assimilated into the majority culture, they became the majority culture. There’s some evidence that Asians can assimilate into a white culture and see themselves that way, except they don’t vote like whites and many of them cry about racism like victim ethnic groups do. This is the model minority. The non-model types aren’t as promising.

    I believe the author is correct about the balkanization of the left. We as a country will become more divided not more united. This isn’t a surprise. Putnam figured it out decades ago.

  118. One way of testing whether an immigrant group has turned “white” is whether their voting patterns are indistinguishable from the average American white person of similar socio-economic status and region. I’m pretty sure that, a century + after the Ellis Island era, American Jews have not met that test – even if you account for their blue state concentration and socio-economic status, which would already bias them toward the Dems, I’m guessing that they still vote EVEN MORE Democrat than their WASP counterparts. (Note that I say socio-economic and not just economic. For example, college professors and accountants might have similar incomes but college professors will fall to the left of accountants politically).

    What about other immigrant groups? The Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Swedes, etc. Are they “white” yet by this test? If not, which ones are which?

    I am also guessing that the New Americans, even the ones that Judis has his doubts about, will still not be fully “white” 100 years from now by that standard.

    • Replies: @Thea
    My understanding is that the first wave of Jewish immigrants (middle class from Germany) assimilated so much their descendents don't identify as Jewish usually. The ones from Russian in the 1900s were different. I'm guessing this second group is more heavily dem than the first.
    , @IHTG
    I believe Hispanics whose first language is English are something in the area of 40-60 Republican-Democrat. Not bad!
  119. @Lot
    You would be a better commentator if you cut out the constant slurs against white women over behavior less than 10% engage in, as well as take care to not get your numbers wrong by a factor of 10, as you do here.

    The trend the last three decades by the way is for women of all races to be more sexually restrained.

    And the # of white women who have “jungle fever” is very limited and as you go up the economic scale even more limited (putting aside Hollywood trash). During the ’60s it was very fashionable for rebellious Leftist girls to pair up with Black Panther types but that fashion seems to have passed.

    The myth that white women want to pair up with “bad boys” is just that – a myth. America still has important class distinctions. If anything, these have hardened – in the past it was not unusual for doctors to date nurses or businessmen to date their secretaries, but nowadays this is rare. I recently read an interview with Dov Charney – the American Apparel guy who was known for screwing his (female) employees and he very carefully emphasized that he never dated the girls who were sewing out on the shop floor – he would only hit on the professionals in the office (he also emphasized that it was a 2 way street – these females were hitting on him). A female professional type woman has nothing in common with a blue collar motorcycle gang type guy (nor vice versa). Charney OTOH was perfect because he was a “bad boy” but was also high status.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    Whiskey has a flair for the dramatic but his general thesis is right.

    You need to go on youtube & read the comments on interracial dating. First read the cuck white men & jungle fevered gays and white women stir up crap about it but then watch the bitter, jealous black women give their 2 cents.....

    Allusions to owning "the master's wife & her womb"....

    They use that word womb in a poetic sense too.

    Whiskey may be autistic or something and may exaggerate but his general thesis is dead on.

    Most brothas want a white woman. And seem to settle for near ANYTHING BUT a monogamous relationship with their own women w kids, etc with the occasional exception of course.....
  120. @AM

    Seriously, the reason why the Democrats’ KKKrazy Glue plan to demonize whites as Ku Klux Klanners and Nazis might not work in attracting Asian and Latino enthusiasm
     
    It does for the moment, I think in part because it's a whole lot of fun to trash someone else's history. This native New Englander tends to find the whole Republican Southern Baptist culture off putting. I think I "get" them and respect them, but I'm not going to fit anytime soon. And if I feel that way, what must a total stranger to the culture think? Democrats have instinctively been able to reach out to immigrants in way that the Republicans have not.

    Economically what holds the Dems together is welfare. If that can ever be knocked out (and I think will have to at some point, given our debt), what do they have? In a real way, the Democrats absolutely rely on ever so slight white majority to stay in power. Once the whites are minorities collectively, how does welfare get paid for? Once the welfare is gone, what exactly interests minorities used to the dole in anything but how to get back, using violence if necessary?

    I have hard time being even vaguely optimistic about the ability to manage a republic if the trends continue. In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing. We're creaking along on borrowed time because we can't maintain the Constitution anymore. It's easy to argue we're hardly acknowledging now - more like a passing nod as we lurch from one set of regs to another.

    Passing amendments like they were going out of style is what got us into this mess; maybe we need to start repealing a few.

  121. @11 Bravo

    Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice. A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites...
     
    There is a legal and a social component to how newcomers are treated. Legally Irish, Italians, Jews and other Europeans were classified as white as they were allowed to naturalize under the first naturalization act and its successors, which limited naturalization to free whites of good moral character. I don't know when Italians first came, but the Irish and Jews were definitely naturalized in the early 1800s when those laws were in effect. Hence, they were legally considered white.

    Socially the Irish, Italians, Jews and probably every other group of Europeans who came here were treated with suspicion until they assimilated to the local norms. There is nothing bad or abnormal with this. Usually all newcomers to a country, club, school or other institution are generally not given the keys to the kingdom, or welcomed into the inner circle until they have proven themselves.

    For example, when a kid switches high schools because he moves to another state, legally he is permitted to register and attend the new school. So legally he is a student of that high school. Socially, however, he is generally an outcast for a period of time as the existing student body gets to know him. The student body has no legal right to exclude this kid from school, though they have no obligation to socialize with him either.

    I am getting tired of this Noel Ignatiev whiteness crap. He is conflating the social reception of people versus their legal status. Languages, accents, clothing, grooming and other 'alien' habits might tend to cause others to keep their distance, but it did not seem to prevent various Europeans from naturalizing under our early naturalization laws that explicitly limited this privilege to whites.

    I don’t know when Italians first came

    1492, if the history books are to be believed.

  122. @11 Bravo

    Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice. A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites...
     
    There is a legal and a social component to how newcomers are treated. Legally Irish, Italians, Jews and other Europeans were classified as white as they were allowed to naturalize under the first naturalization act and its successors, which limited naturalization to free whites of good moral character. I don't know when Italians first came, but the Irish and Jews were definitely naturalized in the early 1800s when those laws were in effect. Hence, they were legally considered white.

    Socially the Irish, Italians, Jews and probably every other group of Europeans who came here were treated with suspicion until they assimilated to the local norms. There is nothing bad or abnormal with this. Usually all newcomers to a country, club, school or other institution are generally not given the keys to the kingdom, or welcomed into the inner circle until they have proven themselves.

    For example, when a kid switches high schools because he moves to another state, legally he is permitted to register and attend the new school. So legally he is a student of that high school. Socially, however, he is generally an outcast for a period of time as the existing student body gets to know him. The student body has no legal right to exclude this kid from school, though they have no obligation to socialize with him either.

    I am getting tired of this Noel Ignatiev whiteness crap. He is conflating the social reception of people versus their legal status. Languages, accents, clothing, grooming and other 'alien' habits might tend to cause others to keep their distance, but it did not seem to prevent various Europeans from naturalizing under our early naturalization laws that explicitly limited this privilege to whites.

    It’s all codswallop, of course, but at least Italians and Jews are Mediterranean. “The Irish were not white” canard is beyond tired (and tiresome) – it is downright haggard. Celts were arguably the original white people, from Galatia to Galicia. We not uncommonly have red or blonde hair and green or blue eyes, for God’s sake. If Celts were not white until recently, the Han were not Oriental until recently and the Igbo became Negroes last month.

    • LOL: TWS
    • Replies: @Olorin

    We not uncommonly have red or blonde hair and green or blue eyes, for God’s sake.
     
    You stole the red hair from my Neanderthal ancestors, you bog-hopping potato-slurping cabbage-overcooking mackerel-snapping practitioners of Drunken Yoga and the most tediously repetitive musical repertoire this side of klezmer.

    Blue eyes didn't evolve till recently, and you got those via your great-grandfather slipping mickeys to gals of North Sea ancestry then stealing the offspring and hiding them in Catholic residential schools.

    Also your Celtic ancestry is Indo. Real white people are descended from swans, bears, deer, and mammoths. I myself have both tusks and antlers, in addition to blue eyes and blond hair...though gave up swiping open honey-trees with my hands when I learned I was highly allergic to bee stings.

    However the fact that Irish aren't white is the only thing Judis gets right in his hilariously dimwitted piece.

    It was also something that P.J. O'Rourke overlooked...for OBVIOUS REASONS.

    https://imgur.com/gallery/H1X8R

    :D

  123. @Logan
    There is a subtext in what AM says.

    His people are "normal," while Southern Baptists are weird.

    Immigrants will assimilate more easily and completely into a normal culture than a weird one.

    There is a subtext in what AM says.

    His people are “normal,” while Southern Baptists are weird.

    AM is a lady.

    • Replies: @AM

    AM is a lady.
     
    At least, that's what my husband and children tell me. I prefer female, though, as I've known many ladies and I'm not one. ;)
  124. @eah
    https://twitter.com/HarmlessYardDog/status/908399489853124608

    1st: 12% want smaller gov’t

    2nd: 22% want smaller gov’t

    3rd: 36% want smaller gov’t

    Notice a trend here? By fifth generation they’re damn Republicans.

  125. @eah
    https://twitter.com/HarmlessYardDog/status/908399489853124608

    If you want to win elections for small government, though, you really shouldn’t alienate that important 30% of Hispanics (and Asians) that have assimilated to a right-ish American norm. And a tweet like that would certainly alienate them.

    About 30% of Hispanics and Asians vote Right. Trump was a great test. If that 30% stat held even for HIM, you know there’s a non-trivial right-leaning impulse among Hispanics and Asians. Here’s how that plays out by 2065:

    Whites: 45% of population.
    Hispanics: 24%
    Asians: 14%
    Black: 13%
    Other: 3%

    Say whites split 60/40 in an election for the Right candidate*: 27%
    30/70 Hispanic: 7%
    30/70 Asian: 4%
    10/90 Black: 1%
    Other: 1%

    So, going by today’s trends, future Right candidates will get ~40% of the vote in a majority-minority country. That means they lose, of course, but not by impossible landslides. The question becomes: Between now and 2065, how do you package The Right in a way that appeals to just another ~5% of whites, ~3% of Asians, and ~3% of Hispanics? You get those tiny percentages to switch teams and the Right survives just fine.

    So what’s your plan?

    *I’m assuming here a consolidation of white identity politics by 2065: a big and probably wrongheaded assumption, of course. If whites are voting Left in huge numbers in 2065, my numbers go out the window. But that’s the fault of whites—you can’t blame the changing demographics.

    • Replies: @eah
    And a tweet like that would certainly alienate them.

    I don't especially care.

    So what’s your plan?

    I'm a White Nationalist who endorses the 'They have to go back' plank -- 'BAMN' -- that's my plan -- in this I am thinking mostly of the future of white children.

  126. Authority, strength and the capacity real or imagined for violence attracts women like nothing else. Trust me on this. The social status, marital status etc matters much less than whether the woman perceives the man as dangerous.

    I don’t know about the jungle fever thing. I do know what a uniform does to a female libido.

  127. @Jack D
    One way of testing whether an immigrant group has turned "white" is whether their voting patterns are indistinguishable from the average American white person of similar socio-economic status and region. I'm pretty sure that, a century + after the Ellis Island era, American Jews have not met that test - even if you account for their blue state concentration and socio-economic status, which would already bias them toward the Dems, I'm guessing that they still vote EVEN MORE Democrat than their WASP counterparts. (Note that I say socio-economic and not just economic. For example, college professors and accountants might have similar incomes but college professors will fall to the left of accountants politically).

    What about other immigrant groups? The Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Swedes, etc. Are they "white" yet by this test? If not, which ones are which?

    I am also guessing that the New Americans, even the ones that Judis has his doubts about, will still not be fully "white" 100 years from now by that standard.

    My understanding is that the first wave of Jewish immigrants (middle class from Germany) assimilated so much their descendents don’t identify as Jewish usually. The ones from Russian in the 1900s were different. I’m guessing this second group is more heavily dem than the first.

  128. @Jack D
    One way of testing whether an immigrant group has turned "white" is whether their voting patterns are indistinguishable from the average American white person of similar socio-economic status and region. I'm pretty sure that, a century + after the Ellis Island era, American Jews have not met that test - even if you account for their blue state concentration and socio-economic status, which would already bias them toward the Dems, I'm guessing that they still vote EVEN MORE Democrat than their WASP counterparts. (Note that I say socio-economic and not just economic. For example, college professors and accountants might have similar incomes but college professors will fall to the left of accountants politically).

    What about other immigrant groups? The Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Swedes, etc. Are they "white" yet by this test? If not, which ones are which?

    I am also guessing that the New Americans, even the ones that Judis has his doubts about, will still not be fully "white" 100 years from now by that standard.

    I believe Hispanics whose first language is English are something in the area of 40-60 Republican-Democrat. Not bad!

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I'm guessing it varies by region. In Texas and the SW, I think that it is the dream of many Hispanics to become Texans and assimilate into the mainstream - this has been going on since day 1. You get your cowboy boots and your pickup truck and you are just another Texan. After a couple of generations of intermarriage, some of your grandkids might even have blond hair. Lots of Texas good old boys have vaguely remembered Mexican grandmas somewhere back in the family tree. Maybe you have a fondness for Mexican food the way Italian Americans are fond of Italian food (where is Buffalo Joe, BTW?) but that's about it.

    But in say, California, you are encouraged from Day 1 to retain your Hispanic identity and become a professional Hispanic if you can - you keep pronouncing your name in the Spanish way, you get a gig at some non-profit as a grievance monger, you join La Raza, etc.
  129. @Frank DeScushin

    In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing.
     
    In 1919 all of the Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, and nearly all Americans were Constitutional originalists. If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.

    Today, however, most Americans, most Congressmen, and most Supreme Court Justices subscribe to the bogus concept they've been raised on that the U.S. Constitution is a living document. Now instead of passing an Amendment to grant a right not listed in the Constitution Supreme Court Justices merely read that new right into the supposedly living document.

    In that way the Constitution is not less flexible, it's far more flexible. That's a bad thing. The Constitution's drafters intended the amendment process to be exceptionally difficult to preserve the integrity of the original Constitution. Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.

    Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.

    Congress can rein in SCOTUS anytime it wants to: Article 3, Section 2: 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    But, yeah. You’re right.

    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @guest
    Congress can regulate original jurisdiction, but you may have noticed SCOTUS retains appellate jurisdiction. That never goes away.

    So they have to wait a bit. Big deal. They render their decision eventually, it becomes Almighty Precedent.

    Congress has rubber band reins at best. They snap when the judiciary pulls sufficiently hard.
  130. @Intelligent Dasein

    There is a subtext in what AM says.

    His people are “normal,” while Southern Baptists are weird.
     
    AM is a lady.

    AM is a lady.

    At least, that’s what my husband and children tell me. I prefer female, though, as I’ve known many ladies and I’m not one. 😉

  131. @Clyde

    BTW, Harry Truman had an “Israelish” business partner.
     
    Wah? He was Jewish and in the haberdashery business with Harry Truman. Truman struggled financially after leaving the White House. After this was when Presidential pensions were instituted.

    per Wiki-
    Edward "Eddie" Jacobson (June 17, 1891, New York City – October 25, 1955, Kansas City, Missouri) was a Jewish-American businessman. He was also a U.S. Army associate, business partner, and close friend of President Harry S. Truman.

    Truman Library - Edward Jacobson Papers
    www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/jacobson.htm
    The papers of Edward Jacobson document his life and business career; his relationship with Harry S. Truman; his role in advocating U.S. support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1947-48; and his involvement in the early history of the modern state of Israel.

    For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With ...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/business/for-harry-truman-the...
    Apr 10, 2016 · For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With Bankruptcy. ... Harry S. Truman, ... and who had worked for years in the haberdashery business.

    Must read on Harry Truman https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/harry-s-truman-suits-haberdasher/

    Truman anecdote I heard somewhere or other: A (jewish) reporter or biographer or somebody was shadowing Truman in Missouri for a story. Truman is in his golden years now and he driving this guy around the small Missouri town he lives in and is telling this guy just about his life generally. Then, they pull up in front of Truman’s house, and Truman says, “Sir, this is where I live and I would invite you inside but this is Mrs. Truman’s house, and she has never allowed anyone of the Hebrew extraction under her roof, and she never will.”

    • Replies: @Corn
    I've heard that story before, but I don't know if it's true. Apparently David Susskind interviewed ex-President Truman on his porch. Truman supposedly told Susskind that his wife would never let him bring a Jew in the house.
  132. Latinos, Middle Easterners, and some South Asians might turn white, but East Asians are too physically different to be considered white, unless what they mean by white is anyone who isn’t a professional victim class.

    Judis is making the same error as mainstream leftists in assuming that all immigrants will assimilate into whiteness the same way Irish and Italians did. It completely disregards phenotypical differences–a form of willful ignorance.

    Here’s a better reason why the leftist coalition won’t hold. If there are enough minorities to form a collective majority, then there are enough minorities to split off into different, competing tribal groups. Societies without a clear majority have always fractured this way, thus far there is no reason to believe America will be any different.

    I look forward to competing with other minority groups. It’s the weakest groups that try to find security by banding together and advocating “everyone vs the whites”. This is because they know their group can’t climb the social ladder by themselves. It’s time to learn.

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    Actually East Asians are quite close to Europeans. Read Cavalli-Sforza. He likens the major races to your hand. The four major non-African races are the fingers and the Africans are the thumb. That is to say East Asians, Amerindians, Caucasians and Pacific populations are quite close while the Africans from who we descended are rather different.
  133. @Twinkie

    It projects that the same percentage of people who currently identify themselves as “Latino” or “Asian” will continue to claim those identities in future generations. In reality, that’s highly unlikely. History shows that as ethnic groups assimilate into American culture, they increasingly identify themselves as “white.”
     
    This is rather old news.

    See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/17/mixed-marriages-are-changing-the-way-we-think-about-our-race/

    Among the first-generation Latin-American immigrants — people born in one of those five places — 98.6 percent checked the “Hispanic” box. Likewise, 96.3 percent of the first-generation Asian immigrants identified as Asian.

    But the second-generation immigrants were less likely to identify as Hispanic or Asian. Only 93 percent of people with a parent born in a Latin-American country themselves identified as Hispanic. The difference was more dramatic for Asians. Only 79.1 percent of second-generation Asian immigrants identified as even part-Asian.

    It’s important to remember that the CPS allows people to check multiple boxes for race. You can be any combination of black, Asian, white, Native American, and so forth. On top of that, the government also asks a separate question about whether you are Hispanic. This means you can be white and Hispanic, black and Hispanic, even white-black-Asian triracial and Hispanic.

    The point is that it’s easy for people to indicate complex heritages on the survey form. Yet, many who are multi-racial are not doing this.

    They might have Hispanic grandparents, but don't consider themselves Hispanic. They might have an Asian and a black parent, but only consider themselves black.

    Duncan and Trejo also have some data on the children of second-generation immigrants, where the trend continues. The CPS asks parents to provide racial information about their kids. Of the kids with at least one Latin-American grandparent, only 81.7 percent were marked down as Hispanic. Of the kids with at least one Asian grandparent, only 57.5 percent were marked down as Asian.
    [Boldfaces mine.]
     
    In other words, among the third generation Americans with at least one Asian grandparent, 42.5% identify PURELY AS WHITES. And that's on the Census form, not in real life, which is to say, that even among the 57.5% that identify at least partly as Asian, there is likely a substantial fraction that "acts white" for all intents and purposes in daily life.

    @89 Twinkie: “In other words, among the third generation Americans with at least one Asian grandparent, 42.5% identify PURELY AS WHITES.”

    It matters little what one “identifies” as. What matters is what group is willing to accept you. Any group or any racial mixture can call themselves Viking’s spawn, but it won’t change their genetic heritage. Certain Whites and far more non-Whites under certain circumstances categorize all sorts of people as White or not White – one reads that here at Sailer’s all the time – some commenter insisting this or that Arab or Jew or Mexican or whatever is actually White. And at other fora I’ve read disputes where others claim southern Europeans are not really White, or Slavs aren’t White. There are endless distinctions and subgroups and varying degrees of overlap.

    It’s not merely skin color (as others have noted, many Asians and Jews are quite fair skinned) and it’s not even just pure genetics, far less what one “identifies” as. What counts is what group considers you one of their own, when the chips are down. Right now the “chips” – and pretty much everything else – is “down” against Whites. And based on voting patterns, social media, worship habits, and any other metric one chooses, roughly 75-90% of Jews, Mexicans, Asians, Negroes, and even various “caucasoid” Armenians, Chechens, and north Africans have made it abundantly clear where their loyalties lie – at precisely the same time they claim to be or identify as what they dedicate their lives to eradicating. Recall all those “Hate Whitey” essays Steve has opined on where said Chinese or Hindu or Negro is actually married to a self-hating White. Whatever their children’s genetic composition, and no matter what they tell the census taker, they know whose side they’re on and what group they’re part of.

    I repeat, the ONLY thing that ultimately matters is what group is willing to claim you as one of their own.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So you are saying, race is a social construct.
  134. @George
    “This town has 8,000,000 people,” a young Harry Truman wrote his cousin upon visiting New York City in 1918. “7,500,000 of ’em are of Israelish extraction. (400,000 wops and the rest are white people.)”

    I am having trouble verifying that quote. Searching on +"Israelish extraction" did not yield anything convincing. So I am calling BS on that quote. I also coukd not find evidence of Truman using the W-- word. Mr intetnet says nyc population 5.6 million in 1918 +- a few Spanish flu deaths.

    If that quote had a good possibility of being real, I thought it would be in Merle Miller’s biography of Truman, Plain Speaking, which is full of pithy Trumanisms, such as describing someone as “an eight-ulcer man in a four-ulcer job.” But I couldn’t find it there.
    I did find the quote in Nixon’s Prejudices, an article in the New York Sun from some years ago, which attributes it to Truman and Israel, by Michael J. Cohen, published by the University of California Press.
    I haven’t read that book and don’t have immediate access to it, but if the quote is actually in there, there’s a good chance it is true.

  135. Steve, your post echoes what I’ve been trying to say to friends (some of whom are quite enthusiastic Democrats) for some time.

    In the medium term, the demographic sea change in this country is going to be a big boost for Democrats nationally, as it has here in California. We read all the time about how Pete Wilson and his Prop 187 “made California Blue.” In reality, had the demographics of California remained as they were in 1970 (the year I was born), I do not think that the Democrats would have carried California in all but a couple of the elections since. It’s true that the white population is becoming more “liberal” (envirnomental and same sex rights issues are really at the core), but they still give an edge to the Republicans.

    As the nation becomes more Latino and Asian (the black percentage is pretty flat), this will in the coming years push certain constituencies from purple to blue, and others from red to purple.

    But in the long run, as Lee Kwan Yew famously said in his interview in Der Spiegel, people will ALWAYS eventually vote their own ethnic interests when a society becomes really, truly “multicultural.” Why should America be any different?

    And when this happens, well, what on earth do Latinos, blacks, and Asians have as common interests politically? Nothing.

    The Democratic party in 50 years is not going to exist in its current form. They are not going to be able to convince blacks for much longer, for example, that open borders do not harm their economic interests. They will not be able to keep Asians in a coalition that demands affirmative action (at their expense) or taxes to pay for services for people who fail to work in school.

    When that rupture comes, it is going to be ugly.

    • Replies: @AM

    When that rupture comes, it is going to be ugly.
     
    Yes, agreed. I suspect the rupture actually happens with the money musical chairs stops.
  136. @Felix...

    A 1 pt boost in the white share of the GOP has a bigger boost to the party than 5 pts from hispanics or 10 from Asians. And it is a far easier goal.

    We may not even need to do anything to get our 1 or 2 point white vote boost per cycle, with BLM and SJW white hate becoming more prevalent and obvious each year.
     

    Yes, but each year that ratio becomes less and less favorable. Furthermore, what is a trickle of erosion now will shortly become a flood when the massive, overwhelmingly white baby boomer generation begins to kick the bucket and unmasks what the last 50 years of demographic change have wrought on succeeding generations. This is not some distant future, this is the next couple of presidential elections. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing, and the landing is yet to come when the boomers die. This is doubly true for states like Texas where white births have long accounted for less than a third of total births and which are like demographic dead men walking.
    _________
    I doubt the coalition of the fringes will fracture. Not only are there massive, powerful forces at the very top hard at work to make sure it doesn't happen, but there is a bottom-up logic to the PoC remaining cohesive as well. Whites will maintain their plurality for decades after they lose outright majority, so the "people of color" need each other to assert political dominance, and we all know they want to assert political dominance. I'm sure the blacks would prefer to get all the spoils, but they'll settle for sharing them with the Hispanics and Asians because without their help in outvoting increasingly racially conscious whites they'll get no spoils at all. They're not that stupid (I think).

    It's also very unlikely a member of the coalition will break away to ally with whites against the remainder of the coalition for the simple reason that whites have all the goodies so what would be the point? To put it crudely, whites have all the blonde bimbos and the PoC want those bimbos. There is nothing the blacks have that that the Asians want, or that the Asians have that the Hispanics want. Or maybe there is, but it pales into insignificance compared to what whites have that the Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics want and if they have to hold their noses and work together to take it, they will.

    But what “spoils” do Asians and middle to upper class Hispanics want? They want the same thing that the average white voters want, with maybe universal health care thrown in. Those two groups live mixed among the native population and want good schools, safe streets, etc.

    The existential threats are:

    1. a growing African derived population
    2. hostile Muslims
    3. a large, dumb underclass of any race

  137. @3g4me
    Sorry Steve, not buying it. If only those misguided people would stop pushing identity politics then the flight from White will cease and Jews, Han, Desi, Mestizo, and Negro Americans will all live together in citizenist harmony.

    I repeat: NO. You can call not-A whatever you wish, but it will never actually BE A.

    If only those misguided people would stop pushing identity politics then the flight from White will cease and Jews, Han, Desi, Mestizo, and Negro Americans will all live together in citizenist harmony.

    It’s the real thing…
    In the back of your mind…
    What you’re hoping to find…
    It’s the real thing.

    Created, btw, by Ivy League-schooled, squid-veteran, Episcopalian son of the South (Charleston) horse breeder/racer and conservationist Bill Backer.

    And remember that it was Coke boss J. Paul Austin–Culver-, Phillips-, and Harvard/Harvard Law-educated Georgia boy–who cultivated and championed MLK, civil rights in Georgia, Jimmy Carter, and Fidel. Also Trilateral Commission and CFR member.

    On Backer’s ideas see his book The Care and Feeding of Ideas, available in various places online.

    https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-8129-1969-1

  138. @AM

    You seem to be simply assuming something about one regional subculture in what used to the the U.S.A. is somehow intrinsically more appealing to,
     
    Yes, actually and the Democrats have historically tapped into that. It's not a superiority thing. Republican historically have been a WASP crowd, with certain set of cultural values.

    Logan called it correctly. My culture is normal to me and from it I draw conclusions about "friendly", "weird", etc. My culture is not all that far removed from that sort of South Baptist type in the suits I'm thinking about, but I still find it strange. And from that vantage point, I'm thinking others might also find it off putting.

    Anyway, even if you think all that reasoning is garbage, I'm only pointing out the weather here. Republicans have traditionally attracted native stock (or those native after about 2-3 generations). Democrats attract those off the boat and those who feel disaffected by the native stock.

    "Heck, when I lived in Maine my girlfriend was a Canadienne (she lived in Grand-Sault), and her people were essentailly on the same length as many Southerners: rural, independent folk who liked to hunt and so forth – for that matter, Cajuns are merely displaced Acadians. I genuinely don’t follow you."

    Yes, absolutely. One of the reasons I like visiting Southern mountains is to visit people who are much more like the rural Vermont I remember. (After the great colonization by NYC, they're mostly granolas.)

    However, from the relative viewpoint of the culture I grew up in, they're culture is kind of trashy. My Dad, who is really too much of a redneck, doesn't like to think of himself as being part of that culture. He *sniffs* about rednecks - the man who plays par 3 courses, has maybe owned 3 suits in his life, and loves a T-shirt with a giant angry cat on it. I suspect like many French Canadians who found themselves on this of the border, they were maybe trying to fit in with the local elite, in their own way.

    Until very recently the very rural south was solidly Democrat, which is why there has been so much glee about Democrats Being the Real Racists. Having the Democrats nab some urban elitists from the Republican crowd has a been boon in getting and retaining people like my Dad. The problem is they're losing the working whites who don't have a problem with themselves as they are, who voted Trump.

    My culture is normal to me and from it I draw conclusions about “friendly,” “weird,” etc.

    Everyone does. You know what is normal and friendly to foreigners? Their own countries. You know what is weird to them? America (New England and Appalachia alike). You assumption that third parties are more comfortable with one alien culture (yours) than another just because that alien culture is yours represents unbelievable self-absorption and an unbelievable lack of self-awareness and logic here. All of America is weird to a foreigner. He is no more familiar with one subculture than another. The worlds of Jeff Foxworthy; The Red Green Show (Canadian, but reflective of the rural, northern areas of America, too); Lake Woebegone; and Fast Times at Ridgemont High are all alien to such a person. He may more readily adapt to one than another, depending upon his own origins (a Singaporean used to polyglot megalopolises will probably more readily adjust to Manhattan; a farmer from rural Poland may prefer Nebraska…). He may as easily have exposure to the one via media as the other – indeed, my experience with foreigners is that they more readily associate America with traditional things that would suit the attendees of a show put on by Tim McGraw or Charlie Daniels than they do with such things as lobster pots, skiing in the Green Mountains, bean suppers, Moxie, and the town meetings traditional in your area.

    • Replies: @AM

    All of America is weird to a foreigner. He is no more familiar with one subculture than another.
     
    This is a rather odd assumption, especially given how American movies have been floating around the world.

    He or she will find parts of varying subculture more familiar than another because parts of them will match his own. Some subcultures are also more known for their friendliness to outsiders. Immigrants from urbans tend to immigrate to urban areas, etc.

    He may more readily adapt to one than another, depending upon his own origins
     
    Okay, so you're contradicting yourself here and basically agreeing with me? I appreciate it, but it is odd. ;)

    readily associate America with traditional things that would suit the attendees of a show put on by Tim McGraw or Charlie Daniels than they do with such things as lobster pots, skiing in the Green Mountains, bean suppers, Moxie, and the town meetings traditional in your area.
     
    Right, because country music is surprisingly popular outside the US and nobody except NE Boomers knows what Moxie is.

    That still doesn't translate to political parties and who a foreigner would gravitate to, which is still the Democrats. I forgot which country singer ran recently in NC, but he ran as a Democrat.
  139. RE:Interesting moments in casual anti-Blondism,

    From Vulture’s review of American Assassin:

    Poor Katrina. The girlfriend and momentary fiancée of our hero Mike Rapp, she seals her fate, and his, the moment she blondely waves from the beach in a white bikini and reminds him, “don’t be long.”

    I’m trying to imagine a circumstance where someone would write” the moment she brunettely waves”……

    http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/american-assassin-is-not-a-movie-we-need-right-now.html

  140. Asians and hispanics may not become white, but we’d do better to try to get them (and everyone else) to primarily see themselves as (and try to become) Americans. The ethnic identity politics that drive a lot of politics are godawful for the country, but good for individual politicians and race hustlers.

  141. @Anonymous
    If the election is not in play, always vote third party. Which third party doesn't much matter.

    Or register Democrat and vote for the most extreme idiot on the ticket, then call your reps and sens and tell them you want them to exponential down on the silliest issue in The Current Voting Year.

  142. @Nick Granite
    He missed the most important democrat strategy of them all. Above all else, they assumed (and still do) they could keep their pet demographics poor. Dependency is the key.

    You sound like Thomas Sowell (spits on ground). The house theory hereabouts is that you don’t actually have to do anything to keep blacks and browns poor because IQ and heredity. The Democrats are the ones who understand HBD.

    • Replies: @guest
    Well, poor and dependent aren't synonymous. And they're relative terms, anyway.

    Democrats stole the black vote from the Republican Party under FDR partly through gibsmedats. Prior to the civil rights movement and the Great Society, blacks were relatively better off, less dependent, and better able to fit into American civilization.

    You don't really need to bring HBD into it, because "dependency" was the political strategy for all manner of special groups, many of which included whites. That's what the Welfare State is. It just worked better on blacks, is all.

  143. @Autochthon
    It's all codswallop, of course, but at least Italians and Jews are Mediterranean. "The Irish were not white" canard is beyond tired (and tiresome) – it is downright haggard. Celts were arguably the original white people, from Galatia to Galicia. We not uncommonly have red or blonde hair and green or blue eyes, for God's sake. If Celts were not white until recently, the Han were not Oriental until recently and the Igbo became Negroes last month.

    We not uncommonly have red or blonde hair and green or blue eyes, for God’s sake.

    You stole the red hair from my Neanderthal ancestors, you bog-hopping potato-slurping cabbage-overcooking mackerel-snapping practitioners of Drunken Yoga and the most tediously repetitive musical repertoire this side of klezmer.

    Blue eyes didn’t evolve till recently, and you got those via your great-grandfather slipping mickeys to gals of North Sea ancestry then stealing the offspring and hiding them in Catholic residential schools.

    Also your Celtic ancestry is Indo. Real white people are descended from swans, bears, deer, and mammoths. I myself have both tusks and antlers, in addition to blue eyes and blond hair…though gave up swiping open honey-trees with my hands when I learned I was highly allergic to bee stings.

    However the fact that Irish aren’t white is the only thing Judis gets right in his hilariously dimwitted piece.

    It was also something that P.J. O’Rourke overlooked…for OBVIOUS REASONS.

    Foreigners Around The World by P.J. O’Rourke

    😀

  144. @Frank DeScushin

    In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing.
     
    In 1919 all of the Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, and nearly all Americans were Constitutional originalists. If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.

    Today, however, most Americans, most Congressmen, and most Supreme Court Justices subscribe to the bogus concept they've been raised on that the U.S. Constitution is a living document. Now instead of passing an Amendment to grant a right not listed in the Constitution Supreme Court Justices merely read that new right into the supposedly living document.

    In that way the Constitution is not less flexible, it's far more flexible. That's a bad thing. The Constitution's drafters intended the amendment process to be exceptionally difficult to preserve the integrity of the original Constitution. Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.

    This is a lost battle. Embrace the aftermath. Our job is to get people on the SC who will ignore the constitution in our favor.

  145. @IHTG
    I believe Hispanics whose first language is English are something in the area of 40-60 Republican-Democrat. Not bad!

    I’m guessing it varies by region. In Texas and the SW, I think that it is the dream of many Hispanics to become Texans and assimilate into the mainstream – this has been going on since day 1. You get your cowboy boots and your pickup truck and you are just another Texan. After a couple of generations of intermarriage, some of your grandkids might even have blond hair. Lots of Texas good old boys have vaguely remembered Mexican grandmas somewhere back in the family tree. Maybe you have a fondness for Mexican food the way Italian Americans are fond of Italian food (where is Buffalo Joe, BTW?) but that’s about it.

    But in say, California, you are encouraged from Day 1 to retain your Hispanic identity and become a professional Hispanic if you can – you keep pronouncing your name in the Spanish way, you get a gig at some non-profit as a grievance monger, you join La Raza, etc.

  146. @Boethiuss
    Yeah, yeah yeah we all know that the Coalition of the Fringes are a bunch of flakes.

    What I didn't appreciate until Trump was inaugurated is that our side, call it the Coalition of the Core, is just as flaky. As things stand there's three main demographic power centers for us: the populists, the conservatives, and the Main Street business interests/donors.

    This ought to be a winning coalition, but it's not. For reasons I find very difficult to fathom, there is an insatiable appetite among our three factions (as I have laid them out) to denigrate the other factions and instigate conflict between them. And typically, those who are doing the most infighting, are also likely to be bitching the loudest about how woeful it is if the other side takes over.

    I'm not getting it. It is our coalition which, at least in theory, protects us and gives us strength, why are we gratuitously trashing it?

    What I didn’t appreciate until Trump was inaugurated is that our side, call it the Coalition of the Core, is just as flaky. As things stand there’s three main demographic power centers for us: the populists, the conservatives, and the Main Street business interests/donors.

    …….

    I’m not getting it. It is our coalition which, at least in theory, protects us and gives us strength, why are we gratuitously trashing it?

    I’m not sure if you’re joking or just shilling. It’s not a coalition if one faction sees and uses the others as cheap cannon fodder and to be used and given nothing in return. Hell, I’d settle for having “business interests/donors” merely not actively working towards our destruction. They are “us” the same way a cancer is “us”: not because we want them or because they are beneficial, but because they are a scourge we can’t root out.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss


    I’m not sure if you’re joking or just shilling. It’s not a coalition if one faction sees and uses the others as cheap cannon fodder and to be used and given nothing in return. Hell, I’d settle for having “business interests/donors” merely not actively working towards our destruction. They are “us” the same way a cancer is “us”: not because we want them or because they are beneficial, but because they are a scourge we can’t root out.
     
    Right. If I were a disloyal idiot, that's exactly what I would say.

    There's a lot of working Americans, most of them probably, who want to have a fairly well-defined set of responsibilities, and get paid for doing them every week or two. The responsibilities can be easy or difficult, and the wages might be low or high, but that's the basic structure of employment.

    That means there have to be employers to hire them, who have the financial and organizational capital to make it work. And when this breaks down, like all the way back in the mists of time like 2009 or 2010, we get lots of unemployment and other kinds of social disharmony. This is not a good thing.

    But frankly, this is all ancillary anyway. A more immediate concern is that we are not strong enough to degrade the strength of our coalition without having it bite us in the ass, which is exactly what is going on now.

    For example, let's stipulate that that the Obama-era DACA policy should be reversed, something that most of us here would likely accept. Donald Trump has half-heartedly tried to do this, but is likely going to end up trading this away in some kind of deal, in a situation where his own party controls both houses of Congress. This is because the beneficiaries of DACA are sympathetic, therefore DACA is popular, and our coalition is hanging by a thread, and therefore isn't strong enough to see it through.

    Do you suppose that the various court rulings in favor of homosexuality were popular, or the Dep't of Education Dear Colleague letters about transgenders? Of course not. They worked because the powers that mandated them were entrenched, and the opponents had no recourse to oppose them.

    The things that people here want done require a long haul, specifically they require the perception of inevitability and the futility of opposition. The Republican Party is the means of accomplishing this. Anything that weakens the Republican Party moves us further away from our goals, not closer.
  147. @AB-

    One of the reasons why the Democrats won’t renounce their Coalition of the Fringes formula is that they are convinced that it is going to start working again REAL SOON (as soon as they get a candidate whose initial are not HRC). Maybe they are wrong but maybe not. In big cities this formula has been working great for the last 70 years and shows every sign of working forever.
     
    About 70 years ago is when white conversatives starting leaving the big cities; they got replaced by feral and semi-feral minorities that like getting free shit from the rest of us.

    I don't see today's whites leaving the country, they'll fight for it...leaving NYC or Detroit was easy and smart.

    I don’t see today’s whites leaving the country,

    I wonder. There’s nothing wrong with Argentina that a massive influx of English-speaking Northern Europeans couldn’t fix. For example. It’s cool to go live in Portland. Why shouldn’t it become cool to go live in Buenos Aires? You know for not-even-slightly-racist, I-hate-America, fully multicultural reasons.

  148. @Tim Howells
    OT: From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

    Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection

    http://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9314.full.pdf

    Un-f’ing believable. It really has come to this. Just drug ’em.

  149. @Barnard
    Right, WASPs might have looked down on them, but there isn't a Census in the history of the United States where they aren't counted as white.

    Has there ever been a case of a couple charged for violating anti-miscegenation laws which involved an Irish or Italian being treated as a non-White? I am not aware of any.

  150. Seriously, the reason why the Democrats’ KKKrazy Glue plan to demonize whites as Ku Klux Klanners and Nazis might not work in attracting Asian and Latino enthusiasm is because there is this other group who sees themselves as the rightful owners of the Democratic Party: blacks.

    Another very astute observation Steve! The leftists are as much backed into a corner as the deplorables. They cannot pivot away from Africans because the Africans will burn their own cities if their demands aren’t met.

    The only peaceful solution seems like reparations and repatriation. No way do deplorables, mestizos, and asians allow total African control and no way do Africans accept less than that. It remains to be seen if deplorables, mestizos, and asians can live harmoniously absent Africans, but it’s pretty irrefutable at this point that nobody can live harmoniously with Africans.

  151. @Clyde
    100% off topic:

    Great National Geographic article on orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra. Lots on their mating and how the orangutans on each island differ in their mating strategies. Orangutans are similar enough to us that human pregnancy tests can be used on them. Material here on their R and K reproductive strategies. _____ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/12/orangutans-behaviors-borneo-sumatra/

    Orangutans are under pressure from poachers who steal their young to sell on the pet market. They kill the mother to make it easier to take her baby orangutan. What a shame!

    “They kill the mother to make it easier to take her baby orangutan.”

    There is a special place in Hell for those folks

  152. @Jim Don Bob

    Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.
     
    Congress can rein in SCOTUS anytime it wants to: Article 3, Section 2: 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    But, yeah. You're right.

    Congress can regulate original jurisdiction, but you may have noticed SCOTUS retains appellate jurisdiction. That never goes away.

    So they have to wait a bit. Big deal. They render their decision eventually, it becomes Almighty Precedent.

    Congress has rubber band reins at best. They snap when the judiciary pulls sufficiently hard.

  153. @Bill
    You sound like Thomas Sowell (spits on ground). The house theory hereabouts is that you don't actually have to do anything to keep blacks and browns poor because IQ and heredity. The Democrats are the ones who understand HBD.

    Well, poor and dependent aren’t synonymous. And they’re relative terms, anyway.

    Democrats stole the black vote from the Republican Party under FDR partly through gibsmedats. Prior to the civil rights movement and the Great Society, blacks were relatively better off, less dependent, and better able to fit into American civilization.

    You don’t really need to bring HBD into it, because “dependency” was the political strategy for all manner of special groups, many of which included whites. That’s what the Welfare State is. It just worked better on blacks, is all.

  154. @Seth Largo
    If you want to win elections for small government, though, you really shouldn't alienate that important 30% of Hispanics (and Asians) that have assimilated to a right-ish American norm. And a tweet like that would certainly alienate them.

    About 30% of Hispanics and Asians vote Right. Trump was a great test. If that 30% stat held even for HIM, you know there's a non-trivial right-leaning impulse among Hispanics and Asians. Here's how that plays out by 2065:

    Whites: 45% of population.
    Hispanics: 24%
    Asians: 14%
    Black: 13%
    Other: 3%

    Say whites split 60/40 in an election for the Right candidate*: 27%
    30/70 Hispanic: 7%
    30/70 Asian: 4%
    10/90 Black: 1%
    Other: 1%

    So, going by today's trends, future Right candidates will get ~40% of the vote in a majority-minority country. That means they lose, of course, but not by impossible landslides. The question becomes: Between now and 2065, how do you package The Right in a way that appeals to just another ~5% of whites, ~3% of Asians, and ~3% of Hispanics? You get those tiny percentages to switch teams and the Right survives just fine.

    So what's your plan?

    *I'm assuming here a consolidation of white identity politics by 2065: a big and probably wrongheaded assumption, of course. If whites are voting Left in huge numbers in 2065, my numbers go out the window. But that's the fault of whites---you can't blame the changing demographics.

    And a tweet like that would certainly alienate them.

    I don’t especially care.

    So what’s your plan?

    I’m a White Nationalist who endorses the ‘They have to go back’ plank — ‘BAMN’ — that’s my plan — in this I am thinking mostly of the future of white children.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You mean, you're someone who embraces defeat because that's where your purity spiral is going to lead you. Have fun.
  155. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Judis focuses on mixed-raced people.

    But the main boon to GOP may be that more whites will turn to GOP as diversity rises.

    That will be more significant.

    Be that as it may, if Trump does little about immigration, then GOP should just fold its tent, everyone should become Democratic and work to bring down the elites.

  156. More hatefacts — this time from St Louis.

  157. @AndrewR
    While many on the right and left want to make white vs non-white the primary racial fault line in this country, as it's been pointed out, in reality the real fault line is black vs non-black. We see this over and over.

    So you’re fine with MS13 operating in America? Or Guatemalan Indios who don’t even speak Spanish (only whatever Mayan language)? Or the Chinese doing to Californian cities what they’ve done to Hongcouver Vancouver?

    • Troll: AndrewR
  158. @Andrew
    "Are we certain that Judis is sincere?"

    Judis is sincere. My mother said the same thing to me 30 years ago as well. As the percent of white people shrink, white looking/successful Asians and Hispanics will become white via intermarriage with and incorporation into the general white population. The people who ghettoize themselves in those populations will in the meantime become poorer and ever more like blacks.

    Look at the small scale of your personal friends and I'm sure you already see many white-Asian and white-Latino mixed couples. When their kids marry, chances are it will be to a white person, and so on, and thus their blood will dilute. It's an open question what a white kid who is 1/4 or 1/8 Chinese will think he is or what his politics will be, but I'd bet on Asian blood becoming an exotic marker of pride like being part Cherokee, instead of it being divisive and separating that person from the people.

    Also not discussed is ongoing changes in the internal composition of the white population. Gen X and Millenial liberal whites are marrying much later and having fewer kids. Where a conservative couple might marry in their 20's and have 3 kids by 30, liberals are waiting until late 30's or early 40's to have 1 or 2 kids. The conservatives will have 3 generations in the time the liberals have 2. And that's the liberals who breed. Many more in the cities today are not marrying and are going childless. Then there is the differential toll taken by the abortion industry and homosexual identity. The future (eventually) belongs to those who show up.

    The most right wing section of the population is late Boomers and early Gen X (born 1954 to 1976), while the older boomers are highly liberal and late Silents are moderate. As the latter two groups start passing in major numbers and are replaced by Gen Z, the white electorate will actually tilt further to the right over the next 20 years.

    Look at the small scale of your personal friends and I’m sure you already see many white-Asian and white-Latino mixed couples.

    Nope. My personal circle is pretty much all white, save for one who’s part Tlingit. But then, I live in the frozen north. (And much of our Asians are Hmong.)

  159. @AndrewR
    While many on the right and left want to make white vs non-white the primary racial fault line in this country, as it's been pointed out, in reality the real fault line is black vs non-black. We see this over and over.

    This actually follows the genetics as all non-blacks are more closely related to each other than to blacks.

  160. @Anonymous
    If the election is not in play, always vote third party. Which third party doesn't much matter.

    That is generally what I do. I admit that I made an exception and voted for Kamala Harris in her election against Loretta Sanchez.
    1. Kamala had to bang Willie Brown to get her break in politics so I actually felt sorry for her.( yes I know, there goes that suicidal White empathy for people outside our tribe at work again.)
    2. Having met Sanchez, I knew how bone-deep dim she is so we could at least spare California being embarrassed by another Boxer level intellect as Senator. She was too dumb to even figure out that she was being set up as a patsy to take a dive for the Inner Party’s Designated Next Senator.
    3. It would be nice to see Harris take the next step to being the Dem candidate for President. She is not as dim as Sanchez, but is still too dim to mask her snarling hostility toward White Goyim, and therefore would give some sort of a Republican a chance at winning. (Admittedly, not that that does us a whole lot of good, but it marginally is better to have any member of the Stupid Party in the White House as opposed to any member of the Crazy Party).

  161. @AB-

    One of the reasons why the Democrats won’t renounce their Coalition of the Fringes formula is that they are convinced that it is going to start working again REAL SOON (as soon as they get a candidate whose initial are not HRC). Maybe they are wrong but maybe not. In big cities this formula has been working great for the last 70 years and shows every sign of working forever.
     
    About 70 years ago is when white conversatives starting leaving the big cities; they got replaced by feral and semi-feral minorities that like getting free shit from the rest of us.

    I don't see today's whites leaving the country, they'll fight for it...leaving NYC or Detroit was easy and smart.

    I think whites concentrate in majority white areas of the country. Property in Boise and Salt Lake City is a buy.

  162. @AM

    The most right wing section of the population is late Boomers and early Gen X (born 1954 to 1976), while the older boomers are highly liberal and late Silents are moderate.
     
    Somewhere, though, I think is a section of highly liberal late Boomers. My early Boomer Dad is in some ways much more conservative than my mid-late Boomer aunt. The people spitting on returning Vietnam vets were younger those going, all of whom are Boomers.

    That said, I'm sure both my Aunt and Dad voted Clinton and I know myself to be much further right. My sister is pretty well infected with feminism which makes her center left.

    As the latter two groups start passing in major numbers and are replaced by Gen Z, the white electorate will actually tilt further to the right over the next 20 years.
     
    This I agree with and in part, it's hard to see how we can go further left without just throwing in the towel and trying communism again.

    This I agree with and in part, it’s hard to see how we can go further left without just throwing in the towel and trying communism again.

    How about continuing to double down on the “white privilege”, LGBTQWERTY, and all the rest? The courts officially deciding “hate speech” isn’t protected by the First Amendment? Homescooling being banned so that parents cannot opt out of the “teaching kindergardeners about trannies” and such? Using housing vouchers to “diversify” any neighborhood too white? Making family formation for whites even more unaffordable? Continuing the project of making “racists” and other Deplorables unemployable, with the ultimate end of turning any and all crimethinkers into Dalit- or Burakumin-style Untouchables? Forbidding any sort of government assistance, or possibly even Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/etc. to anyone who’s ever been guilty of “hate”? Continuing to push all the Title IX kangaroo courts, “affirmative consent”, “listen and believe” nonsense on all college campuses until heterosexual male sexuality is basically forbidden? More demands for “minority representation” in even medium-sized businesses? There’s all kinds of ways they can keep pushing the Religion of Equality beyond old-school socialist redistribution.

  163. @Autochthon

    My culture is normal to me and from it I draw conclusions about “friendly,” “weird,” etc.
     
    Everyone does. You know what is normal and friendly to foreigners? Their own countries. You know what is weird to them? America (New England and Appalachia alike). You assumption that third parties are more comfortable with one alien culture (yours) than another just because that alien culture is yours represents unbelievable self-absorption and an unbelievable lack of self-awareness and logic here. All of America is weird to a foreigner. He is no more familiar with one subculture than another. The worlds of Jeff Foxworthy; The Red Green Show (Canadian, but reflective of the rural, northern areas of America, too); Lake Woebegone; and Fast Times at Ridgemont High are all alien to such a person. He may more readily adapt to one than another, depending upon his own origins (a Singaporean used to polyglot megalopolises will probably more readily adjust to Manhattan; a farmer from rural Poland may prefer Nebraska...). He may as easily have exposure to the one via media as the other – indeed, my experience with foreigners is that they more readily associate America with traditional things that would suit the attendees of a show put on by Tim McGraw or Charlie Daniels than they do with such things as lobster pots, skiing in the Green Mountains, bean suppers, Moxie, and the town meetings traditional in your area.

    All of America is weird to a foreigner. He is no more familiar with one subculture than another.

    This is a rather odd assumption, especially given how American movies have been floating around the world.

    He or she will find parts of varying subculture more familiar than another because parts of them will match his own. Some subcultures are also more known for their friendliness to outsiders. Immigrants from urbans tend to immigrate to urban areas, etc.

    He may more readily adapt to one than another, depending upon his own origins

    Okay, so you’re contradicting yourself here and basically agreeing with me? I appreciate it, but it is odd. 😉

    readily associate America with traditional things that would suit the attendees of a show put on by Tim McGraw or Charlie Daniels than they do with such things as lobster pots, skiing in the Green Mountains, bean suppers, Moxie, and the town meetings traditional in your area.

    Right, because country music is surprisingly popular outside the US and nobody except NE Boomers knows what Moxie is.

    That still doesn’t translate to political parties and who a foreigner would gravitate to, which is still the Democrats. I forgot which country singer ran recently in NC, but he ran as a Democrat.

    • Replies: @Autochthon

    This is a rather odd assumption, especially given how American movies have been floating around the world.
     
    I reckon foreigners don't go to the movies as often as you might think.
  164. @DWB
    Steve, your post echoes what I've been trying to say to friends (some of whom are quite enthusiastic Democrats) for some time.

    In the medium term, the demographic sea change in this country is going to be a big boost for Democrats nationally, as it has here in California. We read all the time about how Pete Wilson and his Prop 187 "made California Blue." In reality, had the demographics of California remained as they were in 1970 (the year I was born), I do not think that the Democrats would have carried California in all but a couple of the elections since. It's true that the white population is becoming more "liberal" (envirnomental and same sex rights issues are really at the core), but they still give an edge to the Republicans.

    As the nation becomes more Latino and Asian (the black percentage is pretty flat), this will in the coming years push certain constituencies from purple to blue, and others from red to purple.

    But in the long run, as Lee Kwan Yew famously said in his interview in Der Spiegel, people will ALWAYS eventually vote their own ethnic interests when a society becomes really, truly "multicultural." Why should America be any different?

    And when this happens, well, what on earth do Latinos, blacks, and Asians have as common interests politically? Nothing.

    The Democratic party in 50 years is not going to exist in its current form. They are not going to be able to convince blacks for much longer, for example, that open borders do not harm their economic interests. They will not be able to keep Asians in a coalition that demands affirmative action (at their expense) or taxes to pay for services for people who fail to work in school.

    When that rupture comes, it is going to be ugly.

    When that rupture comes, it is going to be ugly.

    Yes, agreed. I suspect the rupture actually happens with the money musical chairs stops.

  165. @Hellfireclub
    Pretty sure that Judis is trying to prevent or at least slow down the white backlash that has begun by lying about what he really thinks:

    Not much of a backlash. A large number of white Americans are totally on board with the hate whitey meme and worship at the altar of multiculturalism.

    I do not see the braindead white faction as capable of defending themselves or the civilization their ancestors created.

    If tomorrow 95% 0f the black population supported a referendum to confiscate white families’ wealth, I believe a significant number of white people would sign the referendum.

    Braindead white liberals will never fight for their civilization.

    • Replies: @Anon

    If tomorrow 95% 0f the black population supported a referendum to confiscate white families’ wealth, I believe a significant number of white people would sign the referendum.
     
    It's already underway. Smithsonian Magazine: " How the Federal Government Intentionally Racially Segregated American Cities "

    the entirety of the difference in wealth between white and black families is due to federal housing policy.
     
    https://chuck.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-federal-government-intentionally-racially-segregated-american-cities-180963494/?preview
  166. @AM

    Whites in Mississippi vote mostly Republican and whites in Vermont vote mostly Democratic.
     
    This is brand new, as of the 1960's in Vermont. Until then, VT was so reliably Republican it voted against FDR's second term.

    Two things have happened. Vermont had a reasonably large influx of French Canadians. In the 1960's they caught whatever was in the water and basically into turn secular, liberal socialists like their cousins north of the border. The Congregationalist natives also seem to have been infected by the same disease, although less pronounced.

    The other issue with VT has been a slow 1:1 replacement of conservative, poor rural mountain natives with liberal urbanites with outside income. Almost every VT politician within my lifetime are actually transplants, predominately from the NYC area. Before we left, I joked that the best place to hold the Vermont Republican conference is Florida. That's still largely true today, although you might need to split it between there and NC.

    If you ever scratch your head at VT's "rural" politics, think NYC's 6th borough with less traffic and more ski areas and the place makes much more sense. Much of the divide within white politics quite often comes down to city versus country/suburban. VT ironically seems to highlight the point.

    In Massachusetts and Rhode Island French Canadians seem to be still relatively conservative – obviously both states are Democratic strongholds and that applies to the French as much as to any other group, but they are rarely in the left-wing vanguard.

    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    Relatively conservative--true. Like working-class Italians in that respect.
  167. @Chrisnonymous
    His whole re-evaluation relies on the following:

    Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice.
     
    Which is BS. Non-whites can identify as white only as long as that BS is maintained and "whiteness" is defined in SWPL terms--Patagonia jackets, artisanal sandwiches, and tolerance.

    I used to work with an Asian who grew up in the US. As long as conversations revolved around watching Family Guy, the US was a great place he wanted to get back to. As soon as the conversation became about anything connected to European civilization or politics, the US was full of horrible racists. He could be modern, global, ironic, cool, but he knew he wasn't really white.

    There will be no "inclusively white identity politics" of the future. There is a chance for a coalition politics if Asians can figure out that NAMs degrade their quality of life in the long run. However, if people like Yan Shen keep virtue signaling by promoting the idea that Asians are better whites than whites are because of their superior tolerance and embrace of diversity, that is unlikely to happen. Yan Shen won't bring any Asians into a citizenist camp--he's keeping them out by promoting the fiction that Goodwhites are better people.

    Citizenism isn't tolerance-in-place-of-separatism, it's paternalism-in-place-of-separatism. There's a big difference, and if Asians can get paternalistic, maybe we can have a coalition politics based on having Patagonia jackets and artisanal sandwiches without tolerance.

    “I used to work with an Asian who grew up in the US. … but he knew he wasn’t really white”. — Chrisnonymous

    Me too, I used to work with a Japanese-American guy who grew up here but knew he wasn’t white, but that was, let’s see, about 50-60 years ago. Japanese-Americans today, they know that they’re White. However, there are certainly recidivist white gangs, like black gangs too, who could use the Japanese thing as an excuse for gratuitous bullying or worse. Also, Japanese-Americans know that their non-whiteness may be valuable in such matters as university admissions.

    Going back that 50-60 years, I made a remark during a conversation at work, about I don”t remember what, to this effect: “Who cares if we’re talking about Japanese or Chinese? They’re basically the same, aren’t they?” (I guess maybe I was thinking from a Korean POV!) Well, it was weeks before t he Japanese-American guy would even speak to me, although during that time I became friends with another co-worker, a Chinese guy from Hong Kong who must have known that he wasn’t English, but who didn’t seem to be concerned about race or color at all.

    Here are some further points relating to “whiteness”:

    1. When the Portuguese, as the first Europeans to arrive en masse, entered northeast Asia from around the Cape of Good Hope and the Straights of Malacca, they identified the locals as white. There is this thing, you know, called the olive skin-tone, which might be applied to the Portuguese themselves, who nonetheless are considered by the Census to be white, they are not even Hispanic — of course, if Portugal means anything, it’s that they are not part of Spain!

    2. Back during the first Bush administration (Bush I), I believe, I read somewhere like in the New Yorker about a Saudi Arab who wrote of his experience on a plane coming for the first time to America. He relates how surprised — even shocked — he was, when he opened his USA visa, for the first time, to discover that he was “white”. I have always seen that as a simple calculation that was made by DoS that any people that control that much oil … well, they must be white, d’ja think?

    3. On the other hand, in post-colonial Africa, where many countries refuse(d) to allow whites to work, but where there are no qualified blacks to fill many needed specialties, Lebanese have filled the breech … so apparently the “olive skin-tone” thing can work two ways, at least sometimes, if it is useful.

    4. Ben Franklin, we know, wrote of the German immigrants that they weren’t white.

    5. A Filipino businessman, back around 1970, told me how in Tennessee where he was attending Vanderbilt back in the 1950s, he was never considered to be white, even though he was 100% Spanish derived. To me, he looked white and I told him so. He said, embarrassed in a way, “Yeah, I know.”

    6. Another guy I know who even has “native Alaskan” privileges and grew up in a native village in southeast Alaska before he escaped to Anchorage, told me that he was cruelly persecuted in that village because he had maybe half Russian blood, so he was way too white. A friend, I totally took him at his word.

    7. I have witnessed terrible treatment, really atrocities, of some whites by other whites just as much as I know of terrible what should, if we would be consistent, have to be identified as ‘hate-crime’ atrocities perpetrated upon innocent white children by ghetto blacks.

    8. On the other hand, I know blacks who want no part of the ‘black’ thing and reuse to buy in. I am certain that it’s possible, if difficult, for blacks and whites to be friends.

    9. On the other hand, I know of a case of a youth gang who manipulated big-city cops to bring charges against white outsiders, and when it came time for Discovery prior to trial, everyone was surprised that all of the gang identified as “black” – probably to collect statutory — what else can we call it? — black privileges. None of them looked black, at least not significantly.

    I could go on and on, but the point is clear: a lot of this black-white stuff, now in America, in the third millennium, it’s just bogus BS. Corollary: there is great discretion available to many, if not all, Americans as to if and how much they call themselves “white” … or “black” … or whatever. That’s a fact even though it has been denied in some of the comments here in this comment-stream.

  168. @Jason Liu
    Latinos, Middle Easterners, and some South Asians might turn white, but East Asians are too physically different to be considered white, unless what they mean by white is anyone who isn't a professional victim class.

    Judis is making the same error as mainstream leftists in assuming that all immigrants will assimilate into whiteness the same way Irish and Italians did. It completely disregards phenotypical differences--a form of willful ignorance.

    Here's a better reason why the leftist coalition won't hold. If there are enough minorities to form a collective majority, then there are enough minorities to split off into different, competing tribal groups. Societies without a clear majority have always fractured this way, thus far there is no reason to believe America will be any different.

    I look forward to competing with other minority groups. It's the weakest groups that try to find security by banding together and advocating "everyone vs the whites". This is because they know their group can't climb the social ladder by themselves. It's time to learn.

    Actually East Asians are quite close to Europeans. Read Cavalli-Sforza. He likens the major races to your hand. The four major non-African races are the fingers and the Africans are the thumb. That is to say East Asians, Amerindians, Caucasians and Pacific populations are quite close while the Africans from who we descended are rather different.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Read Cavalli-Sforza. He likens the major races to your hand. The four major non-African races are the fingers and the Africans are the thumb."

    That was the single biggest difference between Carlton Coon in 1965 and Cavalli-Sforza in 1994: Coon assumed based on skull shapes and other macro evidence that Europeans were more closely related to sub-Saharans than to East Asians. Three decades later, that no longer seemed plausible.
    , @Grandpa Charlie

    "Actually East Asians are quite close to Europeans. Read Cavalli-Sforza." -- Pat Boyle
     
    Thank you for the reference to Cavalli-Sforza! I'm so old that I am probably still going by Carlton Coons' The Origin of Races. BTW: even back then Coons, despite that he has been denigrated as a racist or whatever, he was of the same general opinion as Cavalli-Sforza (according to Wikipedia), that the very term "race" is misleading or useless -- or anyway of no use to an anthropologist. Coons thought in terms of species differentiation, with a true subspecies (if any) consisting of steps along the way to formation of a new species. He figured that one of the few such phenomena was that of Rh- blood type, which he thought maybe had some survival value related to malaria -- he associated it with, I think, the Dravidian population of south India.

    BTW: do you mean that the "Africans from who(m) we descended are rather different" from us, as in contemporary Africans, or, do you mean that the Africans from whom we descended were different even back then (like 100,000 years ago) when our ancestors left Africa ... like Mencken's idea that people who choose to go out and explore are self-selecting into very different (genetically superior) group(s) than the ones who stayed behind?
  169. @anon
    I can see it. White = not Black. Diversity = immigrants. Who can be White enough. A city can function with a lot of diversity but not a lot of blacks.

    Eastern cities definitely prefer immigrants to a higher concentration of blacks. Maybe even blacks prefer diversity. They don't want to live in Detroit either.

    If this is indeed what is going on, then there needs to be more emphasis on excluding Haitians and the least functional immigrants.

    I seriously doubt if European census figures bothered enumerating Whites -- until recently. Why would they bother.

    It’s hard to imagine a positive future for American blacks. If you peruse the popular fiction of the forties in America there were many stories and articles taking a pro-black stance. Liberals wrote articles about how some blacks were being badly treated in the deep South.

    Those articles were probably true.

    But today the public has just about exhausted its sympathy for black causes. MLK was recruited to engage in a Gandhi-like non-violent crusade wrapped in a layer of Christianity. But Christianity has diminished in its power over the public and blacks now mean mindless violence not peaceable lunch counter sit-ins.

    White people are now afraid of blacks. They see the “knock-out game” on TV now – not Bull Connor loosing the dogs and fire hoses on those sweet peaceable negroes. Sidney Poitier, the black moral superman, has been replaced by Django – the avenging pistolero who kills whites for pleasure.

    If we all go to the barricades as the blacks seem to want – who will sympathize? Blacks seem to be content to be a permanent parasite race living on the largess of the hated whites. Hispanics and East Asians – the most numerous and the most successful of our minorities – are not natural allies of blacks. Blacks look to be on a death march from which they do not see a reason to slow down or veer away.

  170. @AM

    All of America is weird to a foreigner. He is no more familiar with one subculture than another.
     
    This is a rather odd assumption, especially given how American movies have been floating around the world.

    He or she will find parts of varying subculture more familiar than another because parts of them will match his own. Some subcultures are also more known for their friendliness to outsiders. Immigrants from urbans tend to immigrate to urban areas, etc.

    He may more readily adapt to one than another, depending upon his own origins
     
    Okay, so you're contradicting yourself here and basically agreeing with me? I appreciate it, but it is odd. ;)

    readily associate America with traditional things that would suit the attendees of a show put on by Tim McGraw or Charlie Daniels than they do with such things as lobster pots, skiing in the Green Mountains, bean suppers, Moxie, and the town meetings traditional in your area.
     
    Right, because country music is surprisingly popular outside the US and nobody except NE Boomers knows what Moxie is.

    That still doesn't translate to political parties and who a foreigner would gravitate to, which is still the Democrats. I forgot which country singer ran recently in NC, but he ran as a Democrat.

    This is a rather odd assumption, especially given how American movies have been floating around the world.

    I reckon foreigners don’t go to the movies as often as you might think.

  171. @Hockamaw
    Truman anecdote I heard somewhere or other: A (jewish) reporter or biographer or somebody was shadowing Truman in Missouri for a story. Truman is in his golden years now and he driving this guy around the small Missouri town he lives in and is telling this guy just about his life generally. Then, they pull up in front of Truman's house, and Truman says, "Sir, this is where I live and I would invite you inside but this is Mrs. Truman's house, and she has never allowed anyone of the Hebrew extraction under her roof, and she never will."

    I’ve heard that story before, but I don’t know if it’s true. Apparently David Susskind interviewed ex-President Truman on his porch. Truman supposedly told Susskind that his wife would never let him bring a Jew in the house.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I really doubt this because Truman's army buddy/business partner/close friend was Eddie Jacobson.
  172. Blacks tend to feel that they deserve for the Democratic Party to be, first and foremost, the Black Party and everybody else needs to ride in the back of the bus.

    Speaking of which, how many Democratic House seats and presidential electors in the 19th century can be attributed to the inflation of their representation of the three-fifths rule?

    The blackest states in the south in 1852 had twice as many electors per voter than did the northern states with the same number of districts:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1852#Results_by_state

    On the other hand, America was getting whiter in 1860, which, according to the NY Times, made things look dark for the South:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1860/04/05/news/census-1860-population-effect-representation-free-slave-states.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=1

  173. @Frank DeScushin

    In 1919 they were passing Constitutional amendments like they were going out of style. Would we even be capable of passing one right now? Nobody seems even want to open up that can of worms, which suggests the flexibility of the Constitution has already gone missing.
     
    In 1919 all of the Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, and nearly all Americans were Constitutional originalists. If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.

    Today, however, most Americans, most Congressmen, and most Supreme Court Justices subscribe to the bogus concept they've been raised on that the U.S. Constitution is a living document. Now instead of passing an Amendment to grant a right not listed in the Constitution Supreme Court Justices merely read that new right into the supposedly living document.

    In that way the Constitution is not less flexible, it's far more flexible. That's a bad thing. The Constitution's drafters intended the amendment process to be exceptionally difficult to preserve the integrity of the original Constitution. Now five Justices merely read their political leanings into the Constitution and that becomes legal precedent that Congress and Americans must follow.

    If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.

    Hardly:

    http://www.history.com/news/the-state-where-women-voted-long-before-the-19th-amendment

    15 states had full suffrage for women before 1920.

    There was also partial suffrage. Twice as many votes were cast for presidential electors than for governor in Illinois in 1916; the difference was that women could vote for the former.

    They couldn’t, however, vote for alderman. Some offices are just too sacrosanct.

    • Replies: @Frank DeScushin
    Absolutely nothing you wrote counters my point. Sure various states had extended women the write to vote before the Federal Government did, but when the Federal Government extended women the right to vote they did so by amending the Constitution. The Right for women to vote in Federal elections was not achieved by Justices reading that right into the Consitution under a living document theory.
  174. Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin

    Why do I always think of Jubilation T Cornpone when I hear that name?

    Of course, as 21st Century Schizoid Man progresses, it will soon be Jubilation T Cornhole.

  175. @Arclight
    The key is not to be apologetic - no one respects someone who hangs their head or is always ready to defer to whoever speaks the loudest. This is what whites on the left are all about and it's why identity politics picked up so much steam.

    If the right wants to attract Hispanics and Asians to their side, they can't be bashful about talking about the superiority of the culture they want to preserve and ideas behind it. Act like winners, not like less committed Democrats.

    You got it. Everyone loves a winner.

    For example, in the late 20th Century, Moslem fundamentalism gathered steam as the West was seen as weak. This was a change from Moslem behavior in the late 19th and early to mid-20th Centuries, when middle and upper class Moslems willingly imitated the West. Everybody loves a winner. So, act like one.

  176. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Seriously, the reason why the Democrats’ KKKrazy Glue plan to demonize whites as Ku Klux Klanners and Nazis might not work in attracting Asian and Latino enthusiasm is because there is this other group who sees themselves as the rightful owners of the Democratic Party: blacks.

    Not quite. Asian small businessmen may not like black behavior, but their businesses depend on government pouring welfare into black communities. So, they might vote Dem on that issue. Also, they want more of their relatives to come over.

    Furthermore, while immigrant Asians(like Ferguson store owner) may work directly with troublesome blacks in bad areas, their kids will likely go to good college, and come under PC. And then, their kids will have no direct experience with bad blacks as they grew up in affluence and only know black pathology through rap music that makes it ‘cool’ and badass. As for media, it keeps feeding everyone TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and stuff like HELP and HIDDEN FIGURES. So, as with Jews(who’ve only known affluence), blackness is just what they see on TV and movies that show blacks as angels and ‘racists’ as worst of all evil.

    Granted, things got heated with BLM. For most of Obama presidency, blacks were so happy to see a brotha in the white house that they thought they had it made. But yrs went by, Wall Street got what they want, homos got what they want, Jews got what they want… but ‘what about us?’

    And Obama’s idea of placating blacks was to reduce suspension in schools, exploit stuff like Trayvon and Michael Brown, and etc. And then blacks ran riot, esp in Baltimore after Freddy Grey case. It was Civil Rights reenactment as Rap Thug spectacle. And things got ugly and crime began to rise again. Now, if this is not controlled, then blacks can be a problem.

    In a way, the ‘gay marriage’ thing was a huge boon for the globalist urban elites. By making that the Pressing Issue of Obama presidency, blacks had to take a backseat. But once it passed, homo stuff got anticlimactic, and this tranny stuff isn’t gaining traction as its utterly ludicrous(and even threatening feminism as any dude can claim to be a ‘woman’ now).

    One way that whites and Jews tried to tame BLM was by tying it with homo movement. So, BLM and homo stuff were supposed to go hand in hand… but blacks got tired of it and even began to mess up homo parades.

    In a way, blacks need politics and government more than any other group because they are less adept at economic productivity than other groups. And it’s getting a bit tough for them. When Democratic Party was pro-working-class, it wasn’t necessarily pro-black, but its theme of underdog vs the rich was bound to be appealing to blacks who were the have-nots of society. So, Democratic Party reached out to blacks. But as the Democratic Party became the urban yuppie ‘creative’ bobo party, its themes of being pro-underdog is wearing thin. Also, the favored underdog can no longer be homos since ‘gay marriage’ has passed and homos got everything. If anything, homos are no longer valued as underdog but as neo-god. Worship the homos, even in christian churches.
    The favored underdog is Immigrants, and blacks are not sure about this. On the one hand, blacks are told they are part of ‘diversity’ that will outnumber whitey. Blacks like that part. But then, this diversity will relegate blacks to minority within the minority when, in the past, they were just about the ONLY minority that mattered. I mean, even by the 90s, the ‘Hispanics’ had come to outnumber blacks. In just three decades!

    Another problem is BDS that is splitting Democratic elites and Democratic activists. In California, a lot of Democrats at grassroots level are harsh on Zionism, bu California government is totally pro-Zionist since the rely on big money from Hollywood and Silicon Valley.
    Trump presidency saw the strangest political alliance ever: Zionists and Muslims(even Palestinians). Jews are fearful of White Liberation and Awakening from white submissivism. And Muslims fear that Trump won’t pass out free tickets to the US.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Grassroots harsh on Zionism? I doubt this. BDS is appealing to about 5 campus leftists. Most Dem voters don't even know what BDS stands for.
  177. @eah
    https://twitter.com/HarmlessYardDog/status/908399489853124608

    This is a bad survey. Most small government people aren’t going to answer a survey in the first place and they only asked 1200 people. As usual small government people are underrepresented in polls because of image independence and distrust.

  178. @Andrew
    What would really be awesome is a politician not denouncing right wing Americans exercising their constitutional rights in a legal manner and welcoming their support.

    I'm waiting for a politician to say:

    "Denounce them and denounce their support for me? No I am not going to do that.

    "The First Amendment guarantees the right of American citizens to peacefully assemble and speak their mind about government policies. The demonstrators you are asking me to denounce are American citizens who were availing themselves of these rights in a legal manner and had a permit for their gathering. You may disagree with what they said, but it is their right to be able to say it and the government's job to ensure they aren't assaulted for doing so.

    "Other people who wish to protest their presence or what this group were saying or doing have similar rights provided they do not attack the first group and follow legal norms with respect to obtaining permits to allow public safety, peace, and order to be maintained.

    "As far as denouncing the political support of the demonstrators for me, I not only do not denounce it, I welcome their backing. They are American citizens with the right to vote in our elections, unlike many of the protestors who were felons or not even American citizens. I've stated my political program very plainly, and I welcome the electoral support of any and all American citizens for my campaign and my programs."
     

    What would really be awesome is a politician not denouncing right wing Americans exercising their constitutional rights in a legal manner and welcoming their support.

    I’m waiting for a politician to say: (…)

    The only politician whose words have yuge immediate impact is Trump. A plaintive plea from some random pol with lesser influence won’t matter. What you wrote is fine, but not Trump’s style. Plus it leads to the ongoing refrain “You welcome the support of Nazis? OMG!” Strategically, Trump should avoid either denouncing or praising the racialist right. In fact he handled that part well when he said there were fine people “on both sides.”

    Trump worked the presser as best he could (and my preceding fantasy quote was meant to be pushed to the edge of plausibly Trumpian), but yeah, it would be awesome for him, as President, to lambaste the press about their hypocrisy regarding the First Amendment. He could have dubbed them, due to their selective outrage, communist sympathizers (based on the presence of violent antifa, etc. in Charlottesville) and reminded them that communism around the world has killed even more people than Nazism. If Steven Miller had prepped him especially well, he could have also mentioned 20th century anarchist violence that likely resulted in the bombing of Wall Street.

    But instead of merely deploying a whatabout-ist tu quoque defense, the best way to handle a combative, hypocritical opponent that one ‘outranks’ is to go on offense: “Agree and amplify” with reductio ad absurdum logic turned against them. He could’ve asked (in a tone sarcastically calibrated to provoke maximum MSM paranoia and sputtering)—

    If you all here that are part of Fake News think it’s okay that fellow citizens should have their First Amendment rights shut down by the government, like in Charlottesville, because you don’t like what they’re saying, or who they are, maybe you’re onto something. Maybe government should investigate and shut down Fake News.

    I’ve seen a lot of stuff that you people put out—it’s inflammatory, it’s lies, it contributes to a lot of hate and violence. Maybe the FCC should look at broadcast licenses. Maybe newspaper editors should be arrested for causing hysteria. Cause why not? If we don’t care about the First Amendment anymore, why not?

  179. @Corn
    I've heard that story before, but I don't know if it's true. Apparently David Susskind interviewed ex-President Truman on his porch. Truman supposedly told Susskind that his wife would never let him bring a Jew in the house.

    I really doubt this because Truman’s army buddy/business partner/close friend was Eddie Jacobson.

  180. @Anon
    Seriously, the reason why the Democrats’ KKKrazy Glue plan to demonize whites as Ku Klux Klanners and Nazis might not work in attracting Asian and Latino enthusiasm is because there is this other group who sees themselves as the rightful owners of the Democratic Party: blacks.

    Not quite. Asian small businessmen may not like black behavior, but their businesses depend on government pouring welfare into black communities. So, they might vote Dem on that issue. Also, they want more of their relatives to come over.

    Furthermore, while immigrant Asians(like Ferguson store owner) may work directly with troublesome blacks in bad areas, their kids will likely go to good college, and come under PC. And then, their kids will have no direct experience with bad blacks as they grew up in affluence and only know black pathology through rap music that makes it 'cool' and badass. As for media, it keeps feeding everyone TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and stuff like HELP and HIDDEN FIGURES. So, as with Jews(who've only known affluence), blackness is just what they see on TV and movies that show blacks as angels and 'racists' as worst of all evil.

    Granted, things got heated with BLM. For most of Obama presidency, blacks were so happy to see a brotha in the white house that they thought they had it made. But yrs went by, Wall Street got what they want, homos got what they want, Jews got what they want... but 'what about us?'

    And Obama's idea of placating blacks was to reduce suspension in schools, exploit stuff like Trayvon and Michael Brown, and etc. And then blacks ran riot, esp in Baltimore after Freddy Grey case. It was Civil Rights reenactment as Rap Thug spectacle. And things got ugly and crime began to rise again. Now, if this is not controlled, then blacks can be a problem.

    In a way, the 'gay marriage' thing was a huge boon for the globalist urban elites. By making that the Pressing Issue of Obama presidency, blacks had to take a backseat. But once it passed, homo stuff got anticlimactic, and this tranny stuff isn't gaining traction as its utterly ludicrous(and even threatening feminism as any dude can claim to be a 'woman' now).

    One way that whites and Jews tried to tame BLM was by tying it with homo movement. So, BLM and homo stuff were supposed to go hand in hand... but blacks got tired of it and even began to mess up homo parades.

    In a way, blacks need politics and government more than any other group because they are less adept at economic productivity than other groups. And it's getting a bit tough for them. When Democratic Party was pro-working-class, it wasn't necessarily pro-black, but its theme of underdog vs the rich was bound to be appealing to blacks who were the have-nots of society. So, Democratic Party reached out to blacks. But as the Democratic Party became the urban yuppie 'creative' bobo party, its themes of being pro-underdog is wearing thin. Also, the favored underdog can no longer be homos since 'gay marriage' has passed and homos got everything. If anything, homos are no longer valued as underdog but as neo-god. Worship the homos, even in christian churches.
    The favored underdog is Immigrants, and blacks are not sure about this. On the one hand, blacks are told they are part of 'diversity' that will outnumber whitey. Blacks like that part. But then, this diversity will relegate blacks to minority within the minority when, in the past, they were just about the ONLY minority that mattered. I mean, even by the 90s, the 'Hispanics' had come to outnumber blacks. In just three decades!

    Another problem is BDS that is splitting Democratic elites and Democratic activists. In California, a lot of Democrats at grassroots level are harsh on Zionism, bu California government is totally pro-Zionist since the rely on big money from Hollywood and Silicon Valley.
    Trump presidency saw the strangest political alliance ever: Zionists and Muslims(even Palestinians). Jews are fearful of White Liberation and Awakening from white submissivism. And Muslims fear that Trump won't pass out free tickets to the US.

    Grassroots harsh on Zionism? I doubt this. BDS is appealing to about 5 campus leftists. Most Dem voters don’t even know what BDS stands for.

    • Replies: @black sea

    Most Dem voters don’t even know what BDS stands for.
     
    When I read the letters "BDS," my immediate reaction -- even though I've seen the abbreviation before -- is that it must stand for a grouping of outre sexual fetishes, then I remember that it has something to do with anti-Israel politics, and lose interest.
  181. @Colleen Pater
    This bullshit that irish were not considered white who buys that.

    We’re too pink faced not to be white.

  182. @AM

    Didn’t happen in California though. Whites got more Democratic as they became a minority.
     
    It's a boiled off population. Unhappy conservatives in California moved, usually for economic reasons but finding a new happier political home didn't work. Meanwhile, California's Dems stayed (it's only just!) and attracted more Dems.

    The conservative stronghold in SoCal had the defense industry as its economic underpinning. IIRC something like 25% of the economy of LA and Orange County used to be defense contracts. And that’s not even considering the role of military bases in the California economy and demgraphics. That changed dramatically starting in the late 1980s with changes in the structure of the defense industry. After that, there was much less vested interest sustaining the conservative outlook of SoCal. Part of the change in outlook was also a generational change – the postwar SoCal migration had a large Bible Belt contingent but they landed in one of the most secular and cosmopolitan parts of the country.

    While California was a reliably Republican state for decades (the senior and junior Edmund Browns as the exception), it was a liberal Republican state. The rise of the religious right wing of the Republican Party drove Republican-leaning social liberals away from the party. The likes of Feinstein, Newsome, and Pelosi are much closer to the old patrician liberal outlook of California Republicans than are current-day California Republicans. They don’t make California Republicans like Earl Warren anymore.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The Republican Party always had a RINO problem ("Rockefeller Republicans") but remember that the archetypical modern conservative Reagan was governor. The main factor in turning CA deep deep blue was demographics. If CA was as white as it was in 1965, it might still not be Republican but it would not be overwhelmingly Democrat the way it is now. For example, in 2016, Trump still got 45% of the white vote in Cal. vs. 32% of the overall vote. There is also white flight - places like SF have been completely stripped of normal family oriented whites who don't want to raise their kids in a gay paradise and couldn't afford to buy anyway.
  183. @Felix...

    What I didn’t appreciate until Trump was inaugurated is that our side, call it the Coalition of the Core, is just as flaky. As things stand there’s three main demographic power centers for us: the populists, the conservatives, and the Main Street business interests/donors.

    .......

    I’m not getting it. It is our coalition which, at least in theory, protects us and gives us strength, why are we gratuitously trashing it?
     

    I'm not sure if you're joking or just shilling. It's not a coalition if one faction sees and uses the others as cheap cannon fodder and to be used and given nothing in return. Hell, I'd settle for having "business interests/donors" merely not actively working towards our destruction. They are "us" the same way a cancer is "us": not because we want them or because they are beneficial, but because they are a scourge we can't root out.

    I’m not sure if you’re joking or just shilling. It’s not a coalition if one faction sees and uses the others as cheap cannon fodder and to be used and given nothing in return. Hell, I’d settle for having “business interests/donors” merely not actively working towards our destruction. They are “us” the same way a cancer is “us”: not because we want them or because they are beneficial, but because they are a scourge we can’t root out.

    Right. If I were a disloyal idiot, that’s exactly what I would say.

    There’s a lot of working Americans, most of them probably, who want to have a fairly well-defined set of responsibilities, and get paid for doing them every week or two. The responsibilities can be easy or difficult, and the wages might be low or high, but that’s the basic structure of employment.

    That means there have to be employers to hire them, who have the financial and organizational capital to make it work. And when this breaks down, like all the way back in the mists of time like 2009 or 2010, we get lots of unemployment and other kinds of social disharmony. This is not a good thing.

    But frankly, this is all ancillary anyway. A more immediate concern is that we are not strong enough to degrade the strength of our coalition without having it bite us in the ass, which is exactly what is going on now.

    For example, let’s stipulate that that the Obama-era DACA policy should be reversed, something that most of us here would likely accept. Donald Trump has half-heartedly tried to do this, but is likely going to end up trading this away in some kind of deal, in a situation where his own party controls both houses of Congress. This is because the beneficiaries of DACA are sympathetic, therefore DACA is popular, and our coalition is hanging by a thread, and therefore isn’t strong enough to see it through.

    Do you suppose that the various court rulings in favor of homosexuality were popular, or the Dep’t of Education Dear Colleague letters about transgenders? Of course not. They worked because the powers that mandated them were entrenched, and the opponents had no recourse to oppose them.

    The things that people here want done require a long haul, specifically they require the perception of inevitability and the futility of opposition. The Republican Party is the means of accomplishing this. Anything that weakens the Republican Party moves us further away from our goals, not closer.

    • Replies: @Felix...
    Thanks for answering my question in regards to whether you're joking or shilling. Do they pay per word or per post?
    , @Jack D
    There have been (a few) time in American history when one of the major parties was so lost that the only choice was to abandon it and start over. The Republican Party itself arose out of the ashes of the Whigs. The Whigs broke down over the slavery issue. Could immigration be the issue that kills the Republican Party?
  184. @Jack D
    Grassroots harsh on Zionism? I doubt this. BDS is appealing to about 5 campus leftists. Most Dem voters don't even know what BDS stands for.

    Most Dem voters don’t even know what BDS stands for.

    When I read the letters “BDS,” my immediate reaction — even though I’ve seen the abbreviation before — is that it must stand for a grouping of outre sexual fetishes, then I remember that it has something to do with anti-Israel politics, and lose interest.

  185. @Pat Boyle
    Actually East Asians are quite close to Europeans. Read Cavalli-Sforza. He likens the major races to your hand. The four major non-African races are the fingers and the Africans are the thumb. That is to say East Asians, Amerindians, Caucasians and Pacific populations are quite close while the Africans from who we descended are rather different.

    “Read Cavalli-Sforza. He likens the major races to your hand. The four major non-African races are the fingers and the Africans are the thumb.”

    That was the single biggest difference between Carlton Coon in 1965 and Cavalli-Sforza in 1994: Coon assumed based on skull shapes and other macro evidence that Europeans were more closely related to sub-Saharans than to East Asians. Three decades later, that no longer seemed plausible.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    1965 might as well have been 1865. The ability to analyze DNA changes everything. The Thylacine looked sorta like a wolf (with tiger stripes) but they were much more closely related to koala bears. Convergent evolution is very common. If your ecological niche is apex predator, you are going to end up with a body shape something like a wolf. Stripes are camouflage so maybe you'll get those too.

    People who live in southern latitudes tend to darken so that Papuans look like Africans even though they are not closely related. (Likewise you can't draw any conclusion from the fact that northern Chinese can be as pale skinned as Northern Europeans. )
    , @Pat Boyle
    Right. Coon got lots of thing wrong. So did Aristotle.
  186. @Jack D
    And the # of white women who have "jungle fever" is very limited and as you go up the economic scale even more limited (putting aside Hollywood trash). During the '60s it was very fashionable for rebellious Leftist girls to pair up with Black Panther types but that fashion seems to have passed.

    The myth that white women want to pair up with "bad boys" is just that - a myth. America still has important class distinctions. If anything, these have hardened - in the past it was not unusual for doctors to date nurses or businessmen to date their secretaries, but nowadays this is rare. I recently read an interview with Dov Charney - the American Apparel guy who was known for screwing his (female) employees and he very carefully emphasized that he never dated the girls who were sewing out on the shop floor - he would only hit on the professionals in the office (he also emphasized that it was a 2 way street - these females were hitting on him). A female professional type woman has nothing in common with a blue collar motorcycle gang type guy (nor vice versa). Charney OTOH was perfect because he was a "bad boy" but was also high status.

    Whiskey has a flair for the dramatic but his general thesis is right.

    You need to go on youtube & read the comments on interracial dating. First read the cuck white men & jungle fevered gays and white women stir up crap about it but then watch the bitter, jealous black women give their 2 cents…..

    Allusions to owning “the master’s wife & her womb”….

    They use that word womb in a poetic sense too.

    Whiskey may be autistic or something and may exaggerate but his general thesis is dead on.

    Most brothas want a white woman. And seem to settle for near ANYTHING BUT a monogamous relationship with their own women w kids, etc with the occasional exception of course…..

  187. @Boethiuss


    I’m not sure if you’re joking or just shilling. It’s not a coalition if one faction sees and uses the others as cheap cannon fodder and to be used and given nothing in return. Hell, I’d settle for having “business interests/donors” merely not actively working towards our destruction. They are “us” the same way a cancer is “us”: not because we want them or because they are beneficial, but because they are a scourge we can’t root out.
     
    Right. If I were a disloyal idiot, that's exactly what I would say.

    There's a lot of working Americans, most of them probably, who want to have a fairly well-defined set of responsibilities, and get paid for doing them every week or two. The responsibilities can be easy or difficult, and the wages might be low or high, but that's the basic structure of employment.

    That means there have to be employers to hire them, who have the financial and organizational capital to make it work. And when this breaks down, like all the way back in the mists of time like 2009 or 2010, we get lots of unemployment and other kinds of social disharmony. This is not a good thing.

    But frankly, this is all ancillary anyway. A more immediate concern is that we are not strong enough to degrade the strength of our coalition without having it bite us in the ass, which is exactly what is going on now.

    For example, let's stipulate that that the Obama-era DACA policy should be reversed, something that most of us here would likely accept. Donald Trump has half-heartedly tried to do this, but is likely going to end up trading this away in some kind of deal, in a situation where his own party controls both houses of Congress. This is because the beneficiaries of DACA are sympathetic, therefore DACA is popular, and our coalition is hanging by a thread, and therefore isn't strong enough to see it through.

    Do you suppose that the various court rulings in favor of homosexuality were popular, or the Dep't of Education Dear Colleague letters about transgenders? Of course not. They worked because the powers that mandated them were entrenched, and the opponents had no recourse to oppose them.

    The things that people here want done require a long haul, specifically they require the perception of inevitability and the futility of opposition. The Republican Party is the means of accomplishing this. Anything that weakens the Republican Party moves us further away from our goals, not closer.

    Thanks for answering my question in regards to whether you’re joking or shilling. Do they pay per word or per post?

    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Thanks for answering my question in regards to whether you’re joking or shilling. Do they pay per word or per post?
     
    Per word, though if I thought you cared about the prosperity of America beyond the political fortunes of Donald Trump I'd be happy to invoice you instead.
    , @Boethiuss
    And while I'm at it, one more thing related to my prior comment.

    Did you ever notice, that right now the possibility of a wall across our southern border is the ultimate Sailerite/Leninist who/whom? issue, in its purest form?

    I mean yeah it's sort of about immigration, but not really. At a much deeper lever it's who/whom. If somehow, by any possible means we build the wall, we're the who and without it we're the whom. Fundamentally, that's why we want the wall, and that's why the other side is just as determined to prevent us from having it.

    In objective terms, the situation should be reversed. If we build a wall, and let's suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy. And then it's much easier to justify regularization or amnesty for the illegals already here. They're the ones who should be pushing a wall onto us. But they're not. Even if millions of their constituents depend on it, it's not a concession they feel the need to make.

    Let's face it, right now we're the whom and they're the who. And in those terms, we're in worse shape now than we were under President Obama especially toward the end of his second term.
  188. Generally agree that ethnic dilution and political assimilation will lead to generational changes among immigrant groups. Clinging to identity will be a losers’ game among immigrant populations much like it is for so many blacks who cling to their pathological ghetto identity as a touchstone of authenticity. But there will be differences in the trends among different minorities. East Asians tend to remain more insular than other descendants of immigrants – the Chinese and Japanese who settled in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries maintained tight-knit communities with low rates of intermarriage. They were bound together by a highly racialized, family centered, and materially striving cultural outlook. There are seldom economic benefits of intermarriage for East Asians that aren’t available within their own group, and which would outweigh parental pressure not to intermarry. For a woman from a traditional East Asian background, to intermarry is often something of a rebellious act. Blacks and Hispanics are a different story. Black and Hispanic women tend to attain more education than their menfolk, and intermarriage for women in that position offers more upward mobility and security than within-group marriage. Unfortunately for black women, they are culturally and politically encouraged to develop unattractive traits. Intermarriage among blacks is likely to remain driven mostly by elite status among black men or some combination of low self esteem and Mandingo fetish among non-black women. I forecast a very high rate of intermarriage between Hispanic women and Caucasian men, in part because of the economic reasons mentioned above and in part because so many Caucasian women are rendering themselves ineligible. Under the PC-feminist ideology so popular among Caucasian women it is beneath them to make themselves attractive, to make accommodations in a relationship with a man, or to give priority to family and child-rearing. A reasonably attractive woman from a family-oriented culture who embraces her femininity holds the aces in competing with those entitled white bitches. I am also willing to venture that fertility among Hispanic-Caucasian couples will be higher than among Caucasian couples. A high intermarriage rate driven by near-eastern and south Asian women is also likely, largely because so many men from those cultures are so shitty towards their women.

    Steve is on the money that black identity politics within the Democratic Party will give them a real problem building a coalition of the fringes. Immigrant groups experience more virulent and violent racism from blacks than they do from whites. White ethnics who formed the core of the old labor left turned conservative when black pathology started affecting their established communities. There is no reason to believe that the new immigrant groups would respond any differently to what they are experiencing now. There is no cudgel of white guilt to force immigrant groups to deny the reality of their relations with blacks.

  189. @Felix...
    Thanks for answering my question in regards to whether you're joking or shilling. Do they pay per word or per post?

    Thanks for answering my question in regards to whether you’re joking or shilling. Do they pay per word or per post?

    Per word, though if I thought you cared about the prosperity of America beyond the political fortunes of Donald Trump I’d be happy to invoice you instead.

  190. @Pat Boyle
    Actually East Asians are quite close to Europeans. Read Cavalli-Sforza. He likens the major races to your hand. The four major non-African races are the fingers and the Africans are the thumb. That is to say East Asians, Amerindians, Caucasians and Pacific populations are quite close while the Africans from who we descended are rather different.

    “Actually East Asians are quite close to Europeans. Read Cavalli-Sforza.” — Pat Boyle

    Thank you for the reference to Cavalli-Sforza! I’m so old that I am probably still going by Carlton Coons’ The Origin of Races. BTW: even back then Coons, despite that he has been denigrated as a racist or whatever, he was of the same general opinion as Cavalli-Sforza (according to Wikipedia), that the very term “race” is misleading or useless — or anyway of no use to an anthropologist. Coons thought in terms of species differentiation, with a true subspecies (if any) consisting of steps along the way to formation of a new species. He figured that one of the few such phenomena was that of Rh- blood type, which he thought maybe had some survival value related to malaria — he associated it with, I think, the Dravidian population of south India.

    BTW: do you mean that the “Africans from who(m) we descended are rather different” from us, as in contemporary Africans, or, do you mean that the Africans from whom we descended were different even back then (like 100,000 years ago) when our ancestors left Africa … like Mencken’s idea that people who choose to go out and explore are self-selecting into very different (genetically superior) group(s) than the ones who stayed behind?

    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Ooops ... between the time when I began to compose my comment to Pat Boyle and when I posted it, Steve Sailor himself posted a comment comparing Coon and Cavalli-Sforza.

    Steve is correct, of course, in his 'Carleton Coon' rather than my "Carlton Coons'!
    , @Pat Boyle
    I read Coon soon after he published "The Origin of Races". So I'm likely to as old or older than you - Grandpa.

    I didn't mean much of anything. As I remember Cavalli-Sforza simply mentioned that the races (the "fingers") that had left Africa were more similar to each other than they were to Africans from whom they had descended.
  191. @Felix...
    Thanks for answering my question in regards to whether you're joking or shilling. Do they pay per word or per post?

    And while I’m at it, one more thing related to my prior comment.

    Did you ever notice, that right now the possibility of a wall across our southern border is the ultimate Sailerite/Leninist who/whom? issue, in its purest form?

    I mean yeah it’s sort of about immigration, but not really. At a much deeper lever it’s who/whom. If somehow, by any possible means we build the wall, we’re the who and without it we’re the whom. Fundamentally, that’s why we want the wall, and that’s why the other side is just as determined to prevent us from having it.

    In objective terms, the situation should be reversed. If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy. And then it’s much easier to justify regularization or amnesty for the illegals already here. They’re the ones who should be pushing a wall onto us. But they’re not. Even if millions of their constituents depend on it, it’s not a concession they feel the need to make.

    Let’s face it, right now we’re the whom and they’re the who. And in those terms, we’re in worse shape now than we were under President Obama especially toward the end of his second term.

  192. @Grandpa Charlie

    "Actually East Asians are quite close to Europeans. Read Cavalli-Sforza." -- Pat Boyle
     
    Thank you for the reference to Cavalli-Sforza! I'm so old that I am probably still going by Carlton Coons' The Origin of Races. BTW: even back then Coons, despite that he has been denigrated as a racist or whatever, he was of the same general opinion as Cavalli-Sforza (according to Wikipedia), that the very term "race" is misleading or useless -- or anyway of no use to an anthropologist. Coons thought in terms of species differentiation, with a true subspecies (if any) consisting of steps along the way to formation of a new species. He figured that one of the few such phenomena was that of Rh- blood type, which he thought maybe had some survival value related to malaria -- he associated it with, I think, the Dravidian population of south India.

    BTW: do you mean that the "Africans from who(m) we descended are rather different" from us, as in contemporary Africans, or, do you mean that the Africans from whom we descended were different even back then (like 100,000 years ago) when our ancestors left Africa ... like Mencken's idea that people who choose to go out and explore are self-selecting into very different (genetically superior) group(s) than the ones who stayed behind?

    Ooops … between the time when I began to compose my comment to Pat Boyle and when I posted it, Steve Sailor himself posted a comment comparing Coon and Cavalli-Sforza.

    Steve is correct, of course, in his ‘Carleton Coon’ rather than my “Carlton Coons’!

  193. @anon
    Traditional White
    Other Non-Blacks
    Blacks

    Too bad I can't draw a Venn diagram.

    This is an astute observation. It is critical how issues are framed. Virtually all cultural issues are Non-Black vs Black. Ghetto culture, TRAP music, etc. That simply isn't the compatible with the typical immigrant profile.

    If it divides into Non-Black/Black, then Judis's revisionist position is correct.

    If it is White/Non-White, then we are in trouble.

    I suppose the anti-racism and political correctness will make a proper delineation difficult. Or impossible. But maybe not.

    The divide will remain non-Black/black. Your average immigrant is far more likely to encounter a vicious black than a vicious white. They’re far more likely to have been or known someone that was a victim of a crime committed by blacks or bullied in school by them.

    Also the irrational nature of black politics which is constantly focused on victimhood & obsession over whites will strike others as weird.

    Coates when on Chris Hayes show and if his thinking becomes the theme of black politicos, Trump wins running away in ’20.

  194. Demographics do favour the Democrat Party. It’s self-awareness and common-sense that are killing them.

  195. @Clyde

    BTW, Harry Truman had an “Israelish” business partner.
     
    Wah? He was Jewish and in the haberdashery business with Harry Truman. Truman struggled financially after leaving the White House. After this was when Presidential pensions were instituted.

    per Wiki-
    Edward "Eddie" Jacobson (June 17, 1891, New York City – October 25, 1955, Kansas City, Missouri) was a Jewish-American businessman. He was also a U.S. Army associate, business partner, and close friend of President Harry S. Truman.

    Truman Library - Edward Jacobson Papers
    www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/jacobson.htm
    The papers of Edward Jacobson document his life and business career; his relationship with Harry S. Truman; his role in advocating U.S. support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1947-48; and his involvement in the early history of the modern state of Israel.

    For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With ...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/business/for-harry-truman-the...
    Apr 10, 2016 · For Harry Truman, the Buck Stopped at a Brush With Bankruptcy. ... Harry S. Truman, ... and who had worked for years in the haberdashery business.

    Must read on Harry Truman https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/harry-s-truman-suits-haberdasher/

    Truman struggled financially after leaving the White House. After this was when Presidential pensions were instituted.

    At the time there were only 2 former presidents: Truman and Hoover. Hoover also took the money, just to avoid embarrassing Truman.

  196. @Captain Tripps
    This tangential Truman discussion reminds me of one of the earlier memories I can recall from my childhood. I was too young in 1969 to understand what was going on among the adults when Ike died. But in 1972, I was old enough, and had learned enough history, to understand when Truman died on the day after Christmas why the adults were talking about it. He was among the last of the World War II era American leaders, so there was a sort of hushed respect and reflection among the adults discussing it. Interestingly, LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973), but I don't remember the adults discussing him all that much, as they did with Truman. Perhaps because they had served in WWII or Korea, so Truman had a direct connection in their life.

    LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973)

    From this date until August 9, 1974, there were no living ex-presidents. Nixon was all alone.

  197. @Captain Tripps
    This tangential Truman discussion reminds me of one of the earlier memories I can recall from my childhood. I was too young in 1969 to understand what was going on among the adults when Ike died. But in 1972, I was old enough, and had learned enough history, to understand when Truman died on the day after Christmas why the adults were talking about it. He was among the last of the World War II era American leaders, so there was a sort of hushed respect and reflection among the adults discussing it. Interestingly, LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973), but I don't remember the adults discussing him all that much, as they did with Truman. Perhaps because they had served in WWII or Korea, so Truman had a direct connection in their life.

    LBJ also died about 4 weeks later (January 22nd, 1973)

    From this date until August 9, 1974, there were no living ex-presidents. Nixon was all alone.

  198. @Boethiuss


    I’m not sure if you’re joking or just shilling. It’s not a coalition if one faction sees and uses the others as cheap cannon fodder and to be used and given nothing in return. Hell, I’d settle for having “business interests/donors” merely not actively working towards our destruction. They are “us” the same way a cancer is “us”: not because we want them or because they are beneficial, but because they are a scourge we can’t root out.
     
    Right. If I were a disloyal idiot, that's exactly what I would say.

    There's a lot of working Americans, most of them probably, who want to have a fairly well-defined set of responsibilities, and get paid for doing them every week or two. The responsibilities can be easy or difficult, and the wages might be low or high, but that's the basic structure of employment.

    That means there have to be employers to hire them, who have the financial and organizational capital to make it work. And when this breaks down, like all the way back in the mists of time like 2009 or 2010, we get lots of unemployment and other kinds of social disharmony. This is not a good thing.

    But frankly, this is all ancillary anyway. A more immediate concern is that we are not strong enough to degrade the strength of our coalition without having it bite us in the ass, which is exactly what is going on now.

    For example, let's stipulate that that the Obama-era DACA policy should be reversed, something that most of us here would likely accept. Donald Trump has half-heartedly tried to do this, but is likely going to end up trading this away in some kind of deal, in a situation where his own party controls both houses of Congress. This is because the beneficiaries of DACA are sympathetic, therefore DACA is popular, and our coalition is hanging by a thread, and therefore isn't strong enough to see it through.

    Do you suppose that the various court rulings in favor of homosexuality were popular, or the Dep't of Education Dear Colleague letters about transgenders? Of course not. They worked because the powers that mandated them were entrenched, and the opponents had no recourse to oppose them.

    The things that people here want done require a long haul, specifically they require the perception of inevitability and the futility of opposition. The Republican Party is the means of accomplishing this. Anything that weakens the Republican Party moves us further away from our goals, not closer.

    There have been (a few) time in American history when one of the major parties was so lost that the only choice was to abandon it and start over. The Republican Party itself arose out of the ashes of the Whigs. The Whigs broke down over the slavery issue. Could immigration be the issue that kills the Republican Party?

    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    There have been (a few) time in American history when one of the major parties was so lost that the only choice was to abandon it and start over. The Republican Party itself arose out of the ashes of the Whigs. The Whigs broke down over the slavery issue. Could immigration be the issue that kills the Republican Party?
     
    It's a plausible idea, but not credible enough to actually believe in, at least not now for a bunch of reasons.

    First of all, the immediate problem for the GOP is the person of Donald Trump, and that has to be resolved somehow before any other party materializes.

    The deeper (political) problem isn't even immigration, it's the mutual antagonism among the factions. That was the point about the wall in my earlier comment. There's lots of Americans who either favor a more restrictionist immigration policy, or at least would acquiesce to it, but they don't want to empower us. I'm getting the sense that the wall and immigration restriction in general is less popular than it was before, say five or ten years ago. That isn't because the substance of the issue is any different now, but now it's associated with the buffoonery of Trump and the neo-Nazis and neo-KKKs of Charlottesville, and there's lots of perfectly normal Americans who don't want any part of that.

    Finally a new party doesn't really solve the key problems anyway. First on substance: we could handle more immigration if we had a culture cohesive enough to handle them, and we were more careful about where they immigrants came from, a la the US before 1920 and Canada now.

    And on politics the answer is the same. We already have the coalition and the party we need. We just need them to work together instead of against each other.

    Though, to be fair, you could be right. At least, events could move in a direction to where a new party is credible.
  199. @Steve Sailer
    "Read Cavalli-Sforza. He likens the major races to your hand. The four major non-African races are the fingers and the Africans are the thumb."

    That was the single biggest difference between Carlton Coon in 1965 and Cavalli-Sforza in 1994: Coon assumed based on skull shapes and other macro evidence that Europeans were more closely related to sub-Saharans than to East Asians. Three decades later, that no longer seemed plausible.

    1965 might as well have been 1865. The ability to analyze DNA changes everything. The Thylacine looked sorta like a wolf (with tiger stripes) but they were much more closely related to koala bears. Convergent evolution is very common. If your ecological niche is apex predator, you are going to end up with a body shape something like a wolf. Stripes are camouflage so maybe you’ll get those too.

    People who live in southern latitudes tend to darken so that Papuans look like Africans even though they are not closely related. (Likewise you can’t draw any conclusion from the fact that northern Chinese can be as pale skinned as Northern Europeans. )

  200. @Thirdeye
    The conservative stronghold in SoCal had the defense industry as its economic underpinning. IIRC something like 25% of the economy of LA and Orange County used to be defense contracts. And that's not even considering the role of military bases in the California economy and demgraphics. That changed dramatically starting in the late 1980s with changes in the structure of the defense industry. After that, there was much less vested interest sustaining the conservative outlook of SoCal. Part of the change in outlook was also a generational change - the postwar SoCal migration had a large Bible Belt contingent but they landed in one of the most secular and cosmopolitan parts of the country.

    While California was a reliably Republican state for decades (the senior and junior Edmund Browns as the exception), it was a liberal Republican state. The rise of the religious right wing of the Republican Party drove Republican-leaning social liberals away from the party. The likes of Feinstein, Newsome, and Pelosi are much closer to the old patrician liberal outlook of California Republicans than are current-day California Republicans. They don't make California Republicans like Earl Warren anymore.

    The Republican Party always had a RINO problem (“Rockefeller Republicans”) but remember that the archetypical modern conservative Reagan was governor. The main factor in turning CA deep deep blue was demographics. If CA was as white as it was in 1965, it might still not be Republican but it would not be overwhelmingly Democrat the way it is now. For example, in 2016, Trump still got 45% of the white vote in Cal. vs. 32% of the overall vote. There is also white flight – places like SF have been completely stripped of normal family oriented whites who don’t want to raise their kids in a gay paradise and couldn’t afford to buy anyway.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    I suppose you'd consider Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford RINOs too. After all, Teddy moved to break up the large industrial monopolies - a forceful biggubmint move. Eisenhower and Nixon courted black voters. The Republican Party used to be the socially liberal party.

    To paraphrase Reagan, California Republicans didn't leave their party. Their party left them.

    A big contingent of the Trump voters were Republicans who got left behind by their party.

  201. @3g4me
    @89 Twinkie: "In other words, among the third generation Americans with at least one Asian grandparent, 42.5% identify PURELY AS WHITES."

    It matters little what one "identifies" as. What matters is what group is willing to accept you. Any group or any racial mixture can call themselves Viking's spawn, but it won't change their genetic heritage. Certain Whites and far more non-Whites under certain circumstances categorize all sorts of people as White or not White - one reads that here at Sailer's all the time - some commenter insisting this or that Arab or Jew or Mexican or whatever is actually White. And at other fora I've read disputes where others claim southern Europeans are not really White, or Slavs aren't White. There are endless distinctions and subgroups and varying degrees of overlap.

    It's not merely skin color (as others have noted, many Asians and Jews are quite fair skinned) and it's not even just pure genetics, far less what one "identifies" as. What counts is what group considers you one of their own, when the chips are down. Right now the "chips" - and pretty much everything else - is "down" against Whites. And based on voting patterns, social media, worship habits, and any other metric one chooses, roughly 75-90% of Jews, Mexicans, Asians, Negroes, and even various "caucasoid" Armenians, Chechens, and north Africans have made it abundantly clear where their loyalties lie - at precisely the same time they claim to be or identify as what they dedicate their lives to eradicating. Recall all those "Hate Whitey" essays Steve has opined on where said Chinese or Hindu or Negro is actually married to a self-hating White. Whatever their children's genetic composition, and no matter what they tell the census taker, they know whose side they're on and what group they're part of.

    I repeat, the ONLY thing that ultimately matters is what group is willing to claim you as one of their own.

    So you are saying, race is a social construct.

  202. @eah
    And a tweet like that would certainly alienate them.

    I don't especially care.

    So what’s your plan?

    I'm a White Nationalist who endorses the 'They have to go back' plank -- 'BAMN' -- that's my plan -- in this I am thinking mostly of the future of white children.

    You mean, you’re someone who embraces defeat because that’s where your purity spiral is going to lead you. Have fun.

  203. @James Kabala
    In Massachusetts and Rhode Island French Canadians seem to be still relatively conservative - obviously both states are Democratic strongholds and that applies to the French as much as to any other group, but they are rarely in the left-wing vanguard.

    Relatively conservative–true. Like working-class Italians in that respect.

  204. @Forbes
    Imagine that! It only took 15 years for Judis to recognize that things (demographics, self-identity, politics) didn't turn out as he assumed. Funnily, the factors he uses to explain the variance from his predictions could have been made as assumptions in 2002 (as Steve mostly points out), but for his own partisan bias...

    Imagine that! It only took 15 years for Judis to recognize that things (demographics, self-identity, politics) didn’t turn out as he assumed.

    Giving the thing a quick read, I don’t think Judis has had some sort of Road to Damascus moment.

    I don’t think he’s had any real change of view of the long term demographics. And he sort of says so

    On one level, there’s no arguing with the math. If you take the percentage of Americans that the U.S. census defines as “minorities” and project their past voting habits into the next decade and beyond, you’ll come up with a very sunny version of the Democrats’ prospects.

    If there’s any real change of his view explicitly on the demographics, it’s perhaps that long term there is more intermarriage of Asians and Hispanics with whites than he accounted for, and quite possibly many of those who are middle class will see their interests and vote for pretty much like middle class whites.

    I suspect this is mixed with some deep–but unspoken–recognition of the point that Steve makes at the end, the blackety, black, black stuff isn’t a winner:

    –> short term BLM violence–and black demands for everything to revolve around themselves–has pushed whites toward both Republicans and a “white” ethnic identification faster than the demographic transition has taken hold

    –> long term it is likely alienating to Hispanics and UMC Asians and even more so to their mixes with whites (since whites are always the demons in the narrative).

    But at root I think Judis is just having the realization that while minorities will eventually bring about the “emerging Democratic majority” it isn’t going to be a “Democratic majority” that wants to sit around and get lectures and instruction from dorky Jewish guys in glasses while marching off into a glorious “progressive” future.

    It’s going to be an ugly, sloppy, unruly, patronage driven, “gimme dat” majority, mainly concerned with ethnic spoils allocation and soothing ethnic grievance. In other words … like ethnic politics everywhere else in the world for all of human history–which somehow befuddles such “intellectuals” as Judis.

  205. @Bernardista
    Here's poor Martin O'Malley losing any chance he ever had of becoming a contender in the Democratic Primary:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtFKIPugsok

    Thanks for reminding me how much I hate these people.

  206. @Jack D
    The Republican Party always had a RINO problem ("Rockefeller Republicans") but remember that the archetypical modern conservative Reagan was governor. The main factor in turning CA deep deep blue was demographics. If CA was as white as it was in 1965, it might still not be Republican but it would not be overwhelmingly Democrat the way it is now. For example, in 2016, Trump still got 45% of the white vote in Cal. vs. 32% of the overall vote. There is also white flight - places like SF have been completely stripped of normal family oriented whites who don't want to raise their kids in a gay paradise and couldn't afford to buy anyway.

    I suppose you’d consider Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford RINOs too. After all, Teddy moved to break up the large industrial monopolies – a forceful biggubmint move. Eisenhower and Nixon courted black voters. The Republican Party used to be the socially liberal party.

    To paraphrase Reagan, California Republicans didn’t leave their party. Their party left them.

    A big contingent of the Trump voters were Republicans who got left behind by their party.

  207. @Steve Sailer
    "Read Cavalli-Sforza. He likens the major races to your hand. The four major non-African races are the fingers and the Africans are the thumb."

    That was the single biggest difference between Carlton Coon in 1965 and Cavalli-Sforza in 1994: Coon assumed based on skull shapes and other macro evidence that Europeans were more closely related to sub-Saharans than to East Asians. Three decades later, that no longer seemed plausible.

    Right. Coon got lots of thing wrong. So did Aristotle.

  208. @Grandpa Charlie

    "Actually East Asians are quite close to Europeans. Read Cavalli-Sforza." -- Pat Boyle
     
    Thank you for the reference to Cavalli-Sforza! I'm so old that I am probably still going by Carlton Coons' The Origin of Races. BTW: even back then Coons, despite that he has been denigrated as a racist or whatever, he was of the same general opinion as Cavalli-Sforza (according to Wikipedia), that the very term "race" is misleading or useless -- or anyway of no use to an anthropologist. Coons thought in terms of species differentiation, with a true subspecies (if any) consisting of steps along the way to formation of a new species. He figured that one of the few such phenomena was that of Rh- blood type, which he thought maybe had some survival value related to malaria -- he associated it with, I think, the Dravidian population of south India.

    BTW: do you mean that the "Africans from who(m) we descended are rather different" from us, as in contemporary Africans, or, do you mean that the Africans from whom we descended were different even back then (like 100,000 years ago) when our ancestors left Africa ... like Mencken's idea that people who choose to go out and explore are self-selecting into very different (genetically superior) group(s) than the ones who stayed behind?

    I read Coon soon after he published “The Origin of Races”. So I’m likely to as old or older than you – Grandpa.

    I didn’t mean much of anything. As I remember Cavalli-Sforza simply mentioned that the races (the “fingers”) that had left Africa were more similar to each other than they were to Africans from whom they had descended.

    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    That's still unclear. Are you (or C-S) saying non-Africans descended from current Africans? Or that both had a common, archaic, African ancestor?
  209. @Jack D
    There have been (a few) time in American history when one of the major parties was so lost that the only choice was to abandon it and start over. The Republican Party itself arose out of the ashes of the Whigs. The Whigs broke down over the slavery issue. Could immigration be the issue that kills the Republican Party?

    There have been (a few) time in American history when one of the major parties was so lost that the only choice was to abandon it and start over. The Republican Party itself arose out of the ashes of the Whigs. The Whigs broke down over the slavery issue. Could immigration be the issue that kills the Republican Party?

    It’s a plausible idea, but not credible enough to actually believe in, at least not now for a bunch of reasons.

    First of all, the immediate problem for the GOP is the person of Donald Trump, and that has to be resolved somehow before any other party materializes.

    The deeper (political) problem isn’t even immigration, it’s the mutual antagonism among the factions. That was the point about the wall in my earlier comment. There’s lots of Americans who either favor a more restrictionist immigration policy, or at least would acquiesce to it, but they don’t want to empower us. I’m getting the sense that the wall and immigration restriction in general is less popular than it was before, say five or ten years ago. That isn’t because the substance of the issue is any different now, but now it’s associated with the buffoonery of Trump and the neo-Nazis and neo-KKKs of Charlottesville, and there’s lots of perfectly normal Americans who don’t want any part of that.

    Finally a new party doesn’t really solve the key problems anyway. First on substance: we could handle more immigration if we had a culture cohesive enough to handle them, and we were more careful about where they immigrants came from, a la the US before 1920 and Canada now.

    And on politics the answer is the same. We already have the coalition and the party we need. We just need them to work together instead of against each other.

    Though, to be fair, you could be right. At least, events could move in a direction to where a new party is credible.

  210. @Chrisnonymous
    His whole re-evaluation relies on the following:

    Whiteness is not a genetic category, after all; it’s a social and political construct that relies on perception and prejudice.
     
    Which is BS. Non-whites can identify as white only as long as that BS is maintained and "whiteness" is defined in SWPL terms--Patagonia jackets, artisanal sandwiches, and tolerance.

    I used to work with an Asian who grew up in the US. As long as conversations revolved around watching Family Guy, the US was a great place he wanted to get back to. As soon as the conversation became about anything connected to European civilization or politics, the US was full of horrible racists. He could be modern, global, ironic, cool, but he knew he wasn't really white.

    There will be no "inclusively white identity politics" of the future. There is a chance for a coalition politics if Asians can figure out that NAMs degrade their quality of life in the long run. However, if people like Yan Shen keep virtue signaling by promoting the idea that Asians are better whites than whites are because of their superior tolerance and embrace of diversity, that is unlikely to happen. Yan Shen won't bring any Asians into a citizenist camp--he's keeping them out by promoting the fiction that Goodwhites are better people.

    Citizenism isn't tolerance-in-place-of-separatism, it's paternalism-in-place-of-separatism. There's a big difference, and if Asians can get paternalistic, maybe we can have a coalition politics based on having Patagonia jackets and artisanal sandwiches without tolerance.

    The GOP’s anti-Americans-First immigration strategy

    Steve quotes Judis: “Cuban-Americans in Miami vote very differently from Mexican-Americans in Los Angeles.” Yes, and that Miami Cuban vote for the GOP is only one instance of the success of a GOP strategy to support unlimited immigration of any “refugees” who paint themselves as fleeing from Communism. Of course, some immigrants from Communist countries actually earned that political refugee status, but many merely opportunistically claimed it — and were in fact economic refugees. That was one side of the coin: the other side is the opportunism of the GOP in utilizing an immigration strategy during the Cold War in which they were remarkably successful in framing the GOP as THE party of anti-Communism. So most immigrants who originated in a Communist country voted Republican.

    The GOP was only one of the parties of anti-Communism, (RFK served enthusiastically as an attorney for Joe McCarthy and the HUAC) but the GOP was actually THE party of anti-unionism, more or less, (or for intellectuals like here at UR, the GOP could be THE party of anti-collectivism). Meanwhile, many here at UR (Republicans?) are stuck in history/ideology such that unionism = Communism, just as a few posting here at UR (Democrats?) are stuck in history/ideology such that unionism = populism.

    So there we have it: the GOP has been as opportunist as the Democrats in employing an open immigration strategy — neither including anything like “First, do we, the host country, have a full-employment economy? If not, then there’s no immigration!” That has been the approach to legal immigration of many or most countries, e.g., until recently, of Canada. In other words, the dominant doctrine has been that legal immigration, if any, must be based on economic necessities of the host nation, not on the economic necessities of global migrations. That dominant paradigm shifted as corporate ()WTO) globalism became dominant: the ideology of “free-traders” (e.g., Mises Institute) said and says, if truth be told, that as trade barriers, including raw materials, come down, the desired efficiencies can only be obtained if migration barriers also come down. After all, labor is an input to production as much as are any other raw materials.

    The Democrats’ anti-Americans-First immigration policy

    The GOP based their pro-immigration strategy on the ideological state religion of anti-Communism, now updated to anti-Terrorism or anti-Evil (as in the ‘Axis of Evil’), whereas the Democrats today base their pro-immigration on the ideological state religion of multiculturalism. Both leave people like myself who oppose all state religions especially ideological out of the picture, while both accommodate the open-borders philosophy of corporate globalism.

    I was first exposed to this new (to me) religion of multiculturalism (fronted as ”diversity’ to piggyback on “biodiversity”so as to tie in with that other state religion, scientism) when I volunteered about ten years ago to teach English as a Second Language and in that context took a required two-day crash course in education — one day focused on cultural sensitivity training and the other day on how to teach reading to adult illiterates (not uncommonly, ESL students were illiterate even in their native language). The class was made up of all women, including the instructor, except for myself and one other “older gentleman.” It all went along fine, at first, and then the instructor asked how a teacher should treat a student who is actively hostile and disruptive to the whole program. We were given a multiple choice, like a test, but we all took the test together as a discussion. I spoke up for an answer that was maybe marginally disciplinarian (namely, say to the problem student: “If you can’t dig it, you can leave”), and the other guy in the glass looked at me with a sad expression and shook his head, as though to say “Don’t you get it?” Eventually, I did get it, and that was my introduction to the New Education (like the New Math except that I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with “the New Math” while the “New Education” has serious problems, imo). Anyway, I looked into it a little further and discovered that a required part of all teacher education throughout USA had come to include “multiculturalism” – which I wouldn’t call Communism but I would call it un-American, like what ever happened to “the melting pot”?

    You get to a certain age and everything just amazes you.

    FAST FORWARD to 2016/17

    What was once the state religion of anti-Communism has now become the state religion of corporate (WTO) globalism — endorsed (like the Cult of 9-11) by both major parties. That is the ideological basis for both parties to embrace and support practically unlimited immigration into the USA.

    For Republicans: globalism = unbridled capitalism = unlimited immigration.

    For Democrats: globalism = multiculturalism = unlimited immigration

    (See the huge difference between the two major parties?)

    For immigrants from such countries as Poland, it would likely be very easy to transfer the anti-Soviet mindset over to the anti-Russia mindset. And for many dumbed-down Americans, it’s very easy to revive the old Cold War “Russia bad” meme. And that is the origin of the Democrats’ (Hillary’s) anti-Russia strategy — which also had total support from Kissinger neocons as something helpful to the PRC — the PRC being one of their main funding sources (“Yet none dare call it treason”) — as well as to themselves (neocons) since most of them do not want their “valuable” training and experience, their “expertise” in Eastern Europe to go unappreciated.

    Just as during the years of Democratic hegemony, Republican leadership embraced “liberal Republicans” (now known as RINOs) that generally mirrored the Democrats, so today, as Democratic hegemony fades off into the remote past, Democratic leadership seeks to mirror the GOP. Seeing the success of Republicans, Democrats have thought about the Republicans’ successful immigration strategy during the Cold War and thought, “We’ll go one better: we will advocate for unlimited immigration as good for the country … and not only will we get the immigrant vote, but we will also have the support of our corporate sponsors such as technology billionaires.

    And then along came Donald Trump.The jury is still out as to whether Trump will institute a sane immigration policy, or not. He must choose between populism and corporate globalism!

    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    The demographic approach to politics: Identity Politics (IDP)

    I suppose that to understand USA's identity politics, we could go back to the Civil War. There, in either the Marxist materialist (economic) or the constitutionalist approaches to that history, we immediately see the most important fact about ID politics, namely, ID politics is opposed to issue politics. That is, IDP allows not only politicians but the public itself to evade difficult issues. The approach of IDP to the CW is that it was fought over the issue of slavery: issue-politics approaches hold that the CW was fought over either economics (the tariff) or over the Constitution (Amendments 9 and 10). Few here at UR would accept that IDP approach to the CW, that it was about slavery, and I bring it forward here only to show that I know what IDP is and how it has long, or even always been an aspect of USA's politic.

    The CW served as the basis for USA's politic as long as Republican hegemony held sway, i.e., until about 1930. What happened then, not only in 1932 but especially in 1928 had less to do with the Great Depression than that a whole new IDP paradigm appeared: the Catholic immigrant vote as owned by the Democratic Party began to rule.The demographic approach to postwar politics (i.e., post WW II) -- the dominant paradigm of the half-century or more of Democratic hegemony -- was laid out in precisely those terms by Walter Lippman and others in the 1950s, if not earlier.

    The whole thing about the Catholic vote can be seen and understood in the political institution of the Al Smith Memorial Dinner, held in every presidential election year and THE most important event of Democratic pols ever, eclipsing, in presidential election years, the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinners (which maybe are having their name changed to appease BLM or whomever). It's crucial to know that Al Smith, if he had won in 1928, would have been the first Catholic president in our history. Maybe also the first not to be a Mason -- going back to that some Pope at some time in the past excommunicated the Masonic Lodge. Thus, in 2008, even the GOP candidate, John McCain (himself a Catholic, I believe), did not dare think of skipping the Al Smith Dinner, even though it meant being seen hobnobbing with his political enemies of the so-called 'Left' and even being mildly roasted by them (part of the tradition, you know).

    Look for yourself:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?281814-1/alfred-e-smith-memorial-dinner

    (FlashPlayer plug-in may be required.)

    Wait a minute, you say? Is not this abortion thing clearly an instance of issue politics, not of IDP? Well, that's the thing: was the CW really about the issue of slavery or was it a matter of identity? Today abortion is hidden away in the background in many discussions of just about every issue, while legalized abortion itself is so contentious that it cannot even be comprehended within the word 'issue', it can only be understood in terms of identity. Like don't you believe in God? ... or are you one of those ATHEISTS? See the difference between issue and identity? Issues can be discussed: identity just has to be accepted.

    The Culture War

    In arguments over the First Amendment or any other constitutionalist issue, while intellectuals understand that it's about, say, the First Amendment; That's intellectuals, like many here at UR, but the fact is that average Americans have never read the Constitution and don't give a damn about freedom of speech, which they take for granted and think they practice every single day. Because we Americans do still have enormous latitude to say whatever we want, like on the internet, as compared with, say, China, which has yet to comply with the dogma of the Mises Institute and others, that if you adopt market reforms and join the WTO, and enter into that great institutionalized greed that we call 'Global Capita' ... well then, just as night follows day, liberty will grow and flourish throughout your land. Why is that? Why, it's because Henry Kissinger came to Beijing in 1971 and arranged to set up a conduit (based on the old China Lobby) for the PRC/CCP to pay off the United States Congress on a regular basis, See how that works? Money is the answer. But I digress: back to the culture war.

    In truth, Americans are not as clueless as they sometimes seem. Most Americans know something about the SCOTUS, integration of public schools, and abortion. The Patriot movement has been working hard to educate SWPL folks but still when Americans think of the Constitution, if they think of it at all, they think of it as about those three things ... the SCOTUS, integration of public schools, and abortion. Pat Buchanan understood decades ago how this all adds up: it adds up to the term popularized by Buchanan, the "Culture War". Pat when he had taken over the Reform Party in the year 2000, felt so strongly about the Culture War that he gambled the very existence of the Reform Party, the chance for America to break away from under the heel of the Republicrat/Demolican party, he gambled it all on the CW ... but then he got lost in some swamp in Alaska, and that's another story that really is Pat's to tell, not mine (I think he made a Faustian bargain with the RNC).

    Like the original CW, the culture war can be abbreviated as CW. The one CW becomes the other CW when the guns come out. That's the difference between the two.

    Now, in this the third millennium, a big question is this: what directions are the two major parties to take going forward?

    1. The GOP

    Comments here at UR have made a good case that the GOP may be ripe for the picking by a true populist movement. I think that may be right, because of how the Bushes and such have run away from Trump and left the GOP more free of apparatchiks than it has been probably since before the Eisenhower administration. But, you know, it's one thing to win over a party and another thing to gain or maintain national political hegemony. Another thing is to bring Libertarian Party people into the populist movement with everyone else.

    The GOP makes a big mistake on abortion when they follow the strict pro-life party line that causes them to oppose not only abortion but even all forms of birth control. The great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gassett points out that morality (and politics) do not belong under the Aristotelian category of Ethics/logic but under the category of Esthetics/subjective judgment. That applies big time in any CW. Just think about the pro-life use of videos showing discarded babies complete with umbilical cords attached.This kind of appeal to pathos is usual in any culture war, like Uncle Tom's Cabin in the culture war that preceded the shooting CW. What I am saying is that, yes, I understand and agree with all the popes when they reason logically from ethics to decide (morally and politically) that all forms of birth control are wrong. But really that logical conclusion is based on a purely esthetic judgment about what might be called FFF (F***ing For Fun). And they are right there too, because if FFF is okay, so are all the various combinations of your ABCs, like you know, LGBTQ or whatever. So, okay, Republicans may be grounded morally and esthetically about FFF, but the thing is while following the strict pro-life party line may work now in 2017, and may have helped Trump to manage his political need for support of the Religious Right, nonetheless, following the pro-life party line will not work for long ... because the world is rapidly filling up. The materialism of Marx has been discarded, but not the materialism of Malthus, which grows politically stronger with every baby born.

    I know, many here at UR are saying that the problem is that white folk are practicing too much birth control and are falling behind in the contest with all the non-white monkeys for who has the most (sic) most (sic) stupid voters. That's the only problem, right? Wrong, because non-whites don't all just lay around and carelessly FFF, they also, many of them notice how crowded the world is becoming (and some of them even vote). The Pope when he visited the Philippines (arguably the most Catholic country in the world) recently did not even try to lecture the people there who have successfully demanded not legalization of abortions, no, but all other forms of birth control, yes. If argument is made that the Philippines because non-white (more or less) doesn't apply anyway, then check out Ireland, with the palest of pale faces. Abortions. NO, but other birth control: YES. (For abortions, Irish girls have to go over to England.)

    I mean following the strict pro-life party line is a loser for the GOP, in the not-too-far-off longterm.Simply because of the demographic facts of life.

    Maybe Republicans don't realize it but just as the stereotype of the AH liberal has certainly cost many elections for the Democrats, so also the stereotype of the hypocritically prudish moralizing REPUBLICAN can and will lose way too many votes in the near future. IF the GOP refuses to walk back the decision to support the most radical pronouncements of Popes when safely ensconced in Rome. Maybe, sure, maybe they can get away with it for a while, by the assiduous practice of hypocrisy, but there's a problem with that vain hope: the image of the pious rich prudish moralizing Republican very much includes the characteristic of HYPOCRISY. It will bite them in the end. Think 2012, think Romney.

    So, Republicans need to wise up and give up on their opposition to FFF. I know, the most deeply pleasurable effing is FFB, after all, but still opposing FFF is a loser. It's obvious that demography rules not only in Red/Blue theory in USA but also globally. And it's also obvious that the world is full up. What do any of us think this global migration crisis is all about, fundamentally? Or are denialists about global over-population pinning their hopes on Elon Musk and the Great Exodus to a terraformed Mars? Therefore, I strongly advise the GOP that to oppose all forms of birth control -- as Republicans in Washington do, e.g., in conditions attached to foreign aid or in all matters relating to Planned Parenthood -- is a losing strategy.

    2. The Democrats

    It's real easy to see what the Democrats have to walk back to the Center: they can't continue to include in the fringes all the ABCLGBTQs. They need to ease back considerable on their insane multiculturalism. So they loose a few votes to the Greens? That won't matter like losing votes to the GOP. Do the math.

    They had a pretty long run with their multicultralism, but now that Hillary Wasserman Schultz has been exposed as a vote-count fixer and voters have come to realize that there are real problems with women in combat roles in the military, it's obvious that even the considerable talent of the DNC for hypocrisy has pushed the envelope to the breaking point. In speech that Democrat pols can understand, they need a more "nuanced" approach than their attempt to elevate multiculturalism to the level of a state religion.

    Democrats don't have to roll back thetr "woman's right to choose" -- that's a winner if ever there was one. OMG, in one short slogan they manage to accuse the GOP prudes of attacking a woman's "right to choose" and remind women of their fundamental identity and whose side they are on in the CW. They just have to walk back their extreme multiculturalism toward the center: otherwise they will lose the CW without anyone firing a shot.

    Unless the Democratic Party shoots itself in the foot, their biggest problem is their real competition, the Green Party. And, of course, their own internal corruption.

    But I could be wrong. I was right there when the sexual revolution was at its peak, before AIDS and all that, and maybe people don't like FFF as much as I think they do. It;s all just a distant memory to me.
    , @Grandpa Charlie
    The demographic approach to politics: Identity Politics (IDP)

    I suppose that to understand USA's identity politics, we could go back to the Civil War. There, in either the Marxist materialist (economic) or the constitutionalist approaches to that history, we immediately see the most important fact about ID politics, namely, ID politics is opposed to issue politics. That is, IDP allows not only politicians but the public itself to evade difficult issues. The approach of IDP to the CW is that it was fought over the issue of slavery: issue-politics approaches hold that the CW was fought over either economics (the tariff) or over the Constitution (Amendments 9 and 10). Few here at UR would accept that IDP approach to the CW, that it was about slavery, and I bring it forward here only to show that I know what IDP is and how it has long, or even always been an aspect of USA's politic.

    The CW served as the basis for USA's politic as long as Republican hegemony held sway, i.e., until about 1930. What happened then, not only in 1932 but especially in 1928 had less to do with the Great Depression than that a whole new IDP paradigm appeared: the Catholic immigrant vote as owned by the Democratic Party began to rule.The demographic approach to postwar politics (i.e., post WW II) -- the dominant paradigm of the half-century or more of Democratic hegemony -- was laid out in precisely those terms by Walter Lippman and others in the 1950s, if not earlier.

    The whole thing about the Catholic vote can be seen and understood in the political institution of the Al Smith Memorial Dinner, held in every presidential election year and THE most important event of Democratic pols ever, eclipsing, in presidential election years, the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinners (which maybe are having their name changed to appease BLM or whomever). It's crucial to know that Al Smith, if he had won in 1928, would have been the first Catholic president in our history. Maybe also the first not to be a Mason -- going back to that some Pope at some time in the past excommunicated the Masonic Lodge. Thus, in 2008, even the GOP candidate, John McCain (himself a Catholic, I believe), did not dare think of skipping the Al Smith Dinner, even though it meant being seen hobnobbing with his political enemies of the so-called 'Left' and even being mildly roasted by them (part of the tradition, you know).

    Look for yourself:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?281814-1/alfred-e-smith-memorial-dinner

    (FlashPlayer plug-in may be required.)
  211. @Pat Boyle
    I read Coon soon after he published "The Origin of Races". So I'm likely to as old or older than you - Grandpa.

    I didn't mean much of anything. As I remember Cavalli-Sforza simply mentioned that the races (the "fingers") that had left Africa were more similar to each other than they were to Africans from whom they had descended.

    That’s still unclear. Are you (or C-S) saying non-Africans descended from current Africans? Or that both had a common, archaic, African ancestor?

    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie

    "That’s still unclear. Are you (or C-S) saying non-Africans descended from current Africans? Or that both had a common, archaic, African ancestor?" --Dave Pinson to Pat Boyle
     
    Dave,

    At this point,, I think we have to think that what is being said is that non-Africans (Europeans, Asians and Australians) and current Africans had a common, archaic, African ancestor. Then, both in and out of Africa, evolutionary change continued ... for 100,000 year?. Either that, or maybe Cavali-Sforza questions validity of the whole out-of-Africa scheme.

  212. For me, their thesis was sound, given the parameters they had set up and the year in which it was developed. The problem was that they didn’t adequately account for turnout. A number of Reagan Democrats switched back to vote for Clinton in 1992 but were rapidly dismayed and bowed out altogether. What saved Obama in 2012 was that black turnout was higher than white turnout – not typical in any American election. Two things happened last year: a lot of blacks stayed home rather than turn out for a wrinkled old white harridan, and Trump managed to convince just a few more Reagan Democrats in the right states to come back out for the Right.

  213. @Reg Cæsar

    If you wanted to make a profound change to the rights the Constitution granted, like say giving women the right to vote, you had to pass a Consitutional Amendment.
     
    Hardly:

    http://www.history.com/news/the-state-where-women-voted-long-before-the-19th-amendment

    15 states had full suffrage for women before 1920.

    There was also partial suffrage. Twice as many votes were cast for presidential electors than for governor in Illinois in 1916; the difference was that women could vote for the former.

    They couldn't, however, vote for alderman. Some offices are just too sacrosanct.

    Absolutely nothing you wrote counters my point. Sure various states had extended women the write to vote before the Federal Government did, but when the Federal Government extended women the right to vote they did so by amending the Constitution. The Right for women to vote in Federal elections was not achieved by Justices reading that right into the Consitution under a living document theory.

  214. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @lavoisier
    Not much of a backlash. A large number of white Americans are totally on board with the hate whitey meme and worship at the altar of multiculturalism.

    I do not see the braindead white faction as capable of defending themselves or the civilization their ancestors created.

    If tomorrow 95% 0f the black population supported a referendum to confiscate white families' wealth, I believe a significant number of white people would sign the referendum.

    Braindead white liberals will never fight for their civilization.

    If tomorrow 95% 0f the black population supported a referendum to confiscate white families’ wealth, I believe a significant number of white people would sign the referendum.

    It’s already underway. Smithsonian Magazine: ” How the Federal Government Intentionally Racially Segregated American Cities ”

    the entirety of the difference in wealth between white and black families is due to federal housing policy.

    https://chuck.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-federal-government-intentionally-racially-segregated-american-cities-180963494/?preview

  215. @Grandpa Charlie
    The GOP's anti-Americans-First immigration strategy

    Steve quotes Judis: "Cuban-Americans in Miami vote very differently from Mexican-Americans in Los Angeles." Yes, and that Miami Cuban vote for the GOP is only one instance of the success of a GOP strategy to support unlimited immigration of any "refugees" who paint themselves as fleeing from Communism. Of course, some immigrants from Communist countries actually earned that political refugee status, but many merely opportunistically claimed it -- and were in fact economic refugees. That was one side of the coin: the other side is the opportunism of the GOP in utilizing an immigration strategy during the Cold War in which they were remarkably successful in framing the GOP as THE party of anti-Communism. So most immigrants who originated in a Communist country voted Republican.

    The GOP was only one of the parties of anti-Communism, (RFK served enthusiastically as an attorney for Joe McCarthy and the HUAC) but the GOP was actually THE party of anti-unionism, more or less, (or for intellectuals like here at UR, the GOP could be THE party of anti-collectivism). Meanwhile, many here at UR (Republicans?) are stuck in history/ideology such that unionism = Communism, just as a few posting here at UR (Democrats?) are stuck in history/ideology such that unionism = populism.

    So there we have it: the GOP has been as opportunist as the Democrats in employing an open immigration strategy -- neither including anything like "First, do we, the host country, have a full-employment economy? If not, then there's no immigration!" That has been the approach to legal immigration of many or most countries, e.g., until recently, of Canada. In other words, the dominant doctrine has been that legal immigration, if any, must be based on economic necessities of the host nation, not on the economic necessities of global migrations. That dominant paradigm shifted as corporate ()WTO) globalism became dominant: the ideology of "free-traders" (e.g., Mises Institute) said and says, if truth be told, that as trade barriers, including raw materials, come down, the desired efficiencies can only be obtained if migration barriers also come down. After all, labor is an input to production as much as are any other raw materials.

    The Democrats' anti-Americans-First immigration policy

    The GOP based their pro-immigration strategy on the ideological state religion of anti-Communism, now updated to anti-Terrorism or anti-Evil (as in the 'Axis of Evil'), whereas the Democrats today base their pro-immigration on the ideological state religion of multiculturalism. Both leave people like myself who oppose all state religions especially ideological out of the picture, while both accommodate the open-borders philosophy of corporate globalism.

    I was first exposed to this new (to me) religion of multiculturalism (fronted as ''diversity' to piggyback on "biodiversity"so as to tie in with that other state religion, scientism) when I volunteered about ten years ago to teach English as a Second Language and in that context took a required two-day crash course in education -- one day focused on cultural sensitivity training and the other day on how to teach reading to adult illiterates (not uncommonly, ESL students were illiterate even in their native language). The class was made up of all women, including the instructor, except for myself and one other "older gentleman." It all went along fine, at first, and then the instructor asked how a teacher should treat a student who is actively hostile and disruptive to the whole program. We were given a multiple choice, like a test, but we all took the test together as a discussion. I spoke up for an answer that was maybe marginally disciplinarian (namely, say to the problem student: "If you can't dig it, you can leave"), and the other guy in the glass looked at me with a sad expression and shook his head, as though to say "Don't you get it?" Eventually, I did get it, and that was my introduction to the New Education (like the New Math except that I personally don't think there's anything wrong with "the New Math" while the "New Education" has serious problems, imo). Anyway, I looked into it a little further and discovered that a required part of all teacher education throughout USA had come to include "multiculturalism" - which I wouldn't call Communism but I would call it un-American, like what ever happened to "the melting pot"?

    You get to a certain age and everything just amazes you.

    FAST FORWARD to 2016/17

    What was once the state religion of anti-Communism has now become the state religion of corporate (WTO) globalism -- endorsed (like the Cult of 9-11) by both major parties. That is the ideological basis for both parties to embrace and support practically unlimited immigration into the USA.

    For Republicans: globalism = unbridled capitalism = unlimited immigration.

    For Democrats: globalism = multiculturalism = unlimited immigration

    (See the huge difference between the two major parties?)


    For immigrants from such countries as Poland, it would likely be very easy to transfer the anti-Soviet mindset over to the anti-Russia mindset. And for many dumbed-down Americans, it's very easy to revive the old Cold War "Russia bad" meme. And that is the origin of the Democrats' (Hillary's) anti-Russia strategy -- which also had total support from Kissinger neocons as something helpful to the PRC -- the PRC being one of their main funding sources ("Yet none dare call it treason") -- as well as to themselves (neocons) since most of them do not want their "valuable" training and experience, their "expertise" in Eastern Europe to go unappreciated.

    Just as during the years of Democratic hegemony, Republican leadership embraced "liberal Republicans" (now known as RINOs) that generally mirrored the Democrats, so today, as Democratic hegemony fades off into the remote past, Democratic leadership seeks to mirror the GOP. Seeing the success of Republicans, Democrats have thought about the Republicans' successful immigration strategy during the Cold War and thought, "We'll go one better: we will advocate for unlimited immigration as good for the country ... and not only will we get the immigrant vote, but we will also have the support of our corporate sponsors such as technology billionaires.

    And then along came Donald Trump.The jury is still out as to whether Trump will institute a sane immigration policy, or not. He must choose between populism and corporate globalism!

    The demographic approach to politics: Identity Politics (IDP)

    I suppose that to understand USA’s identity politics, we could go back to the Civil War. There, in either the Marxist materialist (economic) or the constitutionalist approaches to that history, we immediately see the most important fact about ID politics, namely, ID politics is opposed to issue politics. That is, IDP allows not only politicians but the public itself to evade difficult issues. The approach of IDP to the CW is that it was fought over the issue of slavery: issue-politics approaches hold that the CW was fought over either economics (the tariff) or over the Constitution (Amendments 9 and 10). Few here at UR would accept that IDP approach to the CW, that it was about slavery, and I bring it forward here only to show that I know what IDP is and how it has long, or even always been an aspect of USA’s politic.

    The CW served as the basis for USA’s politic as long as Republican hegemony held sway, i.e., until about 1930. What happened then, not only in 1932 but especially in 1928 had less to do with the Great Depression than that a whole new IDP paradigm appeared: the Catholic immigrant vote as owned by the Democratic Party began to rule.The demographic approach to postwar politics (i.e., post WW II) — the dominant paradigm of the half-century or more of Democratic hegemony — was laid out in precisely those terms by Walter Lippman and others in the 1950s, if not earlier.

    The whole thing about the Catholic vote can be seen and understood in the political institution of the Al Smith Memorial Dinner, held in every presidential election year and THE most important event of Democratic pols ever, eclipsing, in presidential election years, the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinners (which maybe are having their name changed to appease BLM or whomever). It’s crucial to know that Al Smith, if he had won in 1928, would have been the first Catholic president in our history. Maybe also the first not to be a Mason — going back to that some Pope at some time in the past excommunicated the Masonic Lodge. Thus, in 2008, even the GOP candidate, John McCain (himself a Catholic, I believe), did not dare think of skipping the Al Smith Dinner, even though it meant being seen hobnobbing with his political enemies of the so-called ‘Left’ and even being mildly roasted by them (part of the tradition, you know).

    Look for yourself:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?281814-1/alfred-e-smith-memorial-dinner

    (FlashPlayer plug-in may be required.)

    Wait a minute, you say? Is not this abortion thing clearly an instance of issue politics, not of IDP? Well, that’s the thing: was the CW really about the issue of slavery or was it a matter of identity? Today abortion is hidden away in the background in many discussions of just about every issue, while legalized abortion itself is so contentious that it cannot even be comprehended within the word ‘issue’, it can only be understood in terms of identity. Like don’t you believe in God? … or are you one of those ATHEISTS? See the difference between issue and identity? Issues can be discussed: identity just has to be accepted.

    The Culture War

    In arguments over the First Amendment or any other constitutionalist issue, while intellectuals understand that it’s about, say, the First Amendment; That’s intellectuals, like many here at UR, but the fact is that average Americans have never read the Constitution and don’t give a damn about freedom of speech, which they take for granted and think they practice every single day. Because we Americans do still have enormous latitude to say whatever we want, like on the internet, as compared with, say, China, which has yet to comply with the dogma of the Mises Institute and others, that if you adopt market reforms and join the WTO, and enter into that great institutionalized greed that we call ‘Global Capita’ … well then, just as night follows day, liberty will grow and flourish throughout your land. Why is that? Why, it’s because Henry Kissinger came to Beijing in 1971 and arranged to set up a conduit (based on the old China Lobby) for the PRC/CCP to pay off the United States Congress on a regular basis, See how that works? Money is the answer. But I digress: back to the culture war.

    In truth, Americans are not as clueless as they sometimes seem. Most Americans know something about the SCOTUS, integration of public schools, and abortion. The Patriot movement has been working hard to educate SWPL folks but still when Americans think of the Constitution, if they think of it at all, they think of it as about those three things … the SCOTUS, integration of public schools, and abortion. Pat Buchanan understood decades ago how this all adds up: it adds up to the term popularized by Buchanan, the “Culture War”. Pat when he had taken over the Reform Party in the year 2000, felt so strongly about the Culture War that he gambled the very existence of the Reform Party, the chance for America to break away from under the heel of the Republicrat/Demolican party, he gambled it all on the CW … but then he got lost in some swamp in Alaska, and that’s another story that really is Pat’s to tell, not mine (I think he made a Faustian bargain with the RNC).

    Like the original CW, the culture war can be abbreviated as CW. The one CW becomes the other CW when the guns come out. That’s the difference between the two.

    Now, in this the third millennium, a big question is this: what directions are the two major parties to take going forward?

    1. The GOP

    Comments here at UR have made a good case that the GOP may be ripe for the picking by a true populist movement. I think that may be right, because of how the Bushes and such have run away from Trump and left the GOP more free of apparatchiks than it has been probably since before the Eisenhower administration. But, you know, it’s one thing to win over a party and another thing to gain or maintain national political hegemony. Another thing is to bring Libertarian Party people into the populist movement with everyone else.

    The GOP makes a big mistake on abortion when they follow the strict pro-life party line that causes them to oppose not only abortion but even all forms of birth control. The great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gassett points out that morality (and politics) do not belong under the Aristotelian category of Ethics/logic but under the category of Esthetics/subjective judgment. That applies big time in any CW. Just think about the pro-life use of videos showing discarded babies complete with umbilical cords attached.This kind of appeal to pathos is usual in any culture war, like Uncle Tom’s Cabin in the culture war that preceded the shooting CW. What I am saying is that, yes, I understand and agree with all the popes when they reason logically from ethics to decide (morally and politically) that all forms of birth control are wrong. But really that logical conclusion is based on a purely esthetic judgment about what might be called FFF (F***ing For Fun). And they are right there too, because if FFF is okay, so are all the various combinations of your ABCs, like you know, LGBTQ or whatever. So, okay, Republicans may be grounded morally and esthetically about FFF, but the thing is while following the strict pro-life party line may work now in 2017, and may have helped Trump to manage his political need for support of the Religious Right, nonetheless, following the pro-life party line will not work for long … because the world is rapidly filling up. The materialism of Marx has been discarded, but not the materialism of Malthus, which grows politically stronger with every baby born.

    I know, many here at UR are saying that the problem is that white folk are practicing too much birth control and are falling behind in the contest with all the non-white monkeys for who has the most (sic) most (sic) stupid voters. That’s the only problem, right? Wrong, because non-whites don’t all just lay around and carelessly FFF, they also, many of them notice how crowded the world is becoming (and some of them even vote). The Pope when he visited the Philippines (arguably the most Catholic country in the world) recently did not even try to lecture the people there who have successfully demanded not legalization of abortions, no, but all other forms of birth control, yes. If argument is made that the Philippines because non-white (more or less) doesn’t apply anyway, then check out Ireland, with the palest of pale faces. Abortions. NO, but other birth control: YES. (For abortions, Irish girls have to go over to England.)

    I mean following the strict pro-life party line is a loser for the GOP, in the not-too-far-off longterm.Simply because of the demographic facts of life.

    Maybe Republicans don’t realize it but just as the stereotype of the AH liberal has certainly cost many elections for the Democrats, so also the stereotype of the hypocritically prudish moralizing REPUBLICAN can and will lose way too many votes in the near future. IF the GOP refuses to walk back the decision to support the most radical pronouncements of Popes when safely ensconced in Rome. Maybe, sure, maybe they can get away with it for a while, by the assiduous practice of hypocrisy, but there’s a problem with that vain hope: the image of the pious rich prudish moralizing Republican very much includes the characteristic of HYPOCRISY. It will bite them in the end. Think 2012, think Romney.

    So, Republicans need to wise up and give up on their opposition to FFF. I know, the most deeply pleasurable effing is FFB, after all, but still opposing FFF is a loser. It’s obvious that demography rules not only in Red/Blue theory in USA but also globally. And it’s also obvious that the world is full up. What do any of us think this global migration crisis is all about, fundamentally? Or are denialists about global over-population pinning their hopes on Elon Musk and the Great Exodus to a terraformed Mars? Therefore, I strongly advise the GOP that to oppose all forms of birth control — as Republicans in Washington do, e.g., in conditions attached to foreign aid or in all matters relating to Planned Parenthood — is a losing strategy.

    2. The Democrats

    It’s real easy to see what the Democrats have to walk back to the Center: they can’t continue to include in the fringes all the ABCLGBTQs. They need to ease back considerable on their insane multiculturalism. So they loose a few votes to the Greens? That won’t matter like losing votes to the GOP. Do the math.

    They had a pretty long run with their multicultralism, but now that Hillary Wasserman Schultz has been exposed as a vote-count fixer and voters have come to realize that there are real problems with women in combat roles in the military, it’s obvious that even the considerable talent of the DNC for hypocrisy has pushed the envelope to the breaking point. In speech that Democrat pols can understand, they need a more “nuanced” approach than their attempt to elevate multiculturalism to the level of a state religion.

    Democrats don’t have to roll back thetr “woman’s right to choose” — that’s a winner if ever there was one. OMG, in one short slogan they manage to accuse the GOP prudes of attacking a woman’s “right to choose” and remind women of their fundamental identity and whose side they are on in the CW. They just have to walk back their extreme multiculturalism toward the center: otherwise they will lose the CW without anyone firing a shot.

    Unless the Democratic Party shoots itself in the foot, their biggest problem is their real competition, the Green Party. And, of course, their own internal corruption.

    But I could be wrong. I was right there when the sexual revolution was at its peak, before AIDS and all that, and maybe people don’t like FFF as much as I think they do. It;s all just a distant memory to me.

  216. @Grandpa Charlie
    The GOP's anti-Americans-First immigration strategy

    Steve quotes Judis: "Cuban-Americans in Miami vote very differently from Mexican-Americans in Los Angeles." Yes, and that Miami Cuban vote for the GOP is only one instance of the success of a GOP strategy to support unlimited immigration of any "refugees" who paint themselves as fleeing from Communism. Of course, some immigrants from Communist countries actually earned that political refugee status, but many merely opportunistically claimed it -- and were in fact economic refugees. That was one side of the coin: the other side is the opportunism of the GOP in utilizing an immigration strategy during the Cold War in which they were remarkably successful in framing the GOP as THE party of anti-Communism. So most immigrants who originated in a Communist country voted Republican.

    The GOP was only one of the parties of anti-Communism, (RFK served enthusiastically as an attorney for Joe McCarthy and the HUAC) but the GOP was actually THE party of anti-unionism, more or less, (or for intellectuals like here at UR, the GOP could be THE party of anti-collectivism). Meanwhile, many here at UR (Republicans?) are stuck in history/ideology such that unionism = Communism, just as a few posting here at UR (Democrats?) are stuck in history/ideology such that unionism = populism.

    So there we have it: the GOP has been as opportunist as the Democrats in employing an open immigration strategy -- neither including anything like "First, do we, the host country, have a full-employment economy? If not, then there's no immigration!" That has been the approach to legal immigration of many or most countries, e.g., until recently, of Canada. In other words, the dominant doctrine has been that legal immigration, if any, must be based on economic necessities of the host nation, not on the economic necessities of global migrations. That dominant paradigm shifted as corporate ()WTO) globalism became dominant: the ideology of "free-traders" (e.g., Mises Institute) said and says, if truth be told, that as trade barriers, including raw materials, come down, the desired efficiencies can only be obtained if migration barriers also come down. After all, labor is an input to production as much as are any other raw materials.

    The Democrats' anti-Americans-First immigration policy

    The GOP based their pro-immigration strategy on the ideological state religion of anti-Communism, now updated to anti-Terrorism or anti-Evil (as in the 'Axis of Evil'), whereas the Democrats today base their pro-immigration on the ideological state religion of multiculturalism. Both leave people like myself who oppose all state religions especially ideological out of the picture, while both accommodate the open-borders philosophy of corporate globalism.

    I was first exposed to this new (to me) religion of multiculturalism (fronted as ''diversity' to piggyback on "biodiversity"so as to tie in with that other state religion, scientism) when I volunteered about ten years ago to teach English as a Second Language and in that context took a required two-day crash course in education -- one day focused on cultural sensitivity training and the other day on how to teach reading to adult illiterates (not uncommonly, ESL students were illiterate even in their native language). The class was made up of all women, including the instructor, except for myself and one other "older gentleman." It all went along fine, at first, and then the instructor asked how a teacher should treat a student who is actively hostile and disruptive to the whole program. We were given a multiple choice, like a test, but we all took the test together as a discussion. I spoke up for an answer that was maybe marginally disciplinarian (namely, say to the problem student: "If you can't dig it, you can leave"), and the other guy in the glass looked at me with a sad expression and shook his head, as though to say "Don't you get it?" Eventually, I did get it, and that was my introduction to the New Education (like the New Math except that I personally don't think there's anything wrong with "the New Math" while the "New Education" has serious problems, imo). Anyway, I looked into it a little further and discovered that a required part of all teacher education throughout USA had come to include "multiculturalism" - which I wouldn't call Communism but I would call it un-American, like what ever happened to "the melting pot"?

    You get to a certain age and everything just amazes you.

    FAST FORWARD to 2016/17

    What was once the state religion of anti-Communism has now become the state religion of corporate (WTO) globalism -- endorsed (like the Cult of 9-11) by both major parties. That is the ideological basis for both parties to embrace and support practically unlimited immigration into the USA.

    For Republicans: globalism = unbridled capitalism = unlimited immigration.

    For Democrats: globalism = multiculturalism = unlimited immigration

    (See the huge difference between the two major parties?)


    For immigrants from such countries as Poland, it would likely be very easy to transfer the anti-Soviet mindset over to the anti-Russia mindset. And for many dumbed-down Americans, it's very easy to revive the old Cold War "Russia bad" meme. And that is the origin of the Democrats' (Hillary's) anti-Russia strategy -- which also had total support from Kissinger neocons as something helpful to the PRC -- the PRC being one of their main funding sources ("Yet none dare call it treason") -- as well as to themselves (neocons) since most of them do not want their "valuable" training and experience, their "expertise" in Eastern Europe to go unappreciated.

    Just as during the years of Democratic hegemony, Republican leadership embraced "liberal Republicans" (now known as RINOs) that generally mirrored the Democrats, so today, as Democratic hegemony fades off into the remote past, Democratic leadership seeks to mirror the GOP. Seeing the success of Republicans, Democrats have thought about the Republicans' successful immigration strategy during the Cold War and thought, "We'll go one better: we will advocate for unlimited immigration as good for the country ... and not only will we get the immigrant vote, but we will also have the support of our corporate sponsors such as technology billionaires.

    And then along came Donald Trump.The jury is still out as to whether Trump will institute a sane immigration policy, or not. He must choose between populism and corporate globalism!

    The demographic approach to politics: Identity Politics (IDP)

    I suppose that to understand USA’s identity politics, we could go back to the Civil War. There, in either the Marxist materialist (economic) or the constitutionalist approaches to that history, we immediately see the most important fact about ID politics, namely, ID politics is opposed to issue politics. That is, IDP allows not only politicians but the public itself to evade difficult issues. The approach of IDP to the CW is that it was fought over the issue of slavery: issue-politics approaches hold that the CW was fought over either economics (the tariff) or over the Constitution (Amendments 9 and 10). Few here at UR would accept that IDP approach to the CW, that it was about slavery, and I bring it forward here only to show that I know what IDP is and how it has long, or even always been an aspect of USA’s politic.

    The CW served as the basis for USA’s politic as long as Republican hegemony held sway, i.e., until about 1930. What happened then, not only in 1932 but especially in 1928 had less to do with the Great Depression than that a whole new IDP paradigm appeared: the Catholic immigrant vote as owned by the Democratic Party began to rule.The demographic approach to postwar politics (i.e., post WW II) — the dominant paradigm of the half-century or more of Democratic hegemony — was laid out in precisely those terms by Walter Lippman and others in the 1950s, if not earlier.

    The whole thing about the Catholic vote can be seen and understood in the political institution of the Al Smith Memorial Dinner, held in every presidential election year and THE most important event of Democratic pols ever, eclipsing, in presidential election years, the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinners (which maybe are having their name changed to appease BLM or whomever). It’s crucial to know that Al Smith, if he had won in 1928, would have been the first Catholic president in our history. Maybe also the first not to be a Mason — going back to that some Pope at some time in the past excommunicated the Masonic Lodge. Thus, in 2008, even the GOP candidate, John McCain (himself a Catholic, I believe), did not dare think of skipping the Al Smith Dinner, even though it meant being seen hobnobbing with his political enemies of the so-called ‘Left’ and even being mildly roasted by them (part of the tradition, you know).

    Look for yourself:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?281814-1/alfred-e-smith-memorial-dinner

    (FlashPlayer plug-in may be required.)

  217. @Dave Pinsen
    That's still unclear. Are you (or C-S) saying non-Africans descended from current Africans? Or that both had a common, archaic, African ancestor?

    “That’s still unclear. Are you (or C-S) saying non-Africans descended from current Africans? Or that both had a common, archaic, African ancestor?” –Dave Pinson to Pat Boyle

    Dave,

    At this point,, I think we have to think that what is being said is that non-Africans (Europeans, Asians and Australians) and current Africans had a common, archaic, African ancestor. Then, both in and out of Africa, evolutionary change continued … for 100,000 year?. Either that, or maybe Cavali-Sforza questions validity of the whole out-of-Africa scheme.

  218. As someone who is just interested in early human migrations and the pre-history of modern humans, not someone who is knowledgeable on these topics, I googled around and found this:

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

    I read Coon back in the 1960s and I have yet to read Cavalli-Sforza, but the Wiki article leads me to believe that Cavalli-Sforza’s view as summarized by Pat or by Steve is but a very general minimalist overview of what probably can be concluded from the evidence collected to date: the research situation is much more complex, contested, fragmentary and incomplete, defying meaningful conclusive generalization in one sentence.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS