The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: "The Senate: Affirmative Action for White People"
🔊 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 York Times today:

The Senate: Affirmative Action for White People

And why it’s time to make Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., the 51st and 52nd states.

By David Leonhardt
Opinion Columnist

Oct. 14, 2018

The biggest racial preferences in this country have nothing to do with college admissions or job offers. They have to do with political power. And they benefit white Americans, at the expense of black, Asian and Hispanic Americans.

These racial preferences are the ones that dictate the makeup of the United States Senate. Thanks to a combination of historical accident and racism, the Senate gives considerably more representation to white citizens than to dark-skinned ones. It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority.

I wrote in VDARE in 2009:

No states have been added to the Union in a half century. But the issue dominated American politics in the 40 years preceding the Civil War. And it’s likely to emerge again.

The Democrats have solid reasons to promote Washington D.C. and/or Puerto Rico to statehood whenever it looks like they can get away with it. Each would provide them with two additional Democrats in the U.S. Senate, along with five or six Democratic members of the House of Representatives for Puerto Rico and one for Washington D.C., with corresponding advantages for the Democrats in the Electoral College.

Of course, the last time Puerto Rican statehood came up for a vote in the House, it was pushed through to a 209-208 victory by a Republican, Speaker Newt Gingrich, motivated by the delusion that Puerto Rican statehood would somehow attract Mexican voters to the GOP! …

Newt’s misadventure illustrates why statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. is likely to come up again. It’s kind of like gay marriage—which, after losing 31 straight times when put to the electorate, has been renamed “marriage equality”. What, are you against equality? Likewise, statehood for D.C. and P.R. will at some point be turned into racial equality issues—which are hard to withstand under our age’s reigning mindset.

You’re against electoral equality? What kind of racist are you?

Threatening to split Texas into five states would be an effective Republican counter-gambit.

I have no idea if this is actually true, but I was told when I went to college in Texas that Texas has the right, under its terms of admission in the 1840s, to split itself into five states. The average population of these five states would be about 5.7 million, just under the average state in the country, and considerably bigger than depopulating Puerto Rico and much bigger than D.C.

States have split before. …

Depending upon how adroitly the state borders are gerrymandered, splitting Texas could create a net gain for Republicans in the Senate of two or four Senators. Texas currently sends two Republicans to the Senate. Five Texases would likely send seven or eight Republicans to the Senate, for a net increase of two or four—assuming most of the Democrats are corralled into a new Hispanic-dominated state of South Texas along the Rio Grande. Creating a heavily Hispanic state in south Texas would almost certainly add two Latinos to the Senate—how could anybody be against that? Republicans would be delighted to demonize Democrats who opposed splitting Texas as racists who don’t want Hispanics to have their own state.

Here’s Nate Silver’s 2009 map of what the five states of Texas might look like:

 
Hide 233 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Do the residents of Texas have any interest in dividing the state? I have never heard that they do. Wouldn’t make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    • Replies: @Houston Texican
    As a 5th generation Texan, I’m guessing the preferred option would be to secede rather than splitting the state. Long live the Repulic of Texas.
    , @Clifford Brown
    I never get the sense that Texas has such radically different cultures than say is the case in California. The Bay Areas does feel different from the Los Angeles area and the agricultural heartland of California feels quite different from the libertarian hippy far northern region of the state. I can buy that California could break up.

    Texas on the other hand feels more solidified. Texas is Texas. There is a spirit to the place and there is a "Texas" mindset and history that the state government overtly supports. I actually think that California could learn a bit from Texas as Texas really incorporates Latinos into their state identity as Latino Texans while California basically sells the multicultural approach that presents Latinos as disenfranchised outsiders.

    In the end, Texans understand power and money, and breaking the state apart serves neither.
    , @Anonymous
    I think the states most eager to break themselves up would be: California, Florida, Illinois, and NY, in that order; and any new state cut from any of the above would be plausible to send 2 Democratic Senators while its more urban parent maintained 2 still-safe seats. Recently this feels like a legit fad on the NPR-left. Call it anti-anti-nationalism, or perhaps Balkan chic
    , @F0337

    Wouldn’t make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.
     
    'Problems' like PR are catnip to Dems. More misery=more votes.

    @MBlanc46


    Disaggregation is coming, one way or another.
     
    Indeed it is, but the bloodletting comes first. It's the way they want it.
    , @Patrick in SC

    ...and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.
     
    The "D" party doesn't care one jot about subjecting the country to problems. In fact, a huge chunk of their most ardent and vocal boosters absolutely relish doing so.

    Not saying the "R" party is a day at the beach, of course.
    , @RoryBellowsLives
    A potential statehood of Puerto Rico would be a feature, not a bug for the Democrats. It would allow them to grandstand "See! Republicans don't care about giving money and aid to our precious Hispanic state!" as well as extract more money from the electorate to "help" the downtrodden Puerto Ricans. Also, statehood for Puerto Rico would allow easier access for many of the upwardly mobile islanders to migrate to Florida and/or New York/New Jersey which would solidify those states as always blue in Presidential elections as well as flip various red districts in the extended suburbs blue for the House (hello a permanent Dem in Long Island's first, second and third!)

    I think the Dems misplayed whatever Hurricane wrecked Puerto Rico last year in their constant changing and Trump obsessed news-cycle. Weeks of coverage of devastation for those poor souls in PR with added pressure on pols in purple districts with high Hispanic populations could have potentially forced through (or at least planted the seed) of legit Puerto Rico statehood.
    , @1661er
    The people may not want to exercise it, but lots of Texans are pretty fixated that the 1845 admission treaty/agreement that admitted Texas into the US give them the right to break up into 4-5 states. They are interests in having their rights to do so acknowledged, even if they are not going to take advantages of it.
  2. Disaggregation is coming, one way or another.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Probably. I can't see the urban progressives agreeing to the Constitution's counter-majoritarian provisions forever. And simultaneously, I can't see the conservative flyovers agreeing to rule by the the cities. The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other.
    , @AnotherDad
    More articles like this, please!

    White people need to wake up.

    Basically there's a conflict of visions:

    -- The state is legitimate, supreme and eternal.
    Basically Leonhardt's vision--the Jewish vision--is that the state--it's control of a particular territory--is what the legitimate, essential, permanent. And the critical function of a proper--moral--state is protecting Jewish interests--any granted rights, privileges, sinecures, etc.--against any pushback by the majority. This is broadened out to "minority rights" in the current prog playbook, but is essentially the same idea. State supremacy. Proper governance==protecting minorities.

    in contrast the American founding

    -- The *people* are sovereign, their rights are legitimate and supreme.
    In the American vision, the people are sovereign. The state is transitory, derives only its just powers from the people's consent and is subject to abolishment/replacement if it tramples the peoples' rights. And there are no "minority rights". All individuals have the same fundamental natural rights. But there is no right to have you minority culture protected, nor for your minority to attached itself and milk the majority. A just state is run in the interest of the nation's *majority* and protective of individuals fundamental natural rights only.


    So yeah ... keep these people yakking about how terrible it is that white people have some of (extremely limited) control over the government of the nation that their ancestors founded and built and with brains, blood and sweat. Maybe at some point white people will wake the hell up.
  3. Even with the Hispanic influx into the state, Texas seems to identify with its statehood and local culture as much as any state in the union. I suspect such a proposal would not be popular with the locals.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Yes. A split would ipso facto, mess with Texas.
    , @Logan
    Several decades ago my wife and I spent a week in Jamaica at one of those all-inclusive resorts.

    All the Texans immediately got together and became group that hung out together for the whole week. The residents of no other state did this or even seemed to consider it.
  4. It seems that all it takes for a new state to be admitted to the USA is a petition by the state and a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress to accept and establish the state. The procedure doesn’t even need the support of the President. Yikes. This is dangerous. Why stop with Puerto Rico? Carry the idea on further to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and even the Phillipines (the population of such countries would overwhelmingly vote to be included in the USA). I think we can see how the United States of America will end.

    • Replies: @SporadicMyrmidon
    This would actually seem to be a diabolically effective strategy. The Democrats are eventually going to grasp that impeaching anyone in the absence of actual crimes is utterly nonviable, as it needs a 2/3 vote in the Senate. If they manage to retake both houses of Congress they could give statehood to DC in one stroke, in this era, relying on a party line vote and ignoring reasonable objections. The other cases would take time, since most leftists have a distaste for "imperialism" (and a somewhat well-grounded distaste, I think), but if they and the resident populations could be convinced that the USA can be transformed into some sort of socialist Norteamérica, this might be a go.

    The Philippines actually had congressional delegates in the past. I can see them being induced to vote to join the US on solid kickass reasoning, and then being persuaded to vote for Democrats on economic grounds. This would take some time though.

    Maybe this is all too clever though. It is probably much simpler to just let illegals in and let them vote.
    , @AnonyBot
    I think we can see how the United States of America will end.

    Open revolution?

    I guess in theory they could admit those places as states. In reality the response would be brutal and swift, and the Democrats know it. They haven't even been able to bring themselves to give statehodd to Puerto Rio when they've had control of Congress.
    , @Anonymous
    Sounds like the 'European Union'.
    , @Flip
    I thought Texas lost the right to split itself as part of readmission to the Union after the Civil War.

    A state can't be split up without the consent of its legislature according to the US Constitution.

    Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress
  5. The Senate, the Electoral College, the Constitution, the population. These are all problematic.

    • Agree: F0337
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Creating Jefferson State in the north of California and the southmost counties of Oregon would be a win for the GOP.
  6. @Barnard
    Do the residents of Texas have any interest in dividing the state? I have never heard that they do. Wouldn't make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    As a 5th generation Texan, I’m guessing the preferred option would be to secede rather than splitting the state. Long live the Repulic of Texas.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    A little OT. When someone says "I'm an X generation (Texan, US citizen, etc.), are we counting down from the highest branch of the family tree?

    In Texas, it's the equivalent of bragging about being from founding WASP New England stock. And I guess using the longest branch is fine for this, even if you are in reality, say, 15/16ths Italian, because it doesn't make a difference in political or cultural matters.

    In the Southwest, however, you get a bunch of Mex-Ams talking about the border having crossed them, when in reality, they're just a smidgen multi-generational Spanish or Mexican American, and mostly of relatively recent Mexican stock.

    I thought I was making a larger point when I started writing this, but what the hell, I'm hitting 'publish' anyway.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Why unnecessarily take so many of millions of generally impoverished and poorly-assimilated Mexicans along when you secede? Cut out southern Texas and have the rest of the State secede, before it's too late.
  7. The Left rarely addresses why they lose an election, and instead either demand a new vote or a rule change. You will see this in referenda like the Irish EU vote in which the Left lost and just demanded a new vote until they got the result they wanted. Or you will see how they lose in the electoral college and demand that we change to a nationwide popular vote. Now they seem to be upset about how the senator is comprised. It’s never their message that’s at fault.

    BTW, the Founders have already provided a remedy for their concern. It’s called amending the Constitution. The manner in which we choose senators has already been amended. Why can’t the Left just go through the process of amending it again? Ditto for the electoral college.

    • Replies: @F0337

    BTW, the Founders have already provided a remedy for their concern. It’s called amending the Constitution. The manner in which we choose senators has already been amended. Why can’t the Left just go through the process of amending it again? Ditto for the electoral college.
     
    Just as we now have Trial by MSM we're going to have Government by MSM. Since the stranglehold the Usual Suspects have on the MSM is (for now) more thorough than the one they have on the State, they prefer the end run.

    Even though White Americans are already in eclipse, the Ruling Class is tireless in searching for ways in which to dispossess us more quickly and more completely. Laws are just temporary impediments.

    To quote Leonard Cohen: "I've seen the future, and it's murder."

    , @Redneck farmer
    Amending the Constitution is hard work, and not enough leftists want to work that hard.
    , @Hibernian
    Equality of representation in the Senate can only be denied by unanimous consent of the States.
    , @Almost Missouri
    You are correct in both paragraphs, but ever since the Left found they could get their way through five Supreme Court justices, Executive Orders, or just plain ignoring inconvenient laws, they lost what little appetite they had for Constitutional Amendments.

    They are not interested in the rules, nor in self reflection. Just in getting their way, the sooner the better.
  8. @Polynikes
    Even with the Hispanic influx into the state, Texas seems to identify with its statehood and local culture as much as any state in the union. I suspect such a proposal would not be popular with the locals.

    Yes. A split would ipso facto, mess with Texas.

  9. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    The Senate, the Electoral College, the Constitution, the population. These are all problematic.

    Creating Jefferson State in the north of California and the southmost counties of Oregon would be a win for the GOP.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Northern California (actual northern California, not central coastal California, as the phrase "northern California" is ridiculously used by most to mean) is as different from the rest of that state as anything can be. Its inhabitants are effectively occupied and enslaved by a hostile foreign power in a way not known to American politics since Reconstruction.
  10. @Barnard
    Do the residents of Texas have any interest in dividing the state? I have never heard that they do. Wouldn't make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    I never get the sense that Texas has such radically different cultures than say is the case in California. The Bay Areas does feel different from the Los Angeles area and the agricultural heartland of California feels quite different from the libertarian hippy far northern region of the state. I can buy that California could break up.

    Texas on the other hand feels more solidified. Texas is Texas. There is a spirit to the place and there is a “Texas” mindset and history that the state government overtly supports. I actually think that California could learn a bit from Texas as Texas really incorporates Latinos into their state identity as Latino Texans while California basically sells the multicultural approach that presents Latinos as disenfranchised outsiders.

    In the end, Texans understand power and money, and breaking the state apart serves neither.

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Jason K.
    Generally, not too far off; with the exceptions of the major cities (Dallas, Austin, and Houston). Each of these have their own spin on Texas. Dallas is more centrist and cosmopolitan. Austin is... off (think wannabe Berkeley/San Fran). Houston is a police state in the making (as ethnic diversity is wont to do).
    , @Lagertha
    The land in Texas....the land....is almost entirely owned by private people/old families. Cattle, sorghum growing, etc. is in private hands, families...and always will be. And, of course oil is often on these same properties, so, duh. Texas had no Indian cultures living in cities or historic villages. There are no signs of indigenous civilizations. This is why Texas is weird, an outlier. You are still responsible for yourself in Texas.

    That is why Texas is like Finland (stand against deadly odds - Alamo/Bolshevik Russia). Texas has been keen on becoming their own country because they hate the lies of the Democrats for the last 10 years & they have figured out a way that works for their state as far as taxes. Texas does not want to be sucked into NY or California...states that are failing. Mezo & S American immigrants I have met, want to be Trump....or at least, his driver and body guard, his wife's stylist and dresser. Texas knows S. Americans are hard-working.

    , @syonredux
    https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_30/1139931/150724-julian-castro-jsw-03-245p_bcc7fb5179a9d94492d53849aae9df48.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg
  11. Anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:
    @Barnard
    Do the residents of Texas have any interest in dividing the state? I have never heard that they do. Wouldn't make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    I think the states most eager to break themselves up would be: California, Florida, Illinois, and NY, in that order; and any new state cut from any of the above would be plausible to send 2 Democratic Senators while its more urban parent maintained 2 still-safe seats. Recently this feels like a legit fad on the NPR-left. Call it anti-anti-nationalism, or perhaps Balkan chic

    • Replies: @Barnard
    The rest of Illinois minus Chicago would regularly elect Republicans to the Senate, maybe not as reliably as Wyoming, but they would be favored. Florida would be the same, the races would be competitive and the Republicans would have a big advantage in the northern part of the state.
    , @bomag

    Balkan chic
     
    Good one.
    , @Corn
    Illinoisan here. Peoria County resident. I would love to see Illinois split up but I’m sure it’ll never happen. As Barnard said, Illinois minus Cook County is basically Indiana..... a red, sometimes purple state.
    , @Almost Missouri
    A so far unmentioned obstacle to state breakups, especially states like IL, CA, NY, is who gets stuck with the accumulated debt and pension liabilities? A big part of the reason that these states are candidates for breakups is that they are fiscal basket cases, in which some residents feel they are being unjustly burdened with others' irresponsible use of the state credit card. They won't want to accept the same old fiscal burden as a condition for separating.
  12. The average age of a US senator is 62 meaning they were born, on average, in 1956, when the US was 90% white. Currently, 90 of the 100 US senators are white. Non whites are younger than whites. Does Mr. Leonhardt think that there are not enough Hispanic teenagers in the senate?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Hispanics are not necessarily "non-white."

    Anyway, the entire target audience for this article lacks either the basic numeracy needed to grasp your point, or the honesty needed to admit it and it's logical implications. The vast majority likely lack both.

    , @notanon
    yes - that's the deliberate dishonesty in this type of argument
  13. @Barnard
    Do the residents of Texas have any interest in dividing the state? I have never heard that they do. Wouldn't make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    Wouldn’t make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    ‘Problems’ like PR are catnip to Dems. More misery=more votes.

    Disaggregation is coming, one way or another.

    Indeed it is, but the bloodletting comes first. It’s the way they want it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Your link to @MBlanc46's comment fooled me for a bit, as though it were an unz.com feature to reply to 2 people in one comment. Cool way to do it.

    BTW, he didn't have a replier yet (for picking out the comment #) - did you have to go through the HTML via "view source" to pick it out? I've done that before.
  14. FTS! Dissolve the Union into its fifty sovereign states– and offer the District of Columbia sovereignty in its own right. (All that it would need to do is to agree to assume the accumulated national debt, and any other pre-existing financial obligations of the Federal Government.) Regardless, Whites are not yet a minority of the population of the United States; non-Hispanic White gentiles still comprise about a three-fifths supermajority of the country’s resident population, an even bigger supermajority of actual American citizens, and a markedly larger supermajority of adult American citizens– otherwise known as actual and potential voters. When Whites in most states fail to vote as this pundit would prefer them to do, they are voting in their states’ respective interests– and presumably in the interests of the country’s White supermajority per se, collectively.

    What this left-wing Democratic activist qua pundit actually objects to is the American federal system itself– which was the basis upon which many of the states were willing to join the Union, in the first place. If he wants to end the federal system set up by the Framers, fine; he should join me in calling for the dissolution of the United States as a union of sovereign states, with each finally taking its rightful place among the Family of Nations, and each deciding upon its own immigration and naturalization statute for the former American citizens who are not citizens of each respective state, as well as for anyone else who was not an American citizen, at the time of the Union’s permanent dissolution.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Eventually, the US is going to break apart in much the same way as the Soviet Union. I have no doubt of that, although I may not live to see it.

    But the idea of the 50 individual States being independent nations makes little sense practically or politically. I'm guessing there will be from four to six or seven nations formed out of the current Continental US, with lines sometimes but not always following the current state lines, and some present states being broken into two or more parts.

    California and Texas are unlikely to stay whole, several New England states unlikely to stay separate, and many arbitrary or geographically odd boundries will be eliminated, such as Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

    Chunks of Western Canada and Baja California may be part of the new nations as well. Mexico's military is utterly impotent and would not last a week against the California National Guard alone. Canada's is more serious, but even a semiserious revolt against rule by Ottawa and Frogs would succeed in the long run.

    Big question is: Who gets the nukes and why?

    , @Achmed E. Newman

    What this left-wing Democratic activist qua pundit actually objects to is the American federal system itself– which was the basis upon which many of the states were willing to join the Union, in the first place.
     
    There you go - at least one guy who understands the original idea of the US Federal Gov't. Thank you, D.K. for putting it better than I could have - the whole 2nd paragraph.
    , @Thud
    You could always make immigration from Europe easier, replenish original stock with new as there are plenty of right thinking Europeans yearning to be free of the EU. Getting into America as a white Englishman is not that easy, good and bad in that I guess....thanks to Ted K the drunk.
  15. Why can’t a solid red state vote to split into two separate states and in doing so pick up 2 conservative U.S. senators?

  16. @istevefan
    The Left rarely addresses why they lose an election, and instead either demand a new vote or a rule change. You will see this in referenda like the Irish EU vote in which the Left lost and just demanded a new vote until they got the result they wanted. Or you will see how they lose in the electoral college and demand that we change to a nationwide popular vote. Now they seem to be upset about how the senator is comprised. It's never their message that's at fault.

    BTW, the Founders have already provided a remedy for their concern. It's called amending the Constitution. The manner in which we choose senators has already been amended. Why can't the Left just go through the process of amending it again? Ditto for the electoral college.

    BTW, the Founders have already provided a remedy for their concern. It’s called amending the Constitution. The manner in which we choose senators has already been amended. Why can’t the Left just go through the process of amending it again? Ditto for the electoral college.

    Just as we now have Trial by MSM we’re going to have Government by MSM. Since the stranglehold the Usual Suspects have on the MSM is (for now) more thorough than the one they have on the State, they prefer the end run.

    Even though White Americans are already in eclipse, the Ruling Class is tireless in searching for ways in which to dispossess us more quickly and more completely. Laws are just temporary impediments.

    To quote Leonard Cohen: “I’ve seen the future, and it’s murder.”

  17. Give DC to Maryland. Free Puerto Rico from white colonialist oppression by jettisoning them entirely. “Taxation Without Representation” solved.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Give DC to Maryland. Free Puerto Rico from white colonialist oppression by jettisoning them entirely. “Taxation Without Representation” solved.
     
    Agree.

    Make a city into a state? That's crazy. The only question is whether as the capital city there is any reason to keep D.C. as a federal reserve.

    As for Puerto Rico, cut off migration, give them a zillion dollars cash, and make them independent. How ever much money the payoff is, it will be worth it in the long run. And it will be spent in five years, no matter how much it is.
    , @Anon
    Actually, Puerto Ricans don't pay Federal income tax. The parasites can get welfare, though.
    , @donut
    By "give" you mean "burden" Maryland with DC . No thanks we've already got Baltimore .
    , @midtown
    Yes. Barring this, if PR becomes a state, then a bunch of homesteaders need to move there and take it over.
  18. @Barnard
    Do the residents of Texas have any interest in dividing the state? I have never heard that they do. Wouldn't make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    …and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    The “D” party doesn’t care one jot about subjecting the country to problems. In fact, a huge chunk of their most ardent and vocal boosters absolutely relish doing so.

    Not saying the “R” party is a day at the beach, of course.

  19. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.
    FTS! Dissolve the Union into its fifty sovereign states-- and offer the District of Columbia sovereignty in its own right. (All that it would need to do is to agree to assume the accumulated national debt, and any other pre-existing financial obligations of the Federal Government.) Regardless, Whites are not yet a minority of the population of the United States; non-Hispanic White gentiles still comprise about a three-fifths supermajority of the country's resident population, an even bigger supermajority of actual American citizens, and a markedly larger supermajority of adult American citizens-- otherwise known as actual and potential voters. When Whites in most states fail to vote as this pundit would prefer them to do, they are voting in their states' respective interests-- and presumably in the interests of the country's White supermajority per se, collectively.

    What this left-wing Democratic activist qua pundit actually objects to is the American federal system itself-- which was the basis upon which many of the states were willing to join the Union, in the first place. If he wants to end the federal system set up by the Framers, fine; he should join me in calling for the dissolution of the United States as a union of sovereign states, with each finally taking its rightful place among the Family of Nations, and each deciding upon its own immigration and naturalization statute for the former American citizens who are not citizens of each respective state, as well as for anyone else who was not an American citizen, at the time of the Union's permanent dissolution.

    Eventually, the US is going to break apart in much the same way as the Soviet Union. I have no doubt of that, although I may not live to see it.

    But the idea of the 50 individual States being independent nations makes little sense practically or politically. I’m guessing there will be from four to six or seven nations formed out of the current Continental US, with lines sometimes but not always following the current state lines, and some present states being broken into two or more parts.

    California and Texas are unlikely to stay whole, several New England states unlikely to stay separate, and many arbitrary or geographically odd boundries will be eliminated, such as Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

    Chunks of Western Canada and Baja California may be part of the new nations as well. Mexico’s military is utterly impotent and would not last a week against the California National Guard alone. Canada’s is more serious, but even a semiserious revolt against rule by Ottawa and Frogs would succeed in the long run.

    Big question is: Who gets the nukes and why?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    If you presume a bloody civil war, the eventual winners would be able to do as they eventually please. The point is, the fifty states all are sovereign already; they do not have to proclaim it and then prove it, as the United States itself once did (thanks to the then-monarchical French government). If those fifty sovereign states, once freed from the legal authority of the Union, decided to recombine in some other forms, that would be their respective prerogatives, as sovereign states. I would prefer the latter option to the former; but then, I am one of those racist extremists who considers the historical American Civil War of 1861-1865 to have been an unjustified abomination.
    , @anin
    I know of 13 states south of the Mason-Dixon line that could form a nation. You could call it, I don't know, the Confederacy? And you can count on it that we will get our share of nukes, cause we want 'em.
    , @sagramore
    I think you hit on why Canada chose to enter NORAD and not have nukes. Western alienation is a thing, and remember, Canada is more of a defense pact than an organic entity. I've been the victim of crimes just by virtue of being from Quebec in BC, for example.
    , @Farenheit
    Pacific States of America, Atlantic States of America, Confederate States of America.

    Each with sufficient economic and demographic heft to play in the international arena if they choose.
  20. Another possibility – reunite the states of Virginia and West Virginia. Had the two states been united, Virginia would have voted republican in 2016, 48.7%-46.22% and would have given Trump 16 votes in the Electoral College rather than 13 for Clinton and 5 for Trump.

    • Replies: @midtown
    Just move some federal agencies out of the DC area and Virginia becomes red again.
  21. Here are a couple of interesting comments from the New York Times article:

    John Chenango 9m ago
    If identity politics is going to rule supreme, why bother with elections? If politics is just going to be people of different ethnic groups battling each other for power and wealth, why not just fight a bloody civil war and get it over with? Has there ever been a functional multiracial democracy where political parties were based on race?
    If “both sides” don’t start working to bring people in this country together, it will break apart the way Iraq and Yugoslavia did.

    David 43m ago
    “these citizens denied representative democracy”
    If you really want to make government more representative, then the best thing you could do is to support fracturing federal power generally. Even in a “pure democracy” of 300 million people any individual has very, very little say in anything (arguably even less than they do now). So fracture power – make fewer, far fewer, decisions nationally. Defer as much decision making as possible to state and local entities. Then your representation problem will take care of itself, and the power of voices will be amplified. I believe it was Tolkien who said that “Belgium is about the right size for a country” – even if we don’t actually fracture the nation into Belgium-sized pieces, the value of real federalism is something we would all do well to relearn.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Now that's something you don't see every day - it sounds like David reads both the NY Times AND the US Constitution*! Do a Venn diagram on that one. You don't even need a color for that area, as it's just a black arc touching another black arc with a space not big enough to thread a hair (of some sort) through.

    In answer to a number of commenters here, yes the US State were meant to be pretty much sovereign entities, only ceded power to the Federal Gov't that THEY created for defense purposes (or "defence" as they misspelled it). Hence the term "States", not "provinces", "prefectures", or "districts". They become nothing more than those last 3 terms as of the last 50 years though. Some would say as far back as to the Lincoln "administration".

    .
    .

    * Or, at least he's on the right road. He's speculating about term called "state's rights", one that would have prevented his letter from appearing, had he spelled it out.
  22. @Barnard
    Do the residents of Texas have any interest in dividing the state? I have never heard that they do. Wouldn't make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    A potential statehood of Puerto Rico would be a feature, not a bug for the Democrats. It would allow them to grandstand “See! Republicans don’t care about giving money and aid to our precious Hispanic state!” as well as extract more money from the electorate to “help” the downtrodden Puerto Ricans. Also, statehood for Puerto Rico would allow easier access for many of the upwardly mobile islanders to migrate to Florida and/or New York/New Jersey which would solidify those states as always blue in Presidential elections as well as flip various red districts in the extended suburbs blue for the House (hello a permanent Dem in Long Island’s first, second and third!)

    I think the Dems misplayed whatever Hurricane wrecked Puerto Rico last year in their constant changing and Trump obsessed news-cycle. Weeks of coverage of devastation for those poor souls in PR with added pressure on pols in purple districts with high Hispanic populations could have potentially forced through (or at least planted the seed) of legit Puerto Rico statehood.

  23. I have no idea if this is actually true, but I was told when I went to college in Texas that Texas has the right, under its terms of admission in the 1840s, to split itself into five states.

    Every state has the right to split itself into five. The question is, is Congress obligated to admit the resulting units to statehood.

    Anyone got the Texas admissions paperwork handy? Also, remember that Ohio’s was screwed up, and that state not technically admitted until 1953.

    • Replies: @jim jones
    Which one of the parts would get the Texan Embassy in London?

    http://magaimg.net/img/6gho.jpg
  24. How about New York and Florida? Those are also states where relatively conservative whites are corralled into one part of the state. Split upstate NY from NYC and you might add 2 more Republican Senators, although it’s not a foregone conclusion.

    And what about incorporating parts of Virginia and Maryland into a new State of Greater DC? Could that push VA back towards the red column?

    Also, how about we offer Taiwan statehood!!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Also, how about we offer Taiwan statehood!!
     
    It would have the tallest building in the US, because the new WTC is cheating:


    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5954597/CTBUH-tall-tower.0.png


    Not to mention the world's most unique restaurant:


    https://eternalarrival.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/modern-toilet-restaurant-300x214.png

    , @Anonymous
    In the early 70s there was a move from the NYC side to split the five boroughs off from New York State and be its own state. They put out a magazine called "51" and a young Debbie Harry wrote several articles for the publication.

    The idea was refloated from the upstate side in the nineties.

    Neither was taken nearly as seriously as the Jefferson State movement, which has been active since the late 1930s, and has no very serious traction politically today.


    There is of course the famous Conch Republic in Key West, which despite being mostly humorous in intent could easily form the nucleus for a shadow government that could make its move at the critical time. There was a Texas secessionist movement that succeeded in getting several of its members in jail, and of course several Pacific Northwest separatist movements both from the left and the right.

    In my opinion, the late Harold Covington's Northwest Independence novels show someone who spent a lot of time thinking about how this might go. While I disagreed with Covington on several of the particulars, and corresponded with him to some extent, I think his vision is one worth some study: he did a lot of research on successful and unsuccessful revolutions and had a lot of the key turning points well figured out.
  25. @Clifford Brown
    I never get the sense that Texas has such radically different cultures than say is the case in California. The Bay Areas does feel different from the Los Angeles area and the agricultural heartland of California feels quite different from the libertarian hippy far northern region of the state. I can buy that California could break up.

    Texas on the other hand feels more solidified. Texas is Texas. There is a spirit to the place and there is a "Texas" mindset and history that the state government overtly supports. I actually think that California could learn a bit from Texas as Texas really incorporates Latinos into their state identity as Latino Texans while California basically sells the multicultural approach that presents Latinos as disenfranchised outsiders.

    In the end, Texans understand power and money, and breaking the state apart serves neither.

    Generally, not too far off; with the exceptions of the major cities (Dallas, Austin, and Houston). Each of these have their own spin on Texas. Dallas is more centrist and cosmopolitan. Austin is… off (think wannabe Berkeley/San Fran). Houston is a police state in the making (as ethnic diversity is wont to do).

    • Replies: @Mike Zwick
    If you're ever in Houston, well, you better do the right;
    You better not gamble, there, you better not fight, at all
    Or the sheriff will grab ya and the boys will bring you down.
    The next thing you know, boy, Oh! You're prison bound.…

    Midnight Special
  26. @Barnard
    Do the residents of Texas have any interest in dividing the state? I have never heard that they do. Wouldn't make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    The people may not want to exercise it, but lots of Texans are pretty fixated that the 1845 admission treaty/agreement that admitted Texas into the US give them the right to break up into 4-5 states. They are interests in having their rights to do so acknowledged, even if they are not going to take advantages of it.

  27. @Clifford Brown
    I never get the sense that Texas has such radically different cultures than say is the case in California. The Bay Areas does feel different from the Los Angeles area and the agricultural heartland of California feels quite different from the libertarian hippy far northern region of the state. I can buy that California could break up.

    Texas on the other hand feels more solidified. Texas is Texas. There is a spirit to the place and there is a "Texas" mindset and history that the state government overtly supports. I actually think that California could learn a bit from Texas as Texas really incorporates Latinos into their state identity as Latino Texans while California basically sells the multicultural approach that presents Latinos as disenfranchised outsiders.

    In the end, Texans understand power and money, and breaking the state apart serves neither.

    The land in Texas….the land.is almost entirely owned by private people/old families. Cattle, sorghum growing, etc. is in private hands, families…and always will be. And, of course oil is often on these same properties, so, duh. Texas had no Indian cultures living in cities or historic villages. There are no signs of indigenous civilizations. This is why Texas is weird, an outlier. You are still responsible for yourself in Texas.

    That is why Texas is like Finland (stand against deadly odds – Alamo/Bolshevik Russia). Texas has been keen on becoming their own country because they hate the lies of the Democrats for the last 10 years & they have figured out a way that works for their state as far as taxes. Texas does not want to be sucked into NY or California…states that are failing. Mezo & S American immigrants I have met, want to be Trump….or at least, his driver and body guard, his wife’s stylist and dresser. Texas knows S. Americans are hard-working.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    >>The land in Texas….the land.…is almost entirely owned by private people/old families.

    And that sucks. No right to roam, hike, camp, wander, forage, water, etc........ Sorry, there can be too much of private property. 99 % of Texas is in private hands, and non-holders have no right to exercise the simplest, most basic of human liberties. I welcome the zombie apocalypse.
    , @Autochthon
    South Americans are very different from Central Americans (i.e., north American metsizos and Amerindians). I sometimses wonder how many people realise North America's southernmost nation is Panama and not Mexico.

    South Americans are mostly hard-working, even the mestizos (not the Amerindians, who suffer the same genetic bad luck as all Amerindians); central Americans (with the possible exceptions of Belize and Costa Rica) not so much. Visit Bogotá, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Quito, or Montevideo and compare them to Mexico City, San Salvador, Managua, Guatemala City to better understand my point. To be sure, South America is no Europe or Canada or Australia (and never will be – though those places may soon enough be destroyed to be like South America...), but to group South Americans with Central Americans (i.e., those in southern North America) is like grouping, say, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar with Japan, Korea, and China as "Orientals": there may be contexts in which the grouping holds validity or utility, but it belies insurmountable differences and is much more often not at all valid or useful.

  28. …depopulating Puerto Rico and much bigger than D.C.

    The DC metro area is poised to pass Chicago’s in population, if it hasn’t already. But 89% of its population already lives in states. If anything, those states are themselves compromised by serving as suburbs to the federal beast.

    Also, DC proper’s black percentage has dipped below 50%, and the white population (including “Zimmermans”) is right on their tail at 43%. So the original impetus for giving them electors, as a sop to blacks, is disappearing. So, let’s repeal the 23rd Amendment.

    Don’t forget, too, Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy, and that DC’s felon mayor asked Congress to take over functions that states handled on their own. No place on earth would be admitted to the US as a territory today with those barnacles attached.

    • Replies: @F0337

    The DC metro area is poised to pass Chicago’s in population, if it hasn’t already.
     
    Daresay it's happened, even by the 'official' stats:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area#List_of_combined_statistical_areas

    As to your other points, I worry about giving the Dems any smart ideas.
    What's to stop them annexing Africa next? Just pretend I didn't say that.
    , @Anonymous

    Don’t forget, too, Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy, and that DC’s felon mayor asked Congress to take over functions that states handled on their own. No place on earth would be admitted to the US as a territory today with those barnacles attached.
     
    Home rule for DC makes utterly no sense to me. Since it is the nation's capital and is specifically not part of any other state for this reason, it should be ruled by the entire nation acting through its representatives and not by the locals.


    Give the DC residents one Representative-ONE, making for 436-and make the VPOTUS the Mayor-in Chief and the entire House of Representatives the unicameral ruling body for the District. Locals who don't like it should be told to move their fat ass out of town forthwith. A farmer in Nebraska who has never been outside his county has exactly the same rights over how DC is ruled as does someone who was born and raised there.

    Kind of like the Pope being the bishop of Rome as well.
  29. @Chrisnonymous
    How about New York and Florida? Those are also states where relatively conservative whites are corralled into one part of the state. Split upstate NY from NYC and you might add 2 more Republican Senators, although it's not a foregone conclusion.

    And what about incorporating parts of Virginia and Maryland into a new State of Greater DC? Could that push VA back towards the red column?

    Also, how about we offer Taiwan statehood!!

    Also, how about we offer Taiwan statehood!!

    It would have the tallest building in the US, because the new WTC is cheating:

    Not to mention the world’s most unique restaurant:

    • Replies: @F0337
    Looks to me like they're both cheating, and the Sears (Willis) tower is tallest.
    , @Mr. Anon
    I think Burger King beat them to it.
  30. Why should there only be two Dakotas?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Or only two Virginias?


    https://safr.kingfeatures.com/idn/ck3/content.php?file=aHR0cDovL3NhZnIua2luZ2ZlYXR1cmVzLmNvbS9TaG9lLzIwMTgvMDEvU2hvZS4yMDE4MDExNl8xNDQwLmdpZg==
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    I know that was TIC, but actually, I’ve wondered why there isn’t just one Dakota. I mean, there’s only one Montana, and both Dakotas combined would still be less in land area than Montana, and not that much more in population.
  31. There may be reasons for adding states, but there’s no ryhme to it.

    We would no longer be able to sing: “50 nifty United States of the 13 original colonies”.

    https://bit.ly/1YCTsEX
    I learned “Fifty Nifty United States” in my fifth-grade music class in Austin, Texas, around 1997.
    … it is every bit as catchy and challenging and useful as it was the day it was written. In a country that feels more politically polarized than ever, “Fifty Nifty United States” is a rare cultural artifact: a shared experience that gets passed from one generation to the next without getting tarnished along the way.

    Also, we’d have to change the flag.

    • Replies: @Dtbb
    At the start of the Revolutionary War there were 15 colonies.
  32. @sb
    Why should there only be two Dakotas?
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    New Jersey: South needs to get the Jersey Nohhhf off their ass! South is beautiful; north is ugly and congested...all the probs of New Yawk.

    However, Jersians are moving to Florida, Carolinas, AL & MS by the droves.

  33. ‘…The biggest racial preferences in this country have nothing to do with college admissions or job offers. They have to do with political power. And they benefit white Americans, at the expense of black, Asian and Hispanic Americans…’

    In particular, they benefit white Americans who are Jews. For example, in the Senate, Jews are over-represented by a factor of five.

    However, the author of this piece, David Leonhardt, doesn’t point this out. David Leonhardt is Jewish.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    However, the author of this piece, David Leonhardt, doesn’t point this out. David Leonhardt is Jewish.
     
    I was shocked that he had the nerve to say this:

    It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority.
     
    Talk about rubbing our noses in it. I wonder if there's any point at which I will cease being shocked by chutzpah.
    , @Redneck farmer
    Reminds me of an article about Russia in the 90s/00s. Author talked to Cossacks, who explained in a democracy it's not just one man, one vote. There must be economic equality as well. There example was if Jews are x% of the population, they should control x% of wealth and jobs.
    This, it was pointed out, shows the Cossacks don't understand real democracy, and are still anti-semitic.
  34. @Reg Cæsar
    Or only two Virginias?


    https://safr.kingfeatures.com/idn/ck3/content.php?file=aHR0cDovL3NhZnIua2luZ2ZlYXR1cmVzLmNvbS9TaG9lLzIwMTgvMDEvU2hvZS4yMDE4MDExNl8xNDQwLmdpZg==

    New Jersey: South needs to get the Jersey Nohhhf off their ass! South is beautiful; north is ugly and congested…all the probs of New Yawk.

    However, Jersians are moving to Florida, Carolinas, AL & MS by the droves.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    There is spectacular natural beauty in NW Jersey.
    , @Paul Yarbles
    Given the demographic trends of late, New Jersey is more likely to become the 30th state of India than split into two American states.
    , @RadicalCenter
    It's "Jerseyans."

    I know New Jerseyans who have settled long-term in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, mostly for retirement but a few younger and still working. Have never heard of any moving to Alabama and Mississippi, though surely there are a few going to those places from a State of nine million people.

    If you think North Jersey is mainly an ugly or unsafe place, you don't know it well. Much of it is far nicer than South Jersey. (or should we pretend that North Jersey is all Newark and Patterson, and ignore Camden, Atlantic City, Vineland, and Trenton in South Jersey?)
  35. @Anonymous
    Eventually, the US is going to break apart in much the same way as the Soviet Union. I have no doubt of that, although I may not live to see it.

    But the idea of the 50 individual States being independent nations makes little sense practically or politically. I'm guessing there will be from four to six or seven nations formed out of the current Continental US, with lines sometimes but not always following the current state lines, and some present states being broken into two or more parts.

    California and Texas are unlikely to stay whole, several New England states unlikely to stay separate, and many arbitrary or geographically odd boundries will be eliminated, such as Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

    Chunks of Western Canada and Baja California may be part of the new nations as well. Mexico's military is utterly impotent and would not last a week against the California National Guard alone. Canada's is more serious, but even a semiserious revolt against rule by Ottawa and Frogs would succeed in the long run.

    Big question is: Who gets the nukes and why?

    If you presume a bloody civil war, the eventual winners would be able to do as they eventually please. The point is, the fifty states all are sovereign already; they do not have to proclaim it and then prove it, as the United States itself once did (thanks to the then-monarchical French government). If those fifty sovereign states, once freed from the legal authority of the Union, decided to recombine in some other forms, that would be their respective prerogatives, as sovereign states. I would prefer the latter option to the former; but then, I am one of those racist extremists who considers the historical American Civil War of 1861-1865 to have been an unjustified abomination.

    • Replies: @Joseph Doaks
    Yes. I don't understand how most Americans don't suffer from cognitive dissonance by praising the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the right of "one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" while at the same time applauding the Lincoln regime's violent suppression of the Confederate States, all of whom, I'm sure, thought they were merely exercising that same right.
  36. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    How about New York and Florida? Those are also states where relatively conservative whites are corralled into one part of the state. Split upstate NY from NYC and you might add 2 more Republican Senators, although it's not a foregone conclusion.

    And what about incorporating parts of Virginia and Maryland into a new State of Greater DC? Could that push VA back towards the red column?

    Also, how about we offer Taiwan statehood!!

    In the early 70s there was a move from the NYC side to split the five boroughs off from New York State and be its own state. They put out a magazine called “51” and a young Debbie Harry wrote several articles for the publication.

    The idea was refloated from the upstate side in the nineties.

    Neither was taken nearly as seriously as the Jefferson State movement, which has been active since the late 1930s, and has no very serious traction politically today.

    There is of course the famous Conch Republic in Key West, which despite being mostly humorous in intent could easily form the nucleus for a shadow government that could make its move at the critical time. There was a Texas secessionist movement that succeeded in getting several of its members in jail, and of course several Pacific Northwest separatist movements both from the left and the right.

    In my opinion, the late Harold Covington’s Northwest Independence novels show someone who spent a lot of time thinking about how this might go. While I disagreed with Covington on several of the particulars, and corresponded with him to some extent, I think his vision is one worth some study: he did a lot of research on successful and unsuccessful revolutions and had a lot of the key turning points well figured out.

  37. OT: The Birds and the BS:

    This is mainstream liberalism today: No 2nd amendment. No Electoral College.

  38. @Reg Cæsar

    ...depopulating Puerto Rico and much bigger than D.C.
     
    The DC metro area is poised to pass Chicago's in population, if it hasn't already. But 89% of its population already lives in states. If anything, those states are themselves compromised by serving as suburbs to the federal beast.

    Also, DC proper's black percentage has dipped below 50%, and the white population (including "Zimmermans") is right on their tail at 43%. So the original impetus for giving them electors, as a sop to blacks, is disappearing. So, let's repeal the 23rd Amendment.

    Don't forget, too, Puerto Rico's bankruptcy, and that DC's felon mayor asked Congress to take over functions that states handled on their own. No place on earth would be admitted to the US as a territory today with those barnacles attached.

    The DC metro area is poised to pass Chicago’s in population, if it hasn’t already.

    Daresay it’s happened, even by the ‘official’ stats:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area#List_of_combined_statistical_areas

    As to your other points, I worry about giving the Dems any smart ideas.
    What’s to stop them annexing Africa next? Just pretend I didn’t say that.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    The DC metro area is poised to pass Chicago’s in population, if it hasn’t already.
     
    Daresay it’s happened, even by the ‘official’ stats:
     
    Houston, Atlanta, and Seattle are the only ones in the top 15 without a team in all four major sports. None is in the NHL. Which is quite ironic, as Seattle won America's first Stanley Cup. They lost their basketball team, too. And their first baseball team. Atlanta also lost an NHL team recently, or they'd be in the four-league category, too.

    Virginia Beach is the largest metro area with no major league franchises. It's listed at #32. But that list is mighty suspicious, as Tampa-St Pete is not included. They'd be about the size of Orlando's.

    How did Wikipedia lose three million people?
  39. Maybe ten years ago a divided Texas would’ve yielded a net gain for Republicans in the senate. I wouldn’t bet on those odds now or in the near future. Going just off my hazy memory, I believe the strong association with Republicans as senators and governors is a recent phenomenon anyway.

  40. I favor statehood for Washington D.C. – Maryland statehood.

    I also favor statehood for Puerto Rico. Statehood as a separate, sovereign nation.

    Viva El Puerto Rico Libre!!

  41. @Reg Cæsar

    Also, how about we offer Taiwan statehood!!
     
    It would have the tallest building in the US, because the new WTC is cheating:


    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5954597/CTBUH-tall-tower.0.png


    Not to mention the world's most unique restaurant:


    https://eternalarrival.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/modern-toilet-restaurant-300x214.png

    Looks to me like they’re both cheating, and the Sears (Willis) tower is tallest.

  42. @Reg Cæsar

    Also, how about we offer Taiwan statehood!!
     
    It would have the tallest building in the US, because the new WTC is cheating:


    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5954597/CTBUH-tall-tower.0.png


    Not to mention the world's most unique restaurant:


    https://eternalarrival.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/modern-toilet-restaurant-300x214.png

    I think Burger King beat them to it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I think Burger King beat them to it.
     
    Burger King is Canadian now.
  43. Anon[631] • Disclaimer says:
    @Gnome Sayin
    Give DC to Maryland. Free Puerto Rico from white colonialist oppression by jettisoning them entirely. "Taxation Without Representation" solved.

    Give DC to Maryland. Free Puerto Rico from white colonialist oppression by jettisoning them entirely. “Taxation Without Representation” solved.

    Agree.

    Make a city into a state? That’s crazy. The only question is whether as the capital city there is any reason to keep D.C. as a federal reserve.

    As for Puerto Rico, cut off migration, give them a zillion dollars cash, and make them independent. How ever much money the payoff is, it will be worth it in the long run. And it will be spent in five years, no matter how much it is.

    • Replies: @F0337

    As for Puerto Rico, cut off migration, give them a zillion dollars cash, and make them independent. How ever much money the payoff is, it will be worth it in the long run. And it will be spent in five years, no matter how much it is.
     
    Since PR is effectively a welfare state, with all its bills paid by Mainland Anglos, they'd rather slit their wrists than be independent now. Puerto Rico Libre is an artifact of a distant past.

    I'm all for independence but only if they have to take back their citizens from my country, and that ain't happening, so none of it's happening, except it'll probably become a state the next time Dems control the legislature. Which is what this Senate deal is all about.

    They want permanent control of all three branches of the Federal Government, which is what this Kavanaugh deal was all about. And it's one of many things this Third-World Immigrant deal is all about.
    , @AnonyBot
    The common argument you hear is that D.C. should be able to be a state since it has more people than Wyoming. My county is one of about 90 in the US with a population larger than that of D.C.'s, every single one of which (except New York) is also larger in area. Why not make all those counties states, as well?

    The truth is, of course, is that this opinion piece is nothing more than an appeal for raw political power. It is not one Leonhardt would be making if D.C. was overwhelmingly, oh, white, Baptist and Republican. Perhaps in that case I would be making the argument, but I wouldn't expect anyone to actually listen to me. Leonhardt shouldn't expect it, either.

    D.C. should not become a state because it is a city. Puerto Rico should not become a state because it has absolutely nothing in common, culturally, with the rest of the US.
  44. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    ...depopulating Puerto Rico and much bigger than D.C.
     
    The DC metro area is poised to pass Chicago's in population, if it hasn't already. But 89% of its population already lives in states. If anything, those states are themselves compromised by serving as suburbs to the federal beast.

    Also, DC proper's black percentage has dipped below 50%, and the white population (including "Zimmermans") is right on their tail at 43%. So the original impetus for giving them electors, as a sop to blacks, is disappearing. So, let's repeal the 23rd Amendment.

    Don't forget, too, Puerto Rico's bankruptcy, and that DC's felon mayor asked Congress to take over functions that states handled on their own. No place on earth would be admitted to the US as a territory today with those barnacles attached.

    Don’t forget, too, Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy, and that DC’s felon mayor asked Congress to take over functions that states handled on their own. No place on earth would be admitted to the US as a territory today with those barnacles attached.

    Home rule for DC makes utterly no sense to me. Since it is the nation’s capital and is specifically not part of any other state for this reason, it should be ruled by the entire nation acting through its representatives and not by the locals.

    Give the DC residents one Representative-ONE, making for 436-and make the VPOTUS the Mayor-in Chief and the entire House of Representatives the unicameral ruling body for the District. Locals who don’t like it should be told to move their fat ass out of town forthwith. A farmer in Nebraska who has never been outside his county has exactly the same rights over how DC is ruled as does someone who was born and raised there.

    Kind of like the Pope being the bishop of Rome as well.

    • Replies: @anon
    As a born and raised native of DC I wholeheartedly agree. I made sure to ask for the apolitical license plate from the dmv...
  45. Make every county in the country a state.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Make every county in the country a state.
     
    Does Kalawao county have three non-lepers to send to Congress?

    Loving County, Texas, which before the recent erection of Kalawao was the least populated in the US, appears to be the only US county without a single church.


    http://www.hawaiihighways.com/kalawao-county-newest-warning-sign-large.jpg

    http://www.hawaiihighways.com/kalawao-mule-trail-warning-closeup-large.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/zFm0U.jpg

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/jstephenconn/4157862789
  46. @Anonymous
    Eventually, the US is going to break apart in much the same way as the Soviet Union. I have no doubt of that, although I may not live to see it.

    But the idea of the 50 individual States being independent nations makes little sense practically or politically. I'm guessing there will be from four to six or seven nations formed out of the current Continental US, with lines sometimes but not always following the current state lines, and some present states being broken into two or more parts.

    California and Texas are unlikely to stay whole, several New England states unlikely to stay separate, and many arbitrary or geographically odd boundries will be eliminated, such as Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

    Chunks of Western Canada and Baja California may be part of the new nations as well. Mexico's military is utterly impotent and would not last a week against the California National Guard alone. Canada's is more serious, but even a semiserious revolt against rule by Ottawa and Frogs would succeed in the long run.

    Big question is: Who gets the nukes and why?

    I know of 13 states south of the Mason-Dixon line that could form a nation. You could call it, I don’t know, the Confederacy? And you can count on it that we will get our share of nukes, cause we want ’em.

    • Troll: AndrewR
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    What do you mean "we?" The South is full of American transplants and foreign immigrants with zero historical or cultural affinity for the old Confederacy.
    , @AndrewR
    You'll be too busy shagging your sisters for that (not that you have the IQ to win a war anyway)
  47. @Gnome Sayin
    Give DC to Maryland. Free Puerto Rico from white colonialist oppression by jettisoning them entirely. "Taxation Without Representation" solved.

    Actually, Puerto Ricans don’t pay Federal income tax. The parasites can get welfare, though.

  48. anonymous[414] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes, Texas can split into 5 states.

    And if a President got real tricky, he could, through treaty agreements, annex territory like say, certain parts of Canada, and make a few states out of that. Or New Zealand and Australia. Right now, that sounds farfetched. But as Whites become more outnumbered in their own countries, they will get creative.

  49. @Reg Cæsar

    I have no idea if this is actually true, but I was told when I went to college in Texas that Texas has the right, under its terms of admission in the 1840s, to split itself into five states.
     
    Every state has the right to split itself into five. The question is, is Congress obligated to admit the resulting units to statehood.

    Anyone got the Texas admissions paperwork handy? Also, remember that Ohio's was screwed up, and that state not technically admitted until 1953.

    Which one of the parts would get the Texan Embassy in London?

  50. @Houston Texican
    As a 5th generation Texan, I’m guessing the preferred option would be to secede rather than splitting the state. Long live the Repulic of Texas.

    A little OT. When someone says “I’m an X generation (Texan, US citizen, etc.), are we counting down from the highest branch of the family tree?

    In Texas, it’s the equivalent of bragging about being from founding WASP New England stock. And I guess using the longest branch is fine for this, even if you are in reality, say, 15/16ths Italian, because it doesn’t make a difference in political or cultural matters.

    In the Southwest, however, you get a bunch of Mex-Ams talking about the border having crossed them, when in reality, they’re just a smidgen multi-generational Spanish or Mexican American, and mostly of relatively recent Mexican stock.

    I thought I was making a larger point when I started writing this, but what the hell, I’m hitting ‘publish’ anyway.

    • Replies: @F0337
    There's a point in there, really! It's that the whole 'generation' thing is sort of arbitrary, and people believe there's some sort of science between 1946-1964-1980 etc. Human history began in 1945!

    Near as I can tell, most people really don't think, and many who do use the 'generational' tag when it suits their nefarious purposes!

    HBR.ORG says: "Generation Y, or Millennials, typically thought of as those born between 1984 and 1996" -- wow, they only get 12 years, poor sods.

    , @Corn
    “In the Southwest, however, you get a bunch of Mex-Ams talking about the border having crossed them, when in reality, they’re just a smidgen multi-generational Spanish or Mexican American, and mostly of relatively recent Mexican stock.”

    I’ve never seen numbers tossed about. I’m curious how many Mex-Ams can claim ancestry on US soil before 1848. I doubt the majority had relatives here before the Mexican Revolution of 1910. I suspect many weren’t here much before the 1960s.
  51. Anon[173] • Disclaimer says:

    It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority.

    Since when the f*** did that happen? According to the Census Bureau’s 2017 estimates, 72% of Americans are white, with 60% of them being non-Hispanic white.

    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

    David Leonhardt is a lying scumbag race-baiting POS.

  52. @ziggurat
    There may be reasons for adding states, but there's no ryhme to it.

    We would no longer be able to sing: "50 nifty United States of the 13 original colonies".

    https://bit.ly/1YCTsEX
    I learned “Fifty Nifty United States” in my fifth-grade music class in Austin, Texas, around 1997.
    ... it is every bit as catchy and challenging and useful as it was the day it was written. In a country that feels more politically polarized than ever, “Fifty Nifty United States” is a rare cultural artifact: a shared experience that gets passed from one generation to the next without getting tarnished along the way.

     

    Also, we'd have to change the flag.

    At the start of the Revolutionary War there were 15 colonies.

  53. @Daniel H
    It seems that all it takes for a new state to be admitted to the USA is a petition by the state and a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress to accept and establish the state. The procedure doesn't even need the support of the President. Yikes. This is dangerous. Why stop with Puerto Rico? Carry the idea on further to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and even the Phillipines (the population of such countries would overwhelmingly vote to be included in the USA). I think we can see how the United States of America will end.

    This would actually seem to be a diabolically effective strategy. The Democrats are eventually going to grasp that impeaching anyone in the absence of actual crimes is utterly nonviable, as it needs a 2/3 vote in the Senate. If they manage to retake both houses of Congress they could give statehood to DC in one stroke, in this era, relying on a party line vote and ignoring reasonable objections. The other cases would take time, since most leftists have a distaste for “imperialism” (and a somewhat well-grounded distaste, I think), but if they and the resident populations could be convinced that the USA can be transformed into some sort of socialist Norteamérica, this might be a go.

    The Philippines actually had congressional delegates in the past. I can see them being induced to vote to join the US on solid kickass reasoning, and then being persuaded to vote for Democrats on economic grounds. This would take some time though.

    Maybe this is all too clever though. It is probably much simpler to just let illegals in and let them vote.

  54. @Anon

    Give DC to Maryland. Free Puerto Rico from white colonialist oppression by jettisoning them entirely. “Taxation Without Representation” solved.
     
    Agree.

    Make a city into a state? That's crazy. The only question is whether as the capital city there is any reason to keep D.C. as a federal reserve.

    As for Puerto Rico, cut off migration, give them a zillion dollars cash, and make them independent. How ever much money the payoff is, it will be worth it in the long run. And it will be spent in five years, no matter how much it is.

    As for Puerto Rico, cut off migration, give them a zillion dollars cash, and make them independent. How ever much money the payoff is, it will be worth it in the long run. And it will be spent in five years, no matter how much it is.

    Since PR is effectively a welfare state, with all its bills paid by Mainland Anglos, they’d rather slit their wrists than be independent now. Puerto Rico Libre is an artifact of a distant past.

    I’m all for independence but only if they have to take back their citizens from my country, and that ain’t happening, so none of it’s happening, except it’ll probably become a state the next time Dems control the legislature. Which is what this Senate deal is all about.

    They want permanent control of all three branches of the Federal Government, which is what this Kavanaugh deal was all about. And it’s one of many things this Third-World Immigrant deal is all about.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Well, Tony Blair's (Economist) Labour Party was pretty open and explicit about using massive uncontrolled third world immigration to establish permanent Labour Party rule.
  55. Ah, the perennial “X doesn’t benefit the Left, so we must change X” story whenever the Left loses.

  56. Why not? Just make sure to set aside five states for Canada (Acadia, Quebec, Ontario, Buffalo and Cascadia, giving the north to Alaska) and maybe while we’re at it, spilt Texas into five states and California into three.

    15 new states, 30 new senators and about 55 new representatives.

    Go big or go home.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Ninenations.PNG
  57. @Anonymous
    Eventually, the US is going to break apart in much the same way as the Soviet Union. I have no doubt of that, although I may not live to see it.

    But the idea of the 50 individual States being independent nations makes little sense practically or politically. I'm guessing there will be from four to six or seven nations formed out of the current Continental US, with lines sometimes but not always following the current state lines, and some present states being broken into two or more parts.

    California and Texas are unlikely to stay whole, several New England states unlikely to stay separate, and many arbitrary or geographically odd boundries will be eliminated, such as Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

    Chunks of Western Canada and Baja California may be part of the new nations as well. Mexico's military is utterly impotent and would not last a week against the California National Guard alone. Canada's is more serious, but even a semiserious revolt against rule by Ottawa and Frogs would succeed in the long run.

    Big question is: Who gets the nukes and why?

    I think you hit on why Canada chose to enter NORAD and not have nukes. Western alienation is a thing, and remember, Canada is more of a defense pact than an organic entity. I’ve been the victim of crimes just by virtue of being from Quebec in BC, for example.

    • Replies: @F0337
    Wrong, Canada has no crime, we're reliably informed, because it's really liberal and has no guns and is really multi-cultural just like we're supposed to be.
  58. Ive commented before on this but Tejanos take the “Southern Gentry” thing to the next level, with a girl I knew who had a grandmother who remembers her grandmother telling stories of dancing with Sam Houston on the night Texas was founded as a Republic.

  59. @Anon

    Give DC to Maryland. Free Puerto Rico from white colonialist oppression by jettisoning them entirely. “Taxation Without Representation” solved.
     
    Agree.

    Make a city into a state? That's crazy. The only question is whether as the capital city there is any reason to keep D.C. as a federal reserve.

    As for Puerto Rico, cut off migration, give them a zillion dollars cash, and make them independent. How ever much money the payoff is, it will be worth it in the long run. And it will be spent in five years, no matter how much it is.

    The common argument you hear is that D.C. should be able to be a state since it has more people than Wyoming. My county is one of about 90 in the US with a population larger than that of D.C.’s, every single one of which (except New York) is also larger in area. Why not make all those counties states, as well?

    The truth is, of course, is that this opinion piece is nothing more than an appeal for raw political power. It is not one Leonhardt would be making if D.C. was overwhelmingly, oh, white, Baptist and Republican. Perhaps in that case I would be making the argument, but I wouldn’t expect anyone to actually listen to me. Leonhardt shouldn’t expect it, either.

    D.C. should not become a state because it is a city. Puerto Rico should not become a state because it has absolutely nothing in common, culturally, with the rest of the US.

    • Replies: @F0337

    I wouldn’t expect anyone to actually listen to me. Leonhardt shouldn’t expect it, either.
     
    The rules are different when it's a megaphone in your hand instead of, uh, whatever that is ;)


    D.C. should not become a state because it is a city. Puerto Rico should not become a state because it has absolutely nothing in common, culturally, with the rest of the US.
     
    Neither does the rest of the US, if you catch my drift...
  60. Most or even all of the land on which D.C. now sits was taken from Maryland. If it is not going to remain a district under federal control then we should give it back to Maryland. Once upon a time, iirc, someone in government actually offered to do that. Liberal leftwing Maryland no-so-politely declined. That was back when they were electing a crackhead for their mayor, so times may have changed. Any change in D.C.’s status will probably require a constitutional amendment, however.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    > Once upon a time, iirc, someone in [Maryland] government actually offered to [take DC back].

    Yes, Gov. William Donald Schaefer (D).

    > Liberal leftwing Maryland no-so-politely declined.

    Yes, Maryland already enjoys DC's poverty- and crime- wracked eastern suburbs, and the state's Left wasn't eager to add to those liabilities (not to mention Baltimore). As mentioned a few comments up, DC's elites hated Schaefer's idea even more than Maryland's citizens did. American University's NPR station WAMU was (and is) a focus of Statehood activism; the radio celebrity-wonks' on-air gnashing of teeth and rending of garments was quite amusing.

  61. @Daniel H
    It seems that all it takes for a new state to be admitted to the USA is a petition by the state and a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress to accept and establish the state. The procedure doesn't even need the support of the President. Yikes. This is dangerous. Why stop with Puerto Rico? Carry the idea on further to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and even the Phillipines (the population of such countries would overwhelmingly vote to be included in the USA). I think we can see how the United States of America will end.

    I think we can see how the United States of America will end.

    Open revolution?

    I guess in theory they could admit those places as states. In reality the response would be brutal and swift, and the Democrats know it. They haven’t even been able to bring themselves to give statehodd to Puerto Rio when they’ve had control of Congress.

  62. • Replies: @Anon

    Transgender Woman Becomes First Ever World Champion in Women's Cycling
     
    This is great. The faster this stuff happens, the better. Right now everyone feels he or she can't comment or complain for fear of being called "transphobic." But I think there will be a tipping point, and when the dam bursts, be ready for a national "conversation" that will cause tranny heads to explode.

    Sports is such an easy place for the rift to develop, since the whole idea of having women separated off is because there is such an undeniable, clear gap between men and women in sports, at the elite level especially. This may or may not be different from, say, physics, but physics is squishy enough that it allows for people to believe what they want. But not sports.

    So as a gap develops between women and "women" in sports, there will be a call to break off women from trannies.

    I honestly think there are probably 1,000 trannies out there right now who could beat this Rachel McKinnon in cycling. They just don't know it yet. When the top 100 women in the sport are trannies, when women's sports effectively becomes tranny sport, well .... And that's exactly what is going to happen, testosterone tests or not. Bring on the sports TERFs!

  63. @Colin Wright
    '...The biggest racial preferences in this country have nothing to do with college admissions or job offers. They have to do with political power. And they benefit white Americans, at the expense of black, Asian and Hispanic Americans...'

    In particular, they benefit white Americans who are Jews. For example, in the Senate, Jews are over-represented by a factor of five.

    However, the author of this piece, David Leonhardt, doesn't point this out. David Leonhardt is Jewish.

    However, the author of this piece, David Leonhardt, doesn’t point this out. David Leonhardt is Jewish.

    I was shocked that he had the nerve to say this:

    It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority.

    Talk about rubbing our noses in it. I wonder if there’s any point at which I will cease being shocked by chutzpah.

    • Replies: @Paco Wové
    According to the Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217), the non-Hispanic white population of the U.S. makes up over 60% of the total. Wondering where he got his data, assuming he just didn't make it up for the purposes of argument.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    Why do Jews think they won't get thrown in the cannibal pot? It's not like they have a history of imperial rule. Just the opposite: they tend to get stomped on when they get too restive.
    , @notanon
    i think the shamelessness acts as a kind of shield as the average person can't comprehend it.

    it ties back to the Kavanagh/BLM stuff imo in that a lot of the suburban soccer moms who believe the media believe it simply because they could never tell lies that big themselves and so can't believe the media (or anyone else) could be that shamelessly dishonest.
  64. I’m amazed at the extent to which the Democrats are willing to see the rules changed for their temporary benefit. I guess they really bought into that “permanent Democratic majority” stuff.

    On the Texas thing, once we start splitting up states and increasing the number of Senators, it will never end. Who wouldn’t want more voting power in the federal government? Would we have a hard cap on the number of states, or just kind of give up at 1000?

    Also, David Leonhardt seems to produce more than his share of mind-numbingly stupid articles.

  65. The simple solution would be for ‘David Leonhardt’, and his family, to emigrate to Puerto Rico.

    Don’t hold your breath.

  66. @Daniel H
    It seems that all it takes for a new state to be admitted to the USA is a petition by the state and a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress to accept and establish the state. The procedure doesn't even need the support of the President. Yikes. This is dangerous. Why stop with Puerto Rico? Carry the idea on further to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and even the Phillipines (the population of such countries would overwhelmingly vote to be included in the USA). I think we can see how the United States of America will end.

    Sounds like the ‘European Union’.

  67. @F0337

    As for Puerto Rico, cut off migration, give them a zillion dollars cash, and make them independent. How ever much money the payoff is, it will be worth it in the long run. And it will be spent in five years, no matter how much it is.
     
    Since PR is effectively a welfare state, with all its bills paid by Mainland Anglos, they'd rather slit their wrists than be independent now. Puerto Rico Libre is an artifact of a distant past.

    I'm all for independence but only if they have to take back their citizens from my country, and that ain't happening, so none of it's happening, except it'll probably become a state the next time Dems control the legislature. Which is what this Senate deal is all about.

    They want permanent control of all three branches of the Federal Government, which is what this Kavanaugh deal was all about. And it's one of many things this Third-World Immigrant deal is all about.

    Well, Tony Blair’s (Economist) Labour Party was pretty open and explicit about using massive uncontrolled third world immigration to establish permanent Labour Party rule.

  68. The whole bit about dividing Texas is kind of silly. ANY state can be divided into any number of new states.

    It’s not even a particularly difficult process. All it requires is simple majority vote of the state legislature(s) concerned and of the Congress. No super-majorities. No presidential involvement so no possibility of a veto.

    Article Three: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress,”

  69. Anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1051642530884915200

    Transgender Woman Becomes First Ever World Champion in Women’s Cycling

    This is great. The faster this stuff happens, the better. Right now everyone feels he or she can’t comment or complain for fear of being called “transphobic.” But I think there will be a tipping point, and when the dam bursts, be ready for a national “conversation” that will cause tranny heads to explode.

    Sports is such an easy place for the rift to develop, since the whole idea of having women separated off is because there is such an undeniable, clear gap between men and women in sports, at the elite level especially. This may or may not be different from, say, physics, but physics is squishy enough that it allows for people to believe what they want. But not sports.

    So as a gap develops between women and “women” in sports, there will be a call to break off women from trannies.

    I honestly think there are probably 1,000 trannies out there right now who could beat this Rachel McKinnon in cycling. They just don’t know it yet. When the top 100 women in the sport are trannies, when women’s sports effectively becomes tranny sport, well …. And that’s exactly what is going to happen, testosterone tests or not. Bring on the sports TERFs!

    • Replies: @Marty T
    I was skeptical of the tranny invasion into women's sports, because most guys that are pretty good at sports want to get girls, not be them. But just a few high profile cases will force feminists to choose between women's sports and tranny rights.
    , @Ben tillman
    Very few people are concerned about being called transphobic. But the number will go up, not down. That’s always how it works.
  70. @Polynikes
    Even with the Hispanic influx into the state, Texas seems to identify with its statehood and local culture as much as any state in the union. I suspect such a proposal would not be popular with the locals.

    Several decades ago my wife and I spent a week in Jamaica at one of those all-inclusive resorts.

    All the Texans immediately got together and became group that hung out together for the whole week. The residents of no other state did this or even seemed to consider it.

  71. I was curious about the (presumably ongoing) saga of Pablo “They” Gomez, but I can’t find anything online about him, since his preliminary hearing from eleven months ago. Doesn’t that seem odd? Anyone come across anything I missed?

    http://www.dailycal.org/2017/11/13/victim-testifies-pablo-gomez-preliminary-hearing-monday-morning/

    • Replies: @midtown
    I also find it odd that the Nazi driver in Charlottesville still has not had his trial yet. It is already much more than a year ago. It was on video! Why should it take this long? My conspiratorial guess is, he truly does have a mental illness and will get off, so they are holding him as long as they can pre-trial.
  72. If Puerto Rico became a state its residents would have to start paying federal income tax. Never going to happen.

    They aren’t that dumb.

  73. @ziggurat
    Here are a couple of interesting comments from the New York Times article:

    John Chenango 9m ago
    If identity politics is going to rule supreme, why bother with elections? If politics is just going to be people of different ethnic groups battling each other for power and wealth, why not just fight a bloody civil war and get it over with? Has there ever been a functional multiracial democracy where political parties were based on race?
    If "both sides" don't start working to bring people in this country together, it will break apart the way Iraq and Yugoslavia did.
     

    David 43m ago
    "these citizens denied representative democracy"
    If you really want to make government more representative, then the best thing you could do is to support fracturing federal power generally. Even in a "pure democracy" of 300 million people any individual has very, very little say in anything (arguably even less than they do now). So fracture power - make fewer, far fewer, decisions nationally. Defer as much decision making as possible to state and local entities. Then your representation problem will take care of itself, and the power of voices will be amplified. I believe it was Tolkien who said that "Belgium is about the right size for a country" - even if we don't actually fracture the nation into Belgium-sized pieces, the value of real federalism is something we would all do well to relearn.
     

    Now that’s something you don’t see every day – it sounds like David reads both the NY Times AND the US Constitution*! Do a Venn diagram on that one. You don’t even need a color for that area, as it’s just a black arc touching another black arc with a space not big enough to thread a hair (of some sort) through.

    In answer to a number of commenters here, yes the US State were meant to be pretty much sovereign entities, only ceded power to the Federal Gov’t that THEY created for defense purposes (or “defence” as they misspelled it). Hence the term “States”, not “provinces”, “prefectures”, or “districts”. They become nothing more than those last 3 terms as of the last 50 years though. Some would say as far back as to the Lincoln “administration”.

    .
    .

    * Or, at least he’s on the right road. He’s speculating about term called “state’s rights”, one that would have prevented his letter from appearing, had he spelled it out.

  74. The anti-democratic tendencies of the Senate are well known: Each citizen of a small state is considered more important than each citizen of a large state. It’s a deliberate feature of the Constitution, created to persuade smaller states to join the union. Over time, though, the racial edge to the Senate’s structure has become much sharper — for two big reasons.

    First, the states whose populations have grown the most over time, like California, Texas, Florida and New York, are racially diverse. By contrast, the smallest states, like Wyoming, Vermont, the Dakotas and Maine, tend to be overwhelmingly white. The Senate, as a result, gives far more special treatment to whites than it once did.

    It’s remedial eighth grade civics time again for professional journalists with (apparently) prestigious degrees who are employed by the world’s most prominent media outlets.

    – The House of Representatives represents the citizens/population of the US.
    – The Senate represents the states.

    The 17th amendment changed the way Senators were elected, but it did not change the scope or role of the Senate. The Senate still represents the states. (The 17th amendment was implemented as a way to deal with corruption that was taking place at the state legislature level with regards to rich people who would buy their way into the US Senate. It probably never should’ve been passed, though.)

    An essential redundancy within the houses of a bicameral legislature defeats the purpose of a bicameral legislature. The idea behind a bicameral legislature is that democracy works best – and it’s inherent flaws are better mitigated – when it is approached from varying or multiple perspectives, hence one house that represents the citizens, and one house that represents the states. (Think of it as “diversity” leftists.) Representation of states is important because a state has far more power in opposing a tyrannical federal government than an individual has. This is part of the reason the name of our country is, “The United States of America,” and not “The United Citizens of America.”

    Also, the states have a value to the union far beyond the number of voters that live in them. This is evident every time you see 100 car long coal trains from Wyoming rolling by so that the people of big cities to the east don’t freeze to death in the winter. This value is worthy of representation.

    What the remedial journalist didn’t tell you is that something like 65% of the House of Representatives currently come from (as I recall) the twelve most populous states. California, New York and Florida by themselves have 25% of the House’s 435 representatives. California alone has 53 representatives. Maybe Wyoming and the Dakotas complain about this, but if so, it doesn’t get much press.

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    You know you never hear the Left bitching about Rhode Island getting the same amount of Senators as Texas.
    , @anonymous
    Very well put!

    This or even something half as good should appear in the NYT so that its highly intelligent readership can be more fully enlightened...
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Re: Amendment XVII

    It probably never should’ve been passed, though.
     
    Yes, agreed! I've been through this with another commenter before. People think the 17th Amendment was just some kind of legal housekeeping deal, or, as you said, to cut down corruption.

    Taking the power of picking US Senators away from the state legislatures WAS a big deal, and an early one in the road to the end of federalism. What power do state legislators have now? Oh, they can vote on making up the snow or hurricane days. They can vote on which flag flies at the State House. OK, yeah, they can budget for the state, but only for that which the US Feral Gov't declares is its business now.

    When the guy down the road from you, a small businessman (though more likely a lawyer), goes to the State House, he is close enough to listen to you and some like-minded people. Telling him that we are tired of the cuck we have in there can make a difference. There may be corruption, but at least it's our corruption. Now, the Senator may be hand-picked from a guy in Las Vegas, or put in place by people from all over the country, as in the dishonorable Hildabeast "from" New York State.
  75. @D. K.
    FTS! Dissolve the Union into its fifty sovereign states-- and offer the District of Columbia sovereignty in its own right. (All that it would need to do is to agree to assume the accumulated national debt, and any other pre-existing financial obligations of the Federal Government.) Regardless, Whites are not yet a minority of the population of the United States; non-Hispanic White gentiles still comprise about a three-fifths supermajority of the country's resident population, an even bigger supermajority of actual American citizens, and a markedly larger supermajority of adult American citizens-- otherwise known as actual and potential voters. When Whites in most states fail to vote as this pundit would prefer them to do, they are voting in their states' respective interests-- and presumably in the interests of the country's White supermajority per se, collectively.

    What this left-wing Democratic activist qua pundit actually objects to is the American federal system itself-- which was the basis upon which many of the states were willing to join the Union, in the first place. If he wants to end the federal system set up by the Framers, fine; he should join me in calling for the dissolution of the United States as a union of sovereign states, with each finally taking its rightful place among the Family of Nations, and each deciding upon its own immigration and naturalization statute for the former American citizens who are not citizens of each respective state, as well as for anyone else who was not an American citizen, at the time of the Union's permanent dissolution.

    What this left-wing Democratic activist qua pundit actually objects to is the American federal system itself– which was the basis upon which many of the states were willing to join the Union, in the first place.

    There you go – at least one guy who understands the original idea of the US Federal Gov’t. Thank you, D.K. for putting it better than I could have – the whole 2nd paragraph.

  76. @F0337

    Wouldn’t make more sense for the Democrats to divide California for extra Senators and not subject the country to the problems caused by Statehood for Puerto Rico.
     
    'Problems' like PR are catnip to Dems. More misery=more votes.

    @MBlanc46


    Disaggregation is coming, one way or another.
     
    Indeed it is, but the bloodletting comes first. It's the way they want it.

    Your link to ’s comment fooled me for a bit, as though it were an unz.com feature to reply to 2 people in one comment. Cool way to do it.

    BTW, he didn’t have a replier yet (for picking out the comment #) – did you have to go through the HTML via “view source” to pick it out? I’ve done that before.

    • Replies: @F0337
    No, I'm too lazy to go into source code. I just right-clicked the timestamp on his comment and copied the link. Anyway I'm gonna just claim I have a multi-quote feature on my iSteve console, until and unless Mr Rational shares his own bag of tricks.
  77. @istevefan
    The Left rarely addresses why they lose an election, and instead either demand a new vote or a rule change. You will see this in referenda like the Irish EU vote in which the Left lost and just demanded a new vote until they got the result they wanted. Or you will see how they lose in the electoral college and demand that we change to a nationwide popular vote. Now they seem to be upset about how the senator is comprised. It's never their message that's at fault.

    BTW, the Founders have already provided a remedy for their concern. It's called amending the Constitution. The manner in which we choose senators has already been amended. Why can't the Left just go through the process of amending it again? Ditto for the electoral college.

    Amending the Constitution is hard work, and not enough leftists want to work that hard.

  78. Affirmative Action for White People

    Breaking news!

    Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Cherokee Nation) just released her DNA test results! Princess Yellow Hair is at least 1/512th victim, according to Carlos “Le 56% Face” Bustamante, who calculated her vibrant ancestry with “samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American.”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html

    • Replies: @Clyde
    from the Boston homoglobo:

    The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/512th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

    Undergoing the test and releasing the results reveal how seriously Warren is taking the attacks from Trump, who has been able to effectively caricature and diminish his national foes via nicknames and conspiracy theories. Trump pushed then President Barack Obama into releasing the long form of his birth certificate to prove what most knew was already true: He was born in America.

    The move is also another indication of how seriously Warren is considering running for president. And while it’s unclear whether the test will convince Trump and his die-hard supporters, Warren will be able to point to it with other, more open-minded voters. Once Obama produced his birth certificate in 2011, the racist “birther’’ movement, which thrived on the Internet and was stoked by Trump, largely evaporated.


    ^^^^^^ My bet is 1/512 part Indian. What a scam. We don't know about the DNA tests she tossed in the trash.
  79. OT: Variety is an excellent place to get a sense of what smarter liberals believe. People in the Biz are 100% Cathedral, but they are also selected to be super competent, so they tend to be a lot sharper (for real world stuff) than academics.

    https://variety.com/2018/tv/columns/donald-trump-60-minutes-1202980027/

    Here they just come out and say “We wish Jeb or lil’ Marco had won, because we could shame them into doing what we say”. Really.

    “This would have been a good playbook for a conservative-but-not-category-busting President Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, perhaps; all players could say their piece, and all could go home relatively unscathed. But even as Trump was unwilling to play along, the questions got no harder. ”

    If you want to know what people in Malibu think about you, read Variety.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    Took a look, and see what you mean. The entire piece is "we can't lay a finger on him with the approach that's worked on all other Republicans" and that is A Problem for them.

    "randomly assorted questions were bulldozed by a man eager to speak, and in which the interviewer generally left the viewers to decide what those answers meant"

    We Couldn't Enforce Our Own Narrative, in other words. The interviewer should have interpreted, so telling the viewers how evil Trump is, in case they couldn't work it out themselves.

    Still, the media is working hard to ensure nothing like Trump or Brexit ever happens again.

    In other news, the new female Doctor Who travels back in time to meet Rosa Parks. Really. Pity she couldn't travel back and stop her being beaten up by that young (black) home invader. What with that and the new tranny kid drama, BBC is becoming unwatchable.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6274491/Doctor-takes-racism-civil-rights-movement.html

    , @Alfa158
    Check out the comments on the article, Variety got piled on and slammed. It looks like the only people who read the article were Unz readers. The Variety editors must be feeling like George Custer; “OMG, where did all those Indians come from!?”.
  80. @J1234

    The anti-democratic tendencies of the Senate are well known: Each citizen of a small state is considered more important than each citizen of a large state. It’s a deliberate feature of the Constitution, created to persuade smaller states to join the union. Over time, though, the racial edge to the Senate’s structure has become much sharper — for two big reasons.

    First, the states whose populations have grown the most over time, like California, Texas, Florida and New York, are racially diverse. By contrast, the smallest states, like Wyoming, Vermont, the Dakotas and Maine, tend to be overwhelmingly white. The Senate, as a result, gives far more special treatment to whites than it once did.
     

    It's remedial eighth grade civics time again for professional journalists with (apparently) prestigious degrees who are employed by the world's most prominent media outlets.

    - The House of Representatives represents the citizens/population of the US.
    - The Senate represents the states.

    The 17th amendment changed the way Senators were elected, but it did not change the scope or role of the Senate. The Senate still represents the states. (The 17th amendment was implemented as a way to deal with corruption that was taking place at the state legislature level with regards to rich people who would buy their way into the US Senate. It probably never should've been passed, though.)

    An essential redundancy within the houses of a bicameral legislature defeats the purpose of a bicameral legislature. The idea behind a bicameral legislature is that democracy works best - and it's inherent flaws are better mitigated - when it is approached from varying or multiple perspectives, hence one house that represents the citizens, and one house that represents the states. (Think of it as "diversity" leftists.) Representation of states is important because a state has far more power in opposing a tyrannical federal government than an individual has. This is part of the reason the name of our country is, "The United States of America," and not "The United Citizens of America."

    Also, the states have a value to the union far beyond the number of voters that live in them. This is evident every time you see 100 car long coal trains from Wyoming rolling by so that the people of big cities to the east don't freeze to death in the winter. This value is worthy of representation.

    What the remedial journalist didn't tell you is that something like 65% of the House of Representatives currently come from (as I recall) the twelve most populous states. California, New York and Florida by themselves have 25% of the House's 435 representatives. California alone has 53 representatives. Maybe Wyoming and the Dakotas complain about this, but if so, it doesn't get much press.

    You know you never hear the Left bitching about Rhode Island getting the same amount of Senators as Texas.

  81. @Colin Wright
    '...The biggest racial preferences in this country have nothing to do with college admissions or job offers. They have to do with political power. And they benefit white Americans, at the expense of black, Asian and Hispanic Americans...'

    In particular, they benefit white Americans who are Jews. For example, in the Senate, Jews are over-represented by a factor of five.

    However, the author of this piece, David Leonhardt, doesn't point this out. David Leonhardt is Jewish.

    Reminds me of an article about Russia in the 90s/00s. Author talked to Cossacks, who explained in a democracy it’s not just one man, one vote. There must be economic equality as well. There example was if Jews are x% of the population, they should control x% of wealth and jobs.
    This, it was pointed out, shows the Cossacks don’t understand real democracy, and are still anti-semitic.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Reminds me of an article about Russia in the 90s/00s. Author talked to Cossacks, who explained in a democracy it’s not just one man, one vote. There must be economic equality as well. There example was if Jews are x% of the population, they should control x% of wealth and jobs.
    This, it was pointed out, shows the Cossacks don’t understand real democracy, and are still anti-semitic.'


    This sort of thing is actually somewhat better. At least here the arguments -- such as they are -- are clearly and openly presented.

    Leonhardt, on the other hand, practices a kind of subterranean dishonesty. His Judaism is fairly well concealed -- I had to go to an article in Haaretz to confirm my suspicions. As such, he is complaining about white privilege when he is a member of that white group that is most privileged of all -- but that, he is not about to bring up.
  82. “historical accident”. Mr. Leonhardt, or at least his civics teacher, Need To Go Back.

  83. “Unexpectedly Potent” — ‘the Stupid Party’ — RINO

  84. @istevefan
    The Left rarely addresses why they lose an election, and instead either demand a new vote or a rule change. You will see this in referenda like the Irish EU vote in which the Left lost and just demanded a new vote until they got the result they wanted. Or you will see how they lose in the electoral college and demand that we change to a nationwide popular vote. Now they seem to be upset about how the senator is comprised. It's never their message that's at fault.

    BTW, the Founders have already provided a remedy for their concern. It's called amending the Constitution. The manner in which we choose senators has already been amended. Why can't the Left just go through the process of amending it again? Ditto for the electoral college.

    Equality of representation in the Senate can only be denied by unanimous consent of the States.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Denied? Or agreed to?

    Either way, please elaborate.
    , @EdwardM
    Not unanimous -- a constitutional amendment getting 38 states' support would suffice.
  85. @Lagertha
    New Jersey: South needs to get the Jersey Nohhhf off their ass! South is beautiful; north is ugly and congested...all the probs of New Yawk.

    However, Jersians are moving to Florida, Carolinas, AL & MS by the droves.

    There is spectacular natural beauty in NW Jersey.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    "There is spectacular natural beauty in NW Jersey."

    Unfortunately, much of the ground water there has been polluted by the illegal dumping of chemicals by firms based in NYC and the wider metroplex.

  86. @South Texas Guy
    A little OT. When someone says "I'm an X generation (Texan, US citizen, etc.), are we counting down from the highest branch of the family tree?

    In Texas, it's the equivalent of bragging about being from founding WASP New England stock. And I guess using the longest branch is fine for this, even if you are in reality, say, 15/16ths Italian, because it doesn't make a difference in political or cultural matters.

    In the Southwest, however, you get a bunch of Mex-Ams talking about the border having crossed them, when in reality, they're just a smidgen multi-generational Spanish or Mexican American, and mostly of relatively recent Mexican stock.

    I thought I was making a larger point when I started writing this, but what the hell, I'm hitting 'publish' anyway.

    There’s a point in there, really! It’s that the whole ‘generation’ thing is sort of arbitrary, and people believe there’s some sort of science between 1946-1964-1980 etc. Human history began in 1945!

    Near as I can tell, most people really don’t think, and many who do use the ‘generational’ tag when it suits their nefarious purposes!

    HBR.ORG says: “Generation Y, or Millennials, typically thought of as those born between 1984 and 1996” — wow, they only get 12 years, poor sods.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946 (in the UK, it was much less of a big deal). But it's pretty arbitrary when in the 1960s the Baby Boom ended. Since the Baby Boom, there's no real distinctive features in the birth statistics, so it's just whose marketing pitch wins out.
  87. @Achmed E. Newman
    Your link to @MBlanc46's comment fooled me for a bit, as though it were an unz.com feature to reply to 2 people in one comment. Cool way to do it.

    BTW, he didn't have a replier yet (for picking out the comment #) - did you have to go through the HTML via "view source" to pick it out? I've done that before.

    No, I’m too lazy to go into source code. I just right-clicked the timestamp on his comment and copied the link. Anyway I’m gonna just claim I have a multi-quote feature on my iSteve console, until and unless Mr Rational shares his own bag of tricks.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Man, I should have looked at the time stamp link. I did notice it just brings the particular post right to the top. At least twice, I've viewed the unformatted html, which has no white space, to find a comment number (when there's a replier, I'd gotten the number off of the link in the reply.)

    If Mr. Rational shares his knowledge with us all, the privileges would probably go away, i.e. be fixed. ;-} I've been the guy who's been responsible for a memo going out to the whole company a few times myself.

    Thanks for the advice, inadvertent or not, F0337.
  88. @J1234

    The anti-democratic tendencies of the Senate are well known: Each citizen of a small state is considered more important than each citizen of a large state. It’s a deliberate feature of the Constitution, created to persuade smaller states to join the union. Over time, though, the racial edge to the Senate’s structure has become much sharper — for two big reasons.

    First, the states whose populations have grown the most over time, like California, Texas, Florida and New York, are racially diverse. By contrast, the smallest states, like Wyoming, Vermont, the Dakotas and Maine, tend to be overwhelmingly white. The Senate, as a result, gives far more special treatment to whites than it once did.
     

    It's remedial eighth grade civics time again for professional journalists with (apparently) prestigious degrees who are employed by the world's most prominent media outlets.

    - The House of Representatives represents the citizens/population of the US.
    - The Senate represents the states.

    The 17th amendment changed the way Senators were elected, but it did not change the scope or role of the Senate. The Senate still represents the states. (The 17th amendment was implemented as a way to deal with corruption that was taking place at the state legislature level with regards to rich people who would buy their way into the US Senate. It probably never should've been passed, though.)

    An essential redundancy within the houses of a bicameral legislature defeats the purpose of a bicameral legislature. The idea behind a bicameral legislature is that democracy works best - and it's inherent flaws are better mitigated - when it is approached from varying or multiple perspectives, hence one house that represents the citizens, and one house that represents the states. (Think of it as "diversity" leftists.) Representation of states is important because a state has far more power in opposing a tyrannical federal government than an individual has. This is part of the reason the name of our country is, "The United States of America," and not "The United Citizens of America."

    Also, the states have a value to the union far beyond the number of voters that live in them. This is evident every time you see 100 car long coal trains from Wyoming rolling by so that the people of big cities to the east don't freeze to death in the winter. This value is worthy of representation.

    What the remedial journalist didn't tell you is that something like 65% of the House of Representatives currently come from (as I recall) the twelve most populous states. California, New York and Florida by themselves have 25% of the House's 435 representatives. California alone has 53 representatives. Maybe Wyoming and the Dakotas complain about this, but if so, it doesn't get much press.

    Very well put!

    This or even something half as good should appear in the NYT so that its highly intelligent readership can be more fully enlightened…

  89. @AnonyBot
    The common argument you hear is that D.C. should be able to be a state since it has more people than Wyoming. My county is one of about 90 in the US with a population larger than that of D.C.'s, every single one of which (except New York) is also larger in area. Why not make all those counties states, as well?

    The truth is, of course, is that this opinion piece is nothing more than an appeal for raw political power. It is not one Leonhardt would be making if D.C. was overwhelmingly, oh, white, Baptist and Republican. Perhaps in that case I would be making the argument, but I wouldn't expect anyone to actually listen to me. Leonhardt shouldn't expect it, either.

    D.C. should not become a state because it is a city. Puerto Rico should not become a state because it has absolutely nothing in common, culturally, with the rest of the US.

    I wouldn’t expect anyone to actually listen to me. Leonhardt shouldn’t expect it, either.

    The rules are different when it’s a megaphone in your hand instead of, uh, whatever that is 😉

    D.C. should not become a state because it is a city. Puerto Rico should not become a state because it has absolutely nothing in common, culturally, with the rest of the US.

    Neither does the rest of the US, if you catch my drift…

    • LOL: Anonym
  90. @Hibernian
    Equality of representation in the Senate can only be denied by unanimous consent of the States.

    Denied? Or agreed to?

    Either way, please elaborate.

  91. @sagramore
    I think you hit on why Canada chose to enter NORAD and not have nukes. Western alienation is a thing, and remember, Canada is more of a defense pact than an organic entity. I've been the victim of crimes just by virtue of being from Quebec in BC, for example.

    Wrong, Canada has no crime, we’re reliably informed, because it’s really liberal and has no guns and is really multi-cultural just like we’re supposed to be.

  92. @DuanDiRen
    OT: Variety is an excellent place to get a sense of what smarter liberals believe. People in the Biz are 100% Cathedral, but they are also selected to be super competent, so they tend to be a lot sharper (for real world stuff) than academics.

    https://variety.com/2018/tv/columns/donald-trump-60-minutes-1202980027/

    Here they just come out and say "We wish Jeb or lil' Marco had won, because we could shame them into doing what we say". Really.

    "This would have been a good playbook for a conservative-but-not-category-busting President Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, perhaps; all players could say their piece, and all could go home relatively unscathed. But even as Trump was unwilling to play along, the questions got no harder. "

    If you want to know what people in Malibu think about you, read Variety.

    Took a look, and see what you mean. The entire piece is “we can’t lay a finger on him with the approach that’s worked on all other Republicans” and that is A Problem for them.

    “randomly assorted questions were bulldozed by a man eager to speak, and in which the interviewer generally left the viewers to decide what those answers meant”

    We Couldn’t Enforce Our Own Narrative, in other words. The interviewer should have interpreted, so telling the viewers how evil Trump is, in case they couldn’t work it out themselves.

    Still, the media is working hard to ensure nothing like Trump or Brexit ever happens again.

    In other news, the new female Doctor Who travels back in time to meet Rosa Parks. Really. Pity she couldn’t travel back and stop her being beaten up by that young (black) home invader. What with that and the new tranny kid drama, BBC is becoming unwatchable.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6274491/Doctor-takes-racism-civil-rights-movement.html

    • Replies: @njguy73

    In other news, the new female Doctor Who travels back in time to meet Rosa Parks. Really. Pity she couldn’t travel back and stop her being beaten up by that young (black) home invader. What with that and the new tranny kid drama, BBC is becoming unwatchable.
     
    What's next, is this new Doctor going to adapt five orphans of different ethnicites so they can form a team to fight racism throughout history? Captain Multicultural. "The Power Is Everybody's!"
    , @Brutusale

    We Couldn’t Enforce Our Own Narrative, in other words. The interviewer should have interpreted, so telling the viewers how evil Trump is, in case they couldn’t work it out themselves.
     
    This.

    Trump didn't destroy or suppress the media; he made them irrelevant, which is far worse.
  93. The House is a different mater. We have the lying thieving members of the Black Caucus. Just about all are Congressmen for life. Congress is full of Hispanics and Asians so my quick guess is Congress is 85% white.
    _________
    The new Congress is 80 percent white, 80 percent male and 92 percent Christian
    By Philip Bump- January 5, 2015 – Washingtooon Post

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Actually I was correct at 80 percent white for the House. Mr Bump gives an 85% white number for House and Senate combined as Congress in 2015
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.90314554ae0e
  94. The control of the Senate is 2% for each state. So adding states will dilute control of existing states.

    Puerto Rico should either be an independent country or part of another US state. Florida seems obvious but I like the idea of creating a generic Island state that would include all US island possessions Hawaii, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam, ect. If Hawaii doesn’t like it threaten to re-establish the Hawaiian monarchy ending US sovereignty, that’ll fixem.

    One problem with the divide Texas into 5 is splitting the spoils of the mineral wealth. California has that problem too only with water resources.

    While on the subject of the Senate, direct election of Senators has been a disaster repeal the 17th amendment.

    The District of Columbia should not have a representative, actually, all the congresspersons are really from DC. I don’t understand why they are forced to maintain the sham of local residences in their states.

  95. @F0337
    There's a point in there, really! It's that the whole 'generation' thing is sort of arbitrary, and people believe there's some sort of science between 1946-1964-1980 etc. Human history began in 1945!

    Near as I can tell, most people really don't think, and many who do use the 'generational' tag when it suits their nefarious purposes!

    HBR.ORG says: "Generation Y, or Millennials, typically thought of as those born between 1984 and 1996" -- wow, they only get 12 years, poor sods.

    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946 (in the UK, it was much less of a big deal). But it’s pretty arbitrary when in the 1960s the Baby Boom ended. Since the Baby Boom, there’s no real distinctive features in the birth statistics, so it’s just whose marketing pitch wins out.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    ...in the UK, it was much less of a big deal...

    "Quiet stormwater
    my generation
    uppers and downers
    either way, blood flows."
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I'd agree with you if you mean before 1992. That's when Strauss and Howe's Generations came out, followed up by the more well-known The Fourth Turning.

    Strauss and Howe made a naming convention and picked start/end years for generations from the time of the Glorious Revolution in England through America in the years of their writing. In addition they had names for the "archetypes" of the various generations. It's really interesting stuff, though they try to be too complete and run through every combination of generational cohorts in their stages (out of 4) of life, throughout these 300+ years.

    I really have been meaning to write a review on these books, good and bad, since the time I started my blog. I'll do it soon, I swear.

    I'm not saying all the generational naming comes from Strauss and Howe, but there are people whose whole world-view comes from these books. The authors used whatever existing generational names they could and came up with the rest. The big thing they did was set the start/end dates of these generations in stone.
    , @njguy73

    Most generational names are made up by marketers.
     
    That's not because "generations" is a marketing concept per se. Since ancient times writers have described generations as differing from previous ones. Exodus describes a "stiff-necked generation" who worshipped the Golden Calf. Thomas Jefferson lamented that the sacrifices of his peers, "the generation of 1776," were about to be thrown away by "the passions of their sons." Gertrude Stein called Hemingway's generation "lost," and journalist/WW2 vet William Manchester called people too young to fight in that war "the silent generation."

    The marketing aspect is due to everything in our society being determined by marketers. And that's why people are reluctant to called themselves members of a generation. "Generation" stopped being about a person's place in history and started being about someone can sell them stuff.
    , @Desiderius
    Pretty sure Strauss and Howe get credit for Millenials.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946...
     
    I remember many references to a "baby boom", but it wasn't until the '80s or so that the term "boomer" became common. Marketers are to blame for that. Or, rather, lazy "journalists" who get their story ideas from marketers.

    In other words, few of these "boomers" would have heard the term until well into adulthood. (The so-called "greatest" and "silent" generations are pure retronyms.)

    At any rate, it's a pretty stupid basis for one's identity. Indeed, so is everything other than family, race, nation, faith, and tongue.
  96. @Clyde
    The House is a different mater. We have the lying thieving members of the Black Caucus. Just about all are Congressmen for life. Congress is full of Hispanics and Asians so my quick guess is Congress is 85% white.
    _________
    The new Congress is 80 percent white, 80 percent male and 92 percent Christian
    By Philip Bump- January 5, 2015 - Washingtooon Post

    Actually I was correct at 80 percent white for the House. Mr Bump gives an 85% white number for House and Senate combined as Congress in 2015
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.90314554ae0e

  97. OT: I just watched a 90 second segment on a Boston area news station about yet another hate crime.

    The [anti-]anti-hate groups must need more money to fight “the Deplorables” this coming election.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    Hm, can we start calling Hillary and her acolytes hatists?
    , @Trevor H.
    These stories are in the local news coast to coast on an almost daily basis. Most are hoaxes but they're almost never followed up. Since it's just local news it doesn't gain enough "important" attention to get sorted out.

    And even the national stories are usually swept under the rug when they're inconvenient. Remember the Air Force Academy story from last year? Front page news, until...

  98. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Affirmative Action for White People
     
    Breaking news!

    Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Cherokee Nation) just released her DNA test results! Princess Yellow Hair is at least 1/512th victim, according to Carlos “Le 56% Face” Bustamante, who calculated her vibrant ancestry with “samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American.”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html

    from the Boston homoglobo:

    The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/512th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

    Undergoing the test and releasing the results reveal how seriously Warren is taking the attacks from Trump, who has been able to effectively caricature and diminish his national foes via nicknames and conspiracy theories. Trump pushed then President Barack Obama into releasing the long form of his birth certificate to prove what most knew was already true: He was born in America.

    The move is also another indication of how seriously Warren is considering running for president. And while it’s unclear whether the test will convince Trump and his die-hard supporters, Warren will be able to point to it with other, more open-minded voters. Once Obama produced his birth certificate in 2011, the racist “birther’’ movement, which thrived on the Internet and was stoked by Trump, largely evaporated.

    ^^^^^^ My bet is 1/512 part Indian. What a scam. We don’t know about the DNA tests she tossed in the trash.

    • Agree: Coemgen
    • Replies: @Coemgen

    We don’t know about the DNA tests she tossed in the trash.
     
    Yes, she's had plenty of time to DNA test shop until she got a desirable result.
  99. @Coemgen
    OT: I just watched a 90 second segment on a Boston area news station about yet another hate crime.

    The [anti-]anti-hate groups must need more money to fight "the Deplorables" this coming election.

    Hm, can we start calling Hillary and her acolytes hatists?

  100. @Lagertha
    The land in Texas....the land....is almost entirely owned by private people/old families. Cattle, sorghum growing, etc. is in private hands, families...and always will be. And, of course oil is often on these same properties, so, duh. Texas had no Indian cultures living in cities or historic villages. There are no signs of indigenous civilizations. This is why Texas is weird, an outlier. You are still responsible for yourself in Texas.

    That is why Texas is like Finland (stand against deadly odds - Alamo/Bolshevik Russia). Texas has been keen on becoming their own country because they hate the lies of the Democrats for the last 10 years & they have figured out a way that works for their state as far as taxes. Texas does not want to be sucked into NY or California...states that are failing. Mezo & S American immigrants I have met, want to be Trump....or at least, his driver and body guard, his wife's stylist and dresser. Texas knows S. Americans are hard-working.

    >>The land in Texas….the land.…is almost entirely owned by private people/old families.

    And that sucks. No right to roam, hike, camp, wander, forage, water, etc…….. Sorry, there can be too much of private property. 99 % of Texas is in private hands, and non-holders have no right to exercise the simplest, most basic of human liberties. I welcome the zombie apocalypse.

  101. @Steve Sailer
    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946 (in the UK, it was much less of a big deal). But it's pretty arbitrary when in the 1960s the Baby Boom ended. Since the Baby Boom, there's no real distinctive features in the birth statistics, so it's just whose marketing pitch wins out.

    …in the UK, it was much less of a big deal…

    “Quiet stormwater
    my generation
    uppers and downers
    either way, blood flows.”

  102. “Leonhardt”

    Every. Single. Time.

    And since when are “white” Americans a “minority”?

  103. HBD!

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html

    • Replies: @Jack D

    And yes, a famous geneticist analyzed my DNA and concluded that it contains Native American ancestry.
     
    This is like when you buy some sugary drink that says on the label "Contains real orange juice!" and then when you read the ingredient list in small print, the 5th ingredient behind sugar and corn syrup is "1% orange juice".
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, Mrs Warren, so your family had a pow-wow about it. That doesn't mean your 1 in 512 Indian blood proves President Trump wrong. BTW, take note, senator, even real Indians these days use Skype. BTW, if you didn't sit Injun style, oops, cross-legged, then it wasn't a real pow-wow.

    Tell us what you think after spending an hour in the sweat lodge, bitch. Maybe we'd get some truth.
  104. Better idea. Roll DC into Maryland and give Puerto Rico their independence. I realize that Maryland does not want DC, but life is tough. It is for the greater good, or something…

  105. @sb
    Why should there only be two Dakotas?

    I know that was TIC, but actually, I’ve wondered why there isn’t just one Dakota. I mean, there’s only one Montana, and both Dakotas combined would still be less in land area than Montana, and not that much more in population.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I could see a lot of bad blood between the two Dakotas, such as where would the Lawrence Welk museum be located?
    , @Dtbb
    Which Dakota was a state first?
  106. @jJay
    The average age of a US senator is 62 meaning they were born, on average, in 1956, when the US was 90% white. Currently, 90 of the 100 US senators are white. Non whites are younger than whites. Does Mr. Leonhardt think that there are not enough Hispanic teenagers in the senate?

    Hispanics are not necessarily “non-white.”

    Anyway, the entire target audience for this article lacks either the basic numeracy needed to grasp your point, or the honesty needed to admit it and it’s logical implications. The vast majority likely lack both.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Exactly. If my son becomes a senator (Hell, if I became a senator – far less likely!) that would be a white, Hispanaphone senator.

    When, oh when, will the retarded, meaningless, term "Hispanic" ever go away?

    (Never, I know, because it is handy for The Man.)
    , @Jefferson
    "Hispanics are not necessarily “non-white.”

    Than what's the problem with open borders? Open borders just makes America Whiter because it would overwhelmingly be Hispanics who would take advantage of a borderless U.S because they are our Southern neighbors.

  107. At least until the confirmation of memetic rapist Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS, the anti-White media loved the extremely unrepresentative federal judiciary (with an overwhelmingly over represented Chosen population at its pinnacle), which is chosen by the president (elected by the electoral college) and the Senate. Where was their outrage struck down policies that were popular (such as denying public services to illegal invaders) or imposed by mandate policies which were unpopular (such as mandatory busing to achieve racial integration in schools). The answer, of course, is that the majority should only have rights if they are the replacements chosen by the Chosen for the unsatisfactory un-Chosen White majority.

    • Replies: @bomag

    ...the anti-White media loved the extremely unrepresentative federal judiciary...
     
    Yes, and points out that the Goodwhites think they will still be able to get their way after they remove all the Badwhites.
  108. @F0337
    No, I'm too lazy to go into source code. I just right-clicked the timestamp on his comment and copied the link. Anyway I'm gonna just claim I have a multi-quote feature on my iSteve console, until and unless Mr Rational shares his own bag of tricks.

    Man, I should have looked at the time stamp link. I did notice it just brings the particular post right to the top. At least twice, I’ve viewed the unformatted html, which has no white space, to find a comment number (when there’s a replier, I’d gotten the number off of the link in the reply.)

    If Mr. Rational shares his knowledge with us all, the privileges would probably go away, i.e. be fixed. ;-} I’ve been the guy who’s been responsible for a memo going out to the whole company a few times myself.

    Thanks for the advice, inadvertent or not, F0337.

  109. @J1234

    The anti-democratic tendencies of the Senate are well known: Each citizen of a small state is considered more important than each citizen of a large state. It’s a deliberate feature of the Constitution, created to persuade smaller states to join the union. Over time, though, the racial edge to the Senate’s structure has become much sharper — for two big reasons.

    First, the states whose populations have grown the most over time, like California, Texas, Florida and New York, are racially diverse. By contrast, the smallest states, like Wyoming, Vermont, the Dakotas and Maine, tend to be overwhelmingly white. The Senate, as a result, gives far more special treatment to whites than it once did.
     

    It's remedial eighth grade civics time again for professional journalists with (apparently) prestigious degrees who are employed by the world's most prominent media outlets.

    - The House of Representatives represents the citizens/population of the US.
    - The Senate represents the states.

    The 17th amendment changed the way Senators were elected, but it did not change the scope or role of the Senate. The Senate still represents the states. (The 17th amendment was implemented as a way to deal with corruption that was taking place at the state legislature level with regards to rich people who would buy their way into the US Senate. It probably never should've been passed, though.)

    An essential redundancy within the houses of a bicameral legislature defeats the purpose of a bicameral legislature. The idea behind a bicameral legislature is that democracy works best - and it's inherent flaws are better mitigated - when it is approached from varying or multiple perspectives, hence one house that represents the citizens, and one house that represents the states. (Think of it as "diversity" leftists.) Representation of states is important because a state has far more power in opposing a tyrannical federal government than an individual has. This is part of the reason the name of our country is, "The United States of America," and not "The United Citizens of America."

    Also, the states have a value to the union far beyond the number of voters that live in them. This is evident every time you see 100 car long coal trains from Wyoming rolling by so that the people of big cities to the east don't freeze to death in the winter. This value is worthy of representation.

    What the remedial journalist didn't tell you is that something like 65% of the House of Representatives currently come from (as I recall) the twelve most populous states. California, New York and Florida by themselves have 25% of the House's 435 representatives. California alone has 53 representatives. Maybe Wyoming and the Dakotas complain about this, but if so, it doesn't get much press.

    Re: Amendment XVII

    It probably never should’ve been passed, though.

    Yes, agreed! I’ve been through this with another commenter before. People think the 17th Amendment was just some kind of legal housekeeping deal, or, as you said, to cut down corruption.

    Taking the power of picking US Senators away from the state legislatures WAS a big deal, and an early one in the road to the end of federalism. What power do state legislators have now? Oh, they can vote on making up the snow or hurricane days. They can vote on which flag flies at the State House. OK, yeah, they can budget for the state, but only for that which the US Feral Gov’t declares is its business now.

    When the guy down the road from you, a small businessman (though more likely a lawyer), goes to the State House, he is close enough to listen to you and some like-minded people. Telling him that we are tired of the cuck we have in there can make a difference. There may be corruption, but at least it’s our corruption. Now, the Senator may be hand-picked from a guy in Las Vegas, or put in place by people from all over the country, as in the dishonorable Hildabeast “from” New York State.

  110. @Gnome Sayin
    Give DC to Maryland. Free Puerto Rico from white colonialist oppression by jettisoning them entirely. "Taxation Without Representation" solved.

    By “give” you mean “burden” Maryland with DC . No thanks we’ve already got Baltimore .

    • Replies: @ic1000
    > Give DC to Maryland / Burden Maryland with DC

    Some years ago, Maryland's effective and somewhat eccentric Governor, William Donald Schaefer, heard the neighbors' heartfelt cries of "Taxation Without Representation" (also the catchy motto of DC license plates). On Maryland's behalf, Schaefer offered to have DC re-gain Representation through re-accession to his state; this makes historical and geographical sense. The White House, Congressional buildings, the Mall, etc. would constitute a tiny, resident-free Federal District.

    The opportunity for DC's white and Talented Tenth elites to add their own votes (and those of Anacostia) to the margins of victory of Maryland's two safe Democratic Senate seats went over like a lead balloon. "That's not the Representation we have in mind!" went the anti-Schaefer vitriol.
  111. @Clyde
    from the Boston homoglobo:

    The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/512th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

    Undergoing the test and releasing the results reveal how seriously Warren is taking the attacks from Trump, who has been able to effectively caricature and diminish his national foes via nicknames and conspiracy theories. Trump pushed then President Barack Obama into releasing the long form of his birth certificate to prove what most knew was already true: He was born in America.

    The move is also another indication of how seriously Warren is considering running for president. And while it’s unclear whether the test will convince Trump and his die-hard supporters, Warren will be able to point to it with other, more open-minded voters. Once Obama produced his birth certificate in 2011, the racist “birther’’ movement, which thrived on the Internet and was stoked by Trump, largely evaporated.


    ^^^^^^ My bet is 1/512 part Indian. What a scam. We don't know about the DNA tests she tossed in the trash.

    We don’t know about the DNA tests she tossed in the trash.

    Yes, she’s had plenty of time to DNA test shop until she got a desirable result.

  112. @MBlanc46
    Disaggregation is coming, one way or another.

    Probably. I can’t see the urban progressives agreeing to the Constitution’s counter-majoritarian provisions forever. And simultaneously, I can’t see the conservative flyovers agreeing to rule by the the cities. The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other."
     
    Or to put it another way, the equivalent of 7,000,000 deaths, proportional to today's population.

    And back then was a war over a relatively gentlemanly political disagreement, fought mostly by well regulated, uniformed military men of one continental ethnicity, who did not desire the mass extinction of the enemy.

    The modern equivalent would be heavily "irregular" (i.e., guerrilla, terrorist, warlord), unconstrained by law or manners, without clear battlelines, but with ghetto and third world models of conflict, who have been heavily propagandized that their enemy has no right to exist and deserves everything that can be heaped upon them as their former oppressor.

    So more like Afghanistan/Iraq/Yugoslavia/Rwanda than like Union and Confederacy.

    , @Corvinus
    "The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other."

    We are not even remotely on that trajectory. We like our consumer goodies and sportsball. As if you and other Alt Right types will go all Saxon on everyone.

    As far as David Leonhardt's idea, it's not going anywhere.
    , @MBlanc46
    Historical comparisons are always dicey, but to the extent that I have a sense of the 1850s, it’s starting to feel like the 1850s.
  113. @Steve Sailer
    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946 (in the UK, it was much less of a big deal). But it's pretty arbitrary when in the 1960s the Baby Boom ended. Since the Baby Boom, there's no real distinctive features in the birth statistics, so it's just whose marketing pitch wins out.

    I’d agree with you if you mean before 1992. That’s when Strauss and Howe’s Generations came out, followed up by the more well-known The Fourth Turning.

    Strauss and Howe made a naming convention and picked start/end years for generations from the time of the Glorious Revolution in England through America in the years of their writing. In addition they had names for the “archetypes” of the various generations. It’s really interesting stuff, though they try to be too complete and run through every combination of generational cohorts in their stages (out of 4) of life, throughout these 300+ years.

    I really have been meaning to write a review on these books, good and bad, since the time I started my blog. I’ll do it soon, I swear.

    I’m not saying all the generational naming comes from Strauss and Howe, but there are people whose whole world-view comes from these books. The authors used whatever existing generational names they could and came up with the rest. The big thing they did was set the start/end dates of these generations in stone.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My problem with Strauss and Howe was that I couldn't see too many similarities in their representatives of each generation. I don't remember exactly, but my recollection is they would tend to come up with examples like: Ty Cobb, Eleanor Roosevelt, and W.C. Fields and then go, Obviously, you can see how each was a product of the Missionary Generation. Or whatever, I'm just making this example up.

    Steve Bannon loves this stuff. So maybe I ought to give it a second try.

  114. @Steve Sailer
    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946 (in the UK, it was much less of a big deal). But it's pretty arbitrary when in the 1960s the Baby Boom ended. Since the Baby Boom, there's no real distinctive features in the birth statistics, so it's just whose marketing pitch wins out.

    Most generational names are made up by marketers.

    That’s not because “generations” is a marketing concept per se. Since ancient times writers have described generations as differing from previous ones. Exodus describes a “stiff-necked generation” who worshipped the Golden Calf. Thomas Jefferson lamented that the sacrifices of his peers, “the generation of 1776,” were about to be thrown away by “the passions of their sons.” Gertrude Stein called Hemingway’s generation “lost,” and journalist/WW2 vet William Manchester called people too young to fight in that war “the silent generation.”

    The marketing aspect is due to everything in our society being determined by marketers. And that’s why people are reluctant to called themselves members of a generation. “Generation” stopped being about a person’s place in history and started being about someone can sell them stuff.

  115. Speaking of Affirmative Action Senators, can we get a discussion of Liz Warren’s DNA test?

    “The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis….He concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”

    Yeah, sure.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/15/okay-lets-talk-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test/

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor"

    Well, he's not lying, is he? If Pocohontas has ANY Native American in her DNA, then at some stage she'll have a kosher, unadmixed Native American forebear. But if it's only 1/512

    Parent = 1/2
    Grandparent = 1/4
    GG =1/8
    GGG = 1/16
    GGGG = 1/32
    GGGGG = 1/64
    GGGGGG = 1/128
    GGGGGGG = 1/256
    GGGGGGGG = 1/512

    So you have to go back 9 generations, at 25yr per generation that's 225 years minimum to find an unadmixed NA (it could be more, she may have >1 person with NA ancestry in those 9 generations)= around 1790. Anyone want to check the family tree?

  116. @Steve Sailer
    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946 (in the UK, it was much less of a big deal). But it's pretty arbitrary when in the 1960s the Baby Boom ended. Since the Baby Boom, there's no real distinctive features in the birth statistics, so it's just whose marketing pitch wins out.

    Pretty sure Strauss and Howe get credit for Millenials.

  117. @YetAnotherAnon
    Took a look, and see what you mean. The entire piece is "we can't lay a finger on him with the approach that's worked on all other Republicans" and that is A Problem for them.

    "randomly assorted questions were bulldozed by a man eager to speak, and in which the interviewer generally left the viewers to decide what those answers meant"

    We Couldn't Enforce Our Own Narrative, in other words. The interviewer should have interpreted, so telling the viewers how evil Trump is, in case they couldn't work it out themselves.

    Still, the media is working hard to ensure nothing like Trump or Brexit ever happens again.

    In other news, the new female Doctor Who travels back in time to meet Rosa Parks. Really. Pity she couldn't travel back and stop her being beaten up by that young (black) home invader. What with that and the new tranny kid drama, BBC is becoming unwatchable.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6274491/Doctor-takes-racism-civil-rights-movement.html

    In other news, the new female Doctor Who travels back in time to meet Rosa Parks. Really. Pity she couldn’t travel back and stop her being beaten up by that young (black) home invader. What with that and the new tranny kid drama, BBC is becoming unwatchable.

    What’s next, is this new Doctor going to adapt five orphans of different ethnicites so they can form a team to fight racism throughout history? Captain Multicultural. “The Power Is Everybody’s!”

  118. @YetAnotherAnon
    Took a look, and see what you mean. The entire piece is "we can't lay a finger on him with the approach that's worked on all other Republicans" and that is A Problem for them.

    "randomly assorted questions were bulldozed by a man eager to speak, and in which the interviewer generally left the viewers to decide what those answers meant"

    We Couldn't Enforce Our Own Narrative, in other words. The interviewer should have interpreted, so telling the viewers how evil Trump is, in case they couldn't work it out themselves.

    Still, the media is working hard to ensure nothing like Trump or Brexit ever happens again.

    In other news, the new female Doctor Who travels back in time to meet Rosa Parks. Really. Pity she couldn't travel back and stop her being beaten up by that young (black) home invader. What with that and the new tranny kid drama, BBC is becoming unwatchable.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6274491/Doctor-takes-racism-civil-rights-movement.html

    We Couldn’t Enforce Our Own Narrative, in other words. The interviewer should have interpreted, so telling the viewers how evil Trump is, in case they couldn’t work it out themselves.

    This.

    Trump didn’t destroy or suppress the media; he made them irrelevant, which is far worse.

  119. @Lagertha
    New Jersey: South needs to get the Jersey Nohhhf off their ass! South is beautiful; north is ugly and congested...all the probs of New Yawk.

    However, Jersians are moving to Florida, Carolinas, AL & MS by the droves.

    Given the demographic trends of late, New Jersey is more likely to become the 30th state of India than split into two American states.

  120. While we’re rearranging the furniture, can we give NYC to Israel? How many problems would THAT solve?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Bibi and his supporters ain't into national suicide.
  121. @Rosie

    However, the author of this piece, David Leonhardt, doesn’t point this out. David Leonhardt is Jewish.
     
    I was shocked that he had the nerve to say this:

    It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority.
     
    Talk about rubbing our noses in it. I wonder if there's any point at which I will cease being shocked by chutzpah.

    According to the Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217), the non-Hispanic white population of the U.S. makes up over 60% of the total. Wondering where he got his data, assuming he just didn’t make it up for the purposes of argument.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    Although I took issue with it [supra], I knew exactly what the guy was saying: that less populous states have "affirmative action" in the Senate, under the federal system set up by the Framers, and those less populous states are overwhelmingly controlled by Whites-- and those small-state Whites, specifically, are but a minority of the population of the United States as a whole, yet supposedly able to control federal policy, through their overrepresentation in the United States Senate. Whether he also intended to be unclear about current American demography, for the sake of pushing the myth that the United States already is a majority-minority country (which is what residents of New York City see on their own streets, now, since non-Hispanic Whites are only about one-third of the city's population-- and about half of those New York City Whites are Jews, many of whom view themselves as white, but not as Whites!), a la Madison Avenue does in its advertising, is an open question; he might just be as poor of a writer as he is of a thinker-- what with "The New York Times" having its own version of Affirmative Action....
  122. I completely agree that Puerto Rico (and Guam, and the Virgin Islands) should be made states or made independent; their inhabitants have had it both ways for far too long).

    Columbia is not a state for sound political reasons which have not changed since its creation. I do not presume to second-guess the combined wisdom of the likes of intellectual giants such as Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, etc. who wisely decided neither Virginia nor Maryland not any other state should have the special benefit of holding the national capital. Some people apparently think themselves smarter than Jefferson etc al.

  123. @Jason K.
    Generally, not too far off; with the exceptions of the major cities (Dallas, Austin, and Houston). Each of these have their own spin on Texas. Dallas is more centrist and cosmopolitan. Austin is... off (think wannabe Berkeley/San Fran). Houston is a police state in the making (as ethnic diversity is wont to do).

    If you’re ever in Houston, well, you better do the right;
    You better not gamble, there, you better not fight, at all
    Or the sheriff will grab ya and the boys will bring you down.
    The next thing you know, boy, Oh! You’re prison bound.…

    Midnight Special

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    The best version, of course:

    Tube amps, bitchez!

    (tempo picks up at 0:50 in.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrj5Kxdzouc
  124. @Gnome Sayin
    Give DC to Maryland. Free Puerto Rico from white colonialist oppression by jettisoning them entirely. "Taxation Without Representation" solved.

    Yes. Barring this, if PR becomes a state, then a bunch of homesteaders need to move there and take it over.

  125. @Rosie

    However, the author of this piece, David Leonhardt, doesn’t point this out. David Leonhardt is Jewish.
     
    I was shocked that he had the nerve to say this:

    It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority.
     
    Talk about rubbing our noses in it. I wonder if there's any point at which I will cease being shocked by chutzpah.

    Why do Jews think they won’t get thrown in the cannibal pot? It’s not like they have a history of imperial rule. Just the opposite: they tend to get stomped on when they get too restive.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Because Jews think they're the smartest smarties ever and everyone else is a dumb lout waiting to be fleeced.

    The concept of "hey maybe this is a bad idea" never seems to occur to the Chosen, is why anti-Semitism is millennia old in a way that say, anti-Japanese or anti-French sentiments are not.
  126. @Indiana Jack
    Another possibility - reunite the states of Virginia and West Virginia. Had the two states been united, Virginia would have voted republican in 2016, 48.7%-46.22% and would have given Trump 16 votes in the Electoral College rather than 13 for Clinton and 5 for Trump.

    Just move some federal agencies out of the DC area and Virginia becomes red again.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I wouldn’t be so sure. The Charlottesville set-up happened in Charlottesville for a reason. The SJW virus hit the coasts first. Don’t be so sure the interior isn’t next/already infected.
  127. @Brutusale
    While we're rearranging the furniture, can we give NYC to Israel? How many problems would THAT solve?

    Bibi and his supporters ain’t into national suicide.

  128. @Anonymous
    Creating Jefferson State in the north of California and the southmost counties of Oregon would be a win for the GOP.

    Northern California (actual northern California, not central coastal California, as the phrase “northern California” is ridiculously used by most to mean) is as different from the rest of that state as anything can be. Its inhabitants are effectively occupied and enslaved by a hostile foreign power in a way not known to American politics since Reconstruction.

  129. @anin
    I know of 13 states south of the Mason-Dixon line that could form a nation. You could call it, I don't know, the Confederacy? And you can count on it that we will get our share of nukes, cause we want 'em.

    What do you mean “we?” The South is full of American transplants and foreign immigrants with zero historical or cultural affinity for the old Confederacy.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Yesh. They have to go back.
  130. @Achmed E. Newman
    I'd agree with you if you mean before 1992. That's when Strauss and Howe's Generations came out, followed up by the more well-known The Fourth Turning.

    Strauss and Howe made a naming convention and picked start/end years for generations from the time of the Glorious Revolution in England through America in the years of their writing. In addition they had names for the "archetypes" of the various generations. It's really interesting stuff, though they try to be too complete and run through every combination of generational cohorts in their stages (out of 4) of life, throughout these 300+ years.

    I really have been meaning to write a review on these books, good and bad, since the time I started my blog. I'll do it soon, I swear.

    I'm not saying all the generational naming comes from Strauss and Howe, but there are people whose whole world-view comes from these books. The authors used whatever existing generational names they could and came up with the rest. The big thing they did was set the start/end dates of these generations in stone.

    My problem with Strauss and Howe was that I couldn’t see too many similarities in their representatives of each generation. I don’t remember exactly, but my recollection is they would tend to come up with examples like: Ty Cobb, Eleanor Roosevelt, and W.C. Fields and then go, Obviously, you can see how each was a product of the Missionary Generation. Or whatever, I’m just making this example up.

    Steve Bannon loves this stuff. So maybe I ought to give it a second try.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It has turned out to have reasonably good predictive power.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Steve, that is what I want to write about in a review. These guys had some good concepts. To prove them, though, is impossible. They bring of lots and lots of examples in politics and other history, yet millions of other things had happened that could be used to "prove" the opposite. That reminds me of astrology readings, but I don't want to compare the book to that.

    I will say, that when I read The Fourth Turning in 1997, I would have argued vehemently that America was NOT in some "unraveling" period. Yes, I was wrong.
  131. @Lagertha
    The land in Texas....the land....is almost entirely owned by private people/old families. Cattle, sorghum growing, etc. is in private hands, families...and always will be. And, of course oil is often on these same properties, so, duh. Texas had no Indian cultures living in cities or historic villages. There are no signs of indigenous civilizations. This is why Texas is weird, an outlier. You are still responsible for yourself in Texas.

    That is why Texas is like Finland (stand against deadly odds - Alamo/Bolshevik Russia). Texas has been keen on becoming their own country because they hate the lies of the Democrats for the last 10 years & they have figured out a way that works for their state as far as taxes. Texas does not want to be sucked into NY or California...states that are failing. Mezo & S American immigrants I have met, want to be Trump....or at least, his driver and body guard, his wife's stylist and dresser. Texas knows S. Americans are hard-working.

    South Americans are very different from Central Americans (i.e., north American metsizos and Amerindians). I sometimses wonder how many people realise North America’s southernmost nation is Panama and not Mexico.

    South Americans are mostly hard-working, even the mestizos (not the Amerindians, who suffer the same genetic bad luck as all Amerindians); central Americans (with the possible exceptions of Belize and Costa Rica) not so much. Visit Bogotá, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Quito, or Montevideo and compare them to Mexico City, San Salvador, Managua, Guatemala City to better understand my point. To be sure, South America is no Europe or Canada or Australia (and never will be – though those places may soon enough be destroyed to be like South America…), but to group South Americans with Central Americans (i.e., those in southern North America) is like grouping, say, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar with Japan, Korea, and China as “Orientals”: there may be contexts in which the grouping holds validity or utility, but it belies insurmountable differences and is much more often not at all valid or useful.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Yah, made a mistake - too tired to type: meant to type Central Americans (and, agree, that Amerindians are not the immigrants USA wants). And, agree about say, Buenos Aires being a much more functional and refined city than any in Mexico, Guatemala, etc.

    I think my point was that it is a misconception that Latinos in Texas vote only for Democrats. Latinos run a lot of small businesses that are dependent on Anglo customers/tourists/hospitality business. Texas Latinos have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to Democrats during elections, and they dislike being taken for granted by lefties - just my feeling. Many supported Trump.
  132. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    I was curious about the (presumably ongoing) saga of Pablo "They" Gomez, but I can't find anything online about him, since his preliminary hearing from eleven months ago. Doesn't that seem odd? Anyone come across anything I missed?

    http://www.dailycal.org/2017/11/13/victim-testifies-pablo-gomez-preliminary-hearing-monday-morning/

    I also find it odd that the Nazi driver in Charlottesville still has not had his trial yet. It is already much more than a year ago. It was on video! Why should it take this long? My conspiratorial guess is, he truly does have a mental illness and will get off, so they are holding him as long as they can pre-trial.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    A lot of high profile murder trials take a couple of years to get into the courtroom. OJ Simpson was quick in only taking one year.
    , @Barnard
    I see the trial is set to start the Monday after Thanksgiving. I think Fields has a public defender, the limited resources of that office might have been part of the reason it was pushed back.
    , @notanon

    Why should it take this long?
     
    his car was being attacked so in any fair trial he'll walk

    they're holding him for as long as they can partly for extra-judicial punishment reasons and partly to maintain their narrative for as long as possible.

    (it's just possible Sessions slapped the federal hate crime charges on him to force a speedier trial)
    , @Lagertha
    He is delusional; mentally ill. His mother had tried to have him involuntarily committed. I don't have time to dig up the links, but there are plenty of them. He panicked and hit the gas pedal. If he was a normal white guy, he would be in the news constantly. No, MSM wants to forget about this since mental illness can't be attacked and impugned in their world. I'm sure they are bummed.
  133. @AndrewR
    Hispanics are not necessarily "non-white."

    Anyway, the entire target audience for this article lacks either the basic numeracy needed to grasp your point, or the honesty needed to admit it and it's logical implications. The vast majority likely lack both.

    Exactly. If my son becomes a senator (Hell, if I became a senator – far less likely!) that would be a white, Hispanaphone senator.

    When, oh when, will the retarded, meaningless, term “Hispanic” ever go away?

    (Never, I know, because it is handy for The Man.)

  134. @Thirdtwin
    Speaking of Affirmative Action Senators, can we get a discussion of Liz Warren's DNA test?

    "The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis....He concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”

    Yeah, sure.


    https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/15/okay-lets-talk-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test/

    “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor”

    Well, he’s not lying, is he? If Pocohontas has ANY Native American in her DNA, then at some stage she’ll have a kosher, unadmixed Native American forebear. But if it’s only 1/512

    Parent = 1/2
    Grandparent = 1/4
    GG =1/8
    GGG = 1/16
    GGGG = 1/32
    GGGGG = 1/64
    GGGGGG = 1/128
    GGGGGGG = 1/256
    GGGGGGGG = 1/512

    So you have to go back 9 generations, at 25yr per generation that’s 225 years minimum to find an unadmixed NA (it could be more, she may have >1 person with NA ancestry in those 9 generations)= around 1790. Anyone want to check the family tree?

  135. @The Anti-Gnostic
    What do you mean "we?" The South is full of American transplants and foreign immigrants with zero historical or cultural affinity for the old Confederacy.

    Yesh. They have to go back.

  136. @Anonymous
    I think the states most eager to break themselves up would be: California, Florida, Illinois, and NY, in that order; and any new state cut from any of the above would be plausible to send 2 Democratic Senators while its more urban parent maintained 2 still-safe seats. Recently this feels like a legit fad on the NPR-left. Call it anti-anti-nationalism, or perhaps Balkan chic

    The rest of Illinois minus Chicago would regularly elect Republicans to the Senate, maybe not as reliably as Wyoming, but they would be favored. Florida would be the same, the races would be competitive and the Republicans would have a big advantage in the northern part of the state.

  137. @midtown
    I also find it odd that the Nazi driver in Charlottesville still has not had his trial yet. It is already much more than a year ago. It was on video! Why should it take this long? My conspiratorial guess is, he truly does have a mental illness and will get off, so they are holding him as long as they can pre-trial.

    A lot of high profile murder trials take a couple of years to get into the courtroom. OJ Simpson was quick in only taking one year.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    A lot of high profile murder trials take a couple of years to get into the courtroom. OJ Simpson was quick in only taking one year.
     
    Virginia's Speedy Trial Statute appears to put either a five months' (if the accused is held pre-trial) or nine months' (if released pre-trial) time limit on the prosecution of a felony.

    That leads me to believe that Fields has waved those speedy trial rights for his own advantage.

    Curiously, according to wikipedia the trial is scheduled to begin November 28, 2018, a few weeks following the midterm elections. My spidey sense is tingling here that the actual evidence of Fields' crimes does not fully match the Democrat-friendly narrative about what happened that day.

    I'd wager that there will be a quiet plea deal after the midterms which will permit the Commonwealth of Virginia from disclosing the evidence against Mr. Fields in a public trial, and foreclose the possibility of Mr. Fields' defense putting the Governor and Democratic Presidential hopeful's stand down order on trial.
  138. @donut
    By "give" you mean "burden" Maryland with DC . No thanks we've already got Baltimore .

    > Give DC to Maryland / Burden Maryland with DC

    Some years ago, Maryland’s effective and somewhat eccentric Governor, William Donald Schaefer, heard the neighbors’ heartfelt cries of “Taxation Without Representation” (also the catchy motto of DC license plates). On Maryland’s behalf, Schaefer offered to have DC re-gain Representation through re-accession to his state; this makes historical and geographical sense. The White House, Congressional buildings, the Mall, etc. would constitute a tiny, resident-free Federal District.

    The opportunity for DC’s white and Talented Tenth elites to add their own votes (and those of Anacostia) to the margins of victory of Maryland’s two safe Democratic Senate seats went over like a lead balloon. “That’s not the Representation we have in mind!” went the anti-Schaefer vitriol.

  139. A top
    New York Post editor wrote an editorial decrying the Gingrich initiative in 1997 and got fired for his trouble. You can find in on VDARE. Here: http://web.archive.org/web/20011109221122/http://www.englishfirst.org/puerto/puertonypost.htm

    • Replies: @EdwardM
    Don't forget the infamous Don Feder "dogpatch" column in the Boston Herald: https://lulac.org/advocacy/issues/caribbean_dogpatch/.

    The left howled at this. Didn't seem to hurt Feder at the time, though he's pretty much disappeared the last decade.
  140. @Anonymous
    I think the states most eager to break themselves up would be: California, Florida, Illinois, and NY, in that order; and any new state cut from any of the above would be plausible to send 2 Democratic Senators while its more urban parent maintained 2 still-safe seats. Recently this feels like a legit fad on the NPR-left. Call it anti-anti-nationalism, or perhaps Balkan chic

    Balkan chic

    Good one.

  141. @Anonymous

    Don’t forget, too, Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy, and that DC’s felon mayor asked Congress to take over functions that states handled on their own. No place on earth would be admitted to the US as a territory today with those barnacles attached.
     
    Home rule for DC makes utterly no sense to me. Since it is the nation's capital and is specifically not part of any other state for this reason, it should be ruled by the entire nation acting through its representatives and not by the locals.


    Give the DC residents one Representative-ONE, making for 436-and make the VPOTUS the Mayor-in Chief and the entire House of Representatives the unicameral ruling body for the District. Locals who don't like it should be told to move their fat ass out of town forthwith. A farmer in Nebraska who has never been outside his county has exactly the same rights over how DC is ruled as does someone who was born and raised there.

    Kind of like the Pope being the bishop of Rome as well.

    As a born and raised native of DC I wholeheartedly agree. I made sure to ask for the apolitical license plate from the dmv…

  142. @AnonyBot
    Most or even all of the land on which D.C. now sits was taken from Maryland. If it is not going to remain a district under federal control then we should give it back to Maryland. Once upon a time, iirc, someone in government actually offered to do that. Liberal leftwing Maryland no-so-politely declined. That was back when they were electing a crackhead for their mayor, so times may have changed. Any change in D.C.'s status will probably require a constitutional amendment, however.

    > Once upon a time, iirc, someone in [Maryland] government actually offered to [take DC back].

    Yes, Gov. William Donald Schaefer (D).

    > Liberal leftwing Maryland no-so-politely declined.

    Yes, Maryland already enjoys DC’s poverty- and crime- wracked eastern suburbs, and the state’s Left wasn’t eager to add to those liabilities (not to mention Baltimore). As mentioned a few comments up, DC’s elites hated Schaefer’s idea even more than Maryland’s citizens did. American University’s NPR station WAMU was (and is) a focus of Statehood activism; the radio celebrity-wonks’ on-air gnashing of teeth and rending of garments was quite amusing.

  143. @Arthur Pierce
    At least until the confirmation of memetic rapist Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS, the anti-White media loved the extremely unrepresentative federal judiciary (with an overwhelmingly over represented Chosen population at its pinnacle), which is chosen by the president (elected by the electoral college) and the Senate. Where was their outrage struck down policies that were popular (such as denying public services to illegal invaders) or imposed by mandate policies which were unpopular (such as mandatory busing to achieve racial integration in schools). The answer, of course, is that the majority should only have rights if they are the replacements chosen by the Chosen for the unsatisfactory un-Chosen White majority.

    …the anti-White media loved the extremely unrepresentative federal judiciary…

    Yes, and points out that the Goodwhites think they will still be able to get their way after they remove all the Badwhites.

  144. it’s time to make Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., the 51st and 52nd states

    I have a better idea – make Puerto Rico (and all the other tropical islands, including Hawaii) independent. Reverse the mistake of 1898.

    As for DC, treat it as if it were part of Maryland for purposes of national elections:
    Democrats would gain a House seat.
    Senate would be unchanged, as the Democrats already have a lock on the Maryland Senators.
    Republican position would improve in Presidential elections, since DC would no longer have 3 electoral votes.

  145. Steve Sailer from 2015:

    Puerto Rico is a fascinating example of Open Borders in Action. Over the last dozen years, there has apparently been a big surge of Puerto Ricans without government jobs out of Puerto Rico, leaving fewer taxpayers behind to pay the government workers’ salaries. It’s a striking paradox: Puerto Rican left for America back when always the population growing and now they leave when the population shrinking.

    Tweets from 2015:

  146. @DuanDiRen
    OT: Variety is an excellent place to get a sense of what smarter liberals believe. People in the Biz are 100% Cathedral, but they are also selected to be super competent, so they tend to be a lot sharper (for real world stuff) than academics.

    https://variety.com/2018/tv/columns/donald-trump-60-minutes-1202980027/

    Here they just come out and say "We wish Jeb or lil' Marco had won, because we could shame them into doing what we say". Really.

    "This would have been a good playbook for a conservative-but-not-category-busting President Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, perhaps; all players could say their piece, and all could go home relatively unscathed. But even as Trump was unwilling to play along, the questions got no harder. "

    If you want to know what people in Malibu think about you, read Variety.

    Check out the comments on the article, Variety got piled on and slammed. It looks like the only people who read the article were Unz readers. The Variety editors must be feeling like George Custer; “OMG, where did all those Indians come from!?”.

  147. NYT – never knowingly honest

  148. @sagramore
    Why not? Just make sure to set aside five states for Canada (Acadia, Quebec, Ontario, Buffalo and Cascadia, giving the north to Alaska) and maybe while we're at it, spilt Texas into five states and California into three.

    15 new states, 30 new senators and about 55 new representatives.

    Go big or go home.
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Why does the Breadbasket get two capitals? Or is Denver the capitol of The Empty Quarter?

    Weird choices for capitols, too; Boston, Atlanta, and Miami make sense—but why Kansas City? Why Detroit and not New York or Chicago? Why does Ecotopia include the southern coast of Alaska – I doubt the people there have much in common with typical residents of Seattle, Portland, or San José, Who seem the impetus for the name....

    C+ Needs explication.
    , @Anonymous
    See how Dixie takes half of Missouri but assiduously avoids Jayhawk Kansas?
  149. @jJay
    The average age of a US senator is 62 meaning they were born, on average, in 1956, when the US was 90% white. Currently, 90 of the 100 US senators are white. Non whites are younger than whites. Does Mr. Leonhardt think that there are not enough Hispanic teenagers in the senate?

    yes – that’s the deliberate dishonesty in this type of argument

  150. @istevefan
    The Left rarely addresses why they lose an election, and instead either demand a new vote or a rule change. You will see this in referenda like the Irish EU vote in which the Left lost and just demanded a new vote until they got the result they wanted. Or you will see how they lose in the electoral college and demand that we change to a nationwide popular vote. Now they seem to be upset about how the senator is comprised. It's never their message that's at fault.

    BTW, the Founders have already provided a remedy for their concern. It's called amending the Constitution. The manner in which we choose senators has already been amended. Why can't the Left just go through the process of amending it again? Ditto for the electoral college.

    You are correct in both paragraphs, but ever since the Left found they could get their way through five Supreme Court justices, Executive Orders, or just plain ignoring inconvenient laws, they lost what little appetite they had for Constitutional Amendments.

    They are not interested in the rules, nor in self reflection. Just in getting their way, the sooner the better.

  151. @Anonymous
    I think the states most eager to break themselves up would be: California, Florida, Illinois, and NY, in that order; and any new state cut from any of the above would be plausible to send 2 Democratic Senators while its more urban parent maintained 2 still-safe seats. Recently this feels like a legit fad on the NPR-left. Call it anti-anti-nationalism, or perhaps Balkan chic

    Illinoisan here. Peoria County resident. I would love to see Illinois split up but I’m sure it’ll never happen. As Barnard said, Illinois minus Cook County is basically Indiana….. a red, sometimes purple state.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Don't get Cook County started. South Side, North Side, and the Gold Coast have all traditionally despised each other.
  152. @Paco Wové
    According to the Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217), the non-Hispanic white population of the U.S. makes up over 60% of the total. Wondering where he got his data, assuming he just didn't make it up for the purposes of argument.

    Although I took issue with it [supra], I knew exactly what the guy was saying: that less populous states have “affirmative action” in the Senate, under the federal system set up by the Framers, and those less populous states are overwhelmingly controlled by Whites– and those small-state Whites, specifically, are but a minority of the population of the United States as a whole, yet supposedly able to control federal policy, through their overrepresentation in the United States Senate. Whether he also intended to be unclear about current American demography, for the sake of pushing the myth that the United States already is a majority-minority country (which is what residents of New York City see on their own streets, now, since non-Hispanic Whites are only about one-third of the city’s population– and about half of those New York City Whites are Jews, many of whom view themselves as white, but not as Whites!), a la Madison Avenue does in its advertising, is an open question; he might just be as poor of a writer as he is of a thinker– what with “The New York Times” having its own version of Affirmative Action….

  153. @South Texas Guy
    A little OT. When someone says "I'm an X generation (Texan, US citizen, etc.), are we counting down from the highest branch of the family tree?

    In Texas, it's the equivalent of bragging about being from founding WASP New England stock. And I guess using the longest branch is fine for this, even if you are in reality, say, 15/16ths Italian, because it doesn't make a difference in political or cultural matters.

    In the Southwest, however, you get a bunch of Mex-Ams talking about the border having crossed them, when in reality, they're just a smidgen multi-generational Spanish or Mexican American, and mostly of relatively recent Mexican stock.

    I thought I was making a larger point when I started writing this, but what the hell, I'm hitting 'publish' anyway.

    “In the Southwest, however, you get a bunch of Mex-Ams talking about the border having crossed them, when in reality, they’re just a smidgen multi-generational Spanish or Mexican American, and mostly of relatively recent Mexican stock.”

    I’ve never seen numbers tossed about. I’m curious how many Mex-Ams can claim ancestry on US soil before 1848. I doubt the majority had relatives here before the Mexican Revolution of 1910. I suspect many weren’t here much before the 1960s.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  154. @Rosie

    However, the author of this piece, David Leonhardt, doesn’t point this out. David Leonhardt is Jewish.
     
    I was shocked that he had the nerve to say this:

    It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority.
     
    Talk about rubbing our noses in it. I wonder if there's any point at which I will cease being shocked by chutzpah.

    i think the shamelessness acts as a kind of shield as the average person can’t comprehend it.

    it ties back to the Kavanagh/BLM stuff imo in that a lot of the suburban soccer moms who believe the media believe it simply because they could never tell lies that big themselves and so can’t believe the media (or anyone else) could be that shamelessly dishonest.

    • Agree: Rosie
  155. @IHTG
    HBD!

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1051783184390664192

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html

    And yes, a famous geneticist analyzed my DNA and concluded that it contains Native American ancestry.

    This is like when you buy some sugary drink that says on the label “Contains real orange juice!” and then when you read the ingredient list in small print, the 5th ingredient behind sugar and corn syrup is “1% orange juice”.

    • LOL: res
  156. They should give the democrat, Mexified southern portion back to Mexico

  157. @Anonymous
    I think the states most eager to break themselves up would be: California, Florida, Illinois, and NY, in that order; and any new state cut from any of the above would be plausible to send 2 Democratic Senators while its more urban parent maintained 2 still-safe seats. Recently this feels like a legit fad on the NPR-left. Call it anti-anti-nationalism, or perhaps Balkan chic

    A so far unmentioned obstacle to state breakups, especially states like IL, CA, NY, is who gets stuck with the accumulated debt and pension liabilities? A big part of the reason that these states are candidates for breakups is that they are fiscal basket cases, in which some residents feel they are being unjustly burdened with others’ irresponsible use of the state credit card. They won’t want to accept the same old fiscal burden as a condition for separating.

  158. @midtown
    I also find it odd that the Nazi driver in Charlottesville still has not had his trial yet. It is already much more than a year ago. It was on video! Why should it take this long? My conspiratorial guess is, he truly does have a mental illness and will get off, so they are holding him as long as they can pre-trial.

    I see the trial is set to start the Monday after Thanksgiving. I think Fields has a public defender, the limited resources of that office might have been part of the reason it was pushed back.

  159. @Steve Sailer
    A lot of high profile murder trials take a couple of years to get into the courtroom. OJ Simpson was quick in only taking one year.

    A lot of high profile murder trials take a couple of years to get into the courtroom. OJ Simpson was quick in only taking one year.

    Virginia’s Speedy Trial Statute appears to put either a five months’ (if the accused is held pre-trial) or nine months’ (if released pre-trial) time limit on the prosecution of a felony.

    That leads me to believe that Fields has waved those speedy trial rights for his own advantage.

    Curiously, according to wikipedia the trial is scheduled to begin November 28, 2018, a few weeks following the midterm elections. My spidey sense is tingling here that the actual evidence of Fields’ crimes does not fully match the Democrat-friendly narrative about what happened that day.

    I’d wager that there will be a quiet plea deal after the midterms which will permit the Commonwealth of Virginia from disclosing the evidence against Mr. Fields in a public trial, and foreclose the possibility of Mr. Fields’ defense putting the Governor and Democratic Presidential hopeful’s stand down order on trial.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    That's a reasonable analysis, but does that Fields guy even have a viable defense counsel? Last I heard, the pro-Left peer pressure of the Bar meant that once you are labelled "Alt-Right Nazis", you can't even get pro bono representation.
  160. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Probably. I can't see the urban progressives agreeing to the Constitution's counter-majoritarian provisions forever. And simultaneously, I can't see the conservative flyovers agreeing to rule by the the cities. The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other.

    “The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other.”

    Or to put it another way, the equivalent of 7,000,000 deaths, proportional to today’s population.

    And back then was a war over a relatively gentlemanly political disagreement, fought mostly by well regulated, uniformed military men of one continental ethnicity, who did not desire the mass extinction of the enemy.

    The modern equivalent would be heavily “irregular” (i.e., guerrilla, terrorist, warlord), unconstrained by law or manners, without clear battlelines, but with ghetto and third world models of conflict, who have been heavily propagandized that their enemy has no right to exist and deserves everything that can be heaped upon them as their former oppressor.

    So more like Afghanistan/Iraq/Yugoslavia/Rwanda than like Union and Confederacy.

    • Replies: @Dtbb
    Way more than half of the deaths in the Civil War were due to disease or illness. I guess it could happen again.
  161. Israel: Affirmative Action for Jewish people. The world’s richest and most privileged group needed a lil’ extra help.

    Time to give the Palestinians statehood.

    An Arab PM would go a long way toward redeeming Israel’s racist past, too.

  162. @Steve Sailer
    My problem with Strauss and Howe was that I couldn't see too many similarities in their representatives of each generation. I don't remember exactly, but my recollection is they would tend to come up with examples like: Ty Cobb, Eleanor Roosevelt, and W.C. Fields and then go, Obviously, you can see how each was a product of the Missionary Generation. Or whatever, I'm just making this example up.

    Steve Bannon loves this stuff. So maybe I ought to give it a second try.

    It has turned out to have reasonably good predictive power.

  163. @Alec Leamas

    A lot of high profile murder trials take a couple of years to get into the courtroom. OJ Simpson was quick in only taking one year.
     
    Virginia's Speedy Trial Statute appears to put either a five months' (if the accused is held pre-trial) or nine months' (if released pre-trial) time limit on the prosecution of a felony.

    That leads me to believe that Fields has waved those speedy trial rights for his own advantage.

    Curiously, according to wikipedia the trial is scheduled to begin November 28, 2018, a few weeks following the midterm elections. My spidey sense is tingling here that the actual evidence of Fields' crimes does not fully match the Democrat-friendly narrative about what happened that day.

    I'd wager that there will be a quiet plea deal after the midterms which will permit the Commonwealth of Virginia from disclosing the evidence against Mr. Fields in a public trial, and foreclose the possibility of Mr. Fields' defense putting the Governor and Democratic Presidential hopeful's stand down order on trial.

    That’s a reasonable analysis, but does that Fields guy even have a viable defense counsel? Last I heard, the pro-Left peer pressure of the Bar meant that once you are labelled “Alt-Right Nazis”, you can’t even get pro bono representation.

  164. @midtown
    I also find it odd that the Nazi driver in Charlottesville still has not had his trial yet. It is already much more than a year ago. It was on video! Why should it take this long? My conspiratorial guess is, he truly does have a mental illness and will get off, so they are holding him as long as they can pre-trial.

    Why should it take this long?

    his car was being attacked so in any fair trial he’ll walk

    they’re holding him for as long as they can partly for extra-judicial punishment reasons and partly to maintain their narrative for as long as possible.

    (it’s just possible Sessions slapped the federal hate crime charges on him to force a speedier trial)

  165. @midtown
    Just move some federal agencies out of the DC area and Virginia becomes red again.

    I wouldn’t be so sure. The Charlottesville set-up happened in Charlottesville for a reason. The SJW virus hit the coasts first. Don’t be so sure the interior isn’t next/already infected.

    • Replies: @midtown
    Charlottesville is like Austin, TX, and for the same reason -- a big, liberal university. Yes, there is some cancer in downstate Virginia, but not that much. It is mostly in NoVa and Richmond, with an assist from Charlottesville.
  166. @Hibernian
    Equality of representation in the Senate can only be denied by unanimous consent of the States.

    Not unanimous — a constitutional amendment getting 38 states’ support would suffice.

  167. Well let’s see, .01 x .9996= .009996 of the Senate is white and took advantage of Affirmative Action for red people, so there is that.

  168. @nglaer
    A top
    New York Post editor wrote an editorial decrying the Gingrich initiative in 1997 and got fired for his trouble. You can find in on VDARE. Here: http://web.archive.org/web/20011109221122/http://www.englishfirst.org/puerto/puertonypost.htm

    Don’t forget the infamous Don Feder “dogpatch” column in the Boston Herald: https://lulac.org/advocacy/issues/caribbean_dogpatch/.

    The left howled at this. Didn’t seem to hurt Feder at the time, though he’s pretty much disappeared the last decade.

  169. @IHTG
    HBD!

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1051783184390664192

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html

    OK, Mrs Warren, so your family had a pow-wow about it. That doesn’t mean your 1 in 512 Indian blood proves President Trump wrong. BTW, take note, senator, even real Indians these days use Skype. BTW, if you didn’t sit Injun style, oops, cross-legged, then it wasn’t a real pow-wow.

    Tell us what you think after spending an hour in the sweat lodge, bitch. Maybe we’d get some truth.

  170. @Hapalong Cassidy
    I know that was TIC, but actually, I’ve wondered why there isn’t just one Dakota. I mean, there’s only one Montana, and both Dakotas combined would still be less in land area than Montana, and not that much more in population.

    I could see a lot of bad blood between the two Dakotas, such as where would the Lawrence Welk museum be located?

    • Replies: @duncsbaby
    There are 2 burial places for Sitting Bull, one in North Dakota & one in South Dakota. No one really knows for sure.
  171. There’s plenty of ways libs should want to amend the constitution. They really aren’t thinking outside the box. Why not elect representatives like EU Parliament reps at a state-level, and apportion them to districts based on statewide share of party vote? Why not elect senators nationally the same way and assign them to states? Why not allot the electoral college by House representation only? Why not give territories a say in the presidency? Why not abolish the senate altogether? Why not let anyone on earth vote? Etc etc

  172. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Why do Jews think they won't get thrown in the cannibal pot? It's not like they have a history of imperial rule. Just the opposite: they tend to get stomped on when they get too restive.

    Because Jews think they’re the smartest smarties ever and everyone else is a dumb lout waiting to be fleeced.

    The concept of “hey maybe this is a bad idea” never seems to occur to the Chosen, is why anti-Semitism is millennia old in a way that say, anti-Japanese or anti-French sentiments are not.

  173. @Mike Zwick
    If you're ever in Houston, well, you better do the right;
    You better not gamble, there, you better not fight, at all
    Or the sheriff will grab ya and the boys will bring you down.
    The next thing you know, boy, Oh! You're prison bound.…

    Midnight Special

    The best version, of course:

    Tube amps, bitchez!

    (tempo picks up at 0:50 in.)

  174. Thought many Puerto Ricans don’t want statehood because of taxes.

  175. @Corn
    Illinoisan here. Peoria County resident. I would love to see Illinois split up but I’m sure it’ll never happen. As Barnard said, Illinois minus Cook County is basically Indiana..... a red, sometimes purple state.

    Don’t get Cook County started. South Side, North Side, and the Gold Coast have all traditionally despised each other.

  176. @Steve Sailer
    My problem with Strauss and Howe was that I couldn't see too many similarities in their representatives of each generation. I don't remember exactly, but my recollection is they would tend to come up with examples like: Ty Cobb, Eleanor Roosevelt, and W.C. Fields and then go, Obviously, you can see how each was a product of the Missionary Generation. Or whatever, I'm just making this example up.

    Steve Bannon loves this stuff. So maybe I ought to give it a second try.

    Steve, that is what I want to write about in a review. These guys had some good concepts. To prove them, though, is impossible. They bring of lots and lots of examples in politics and other history, yet millions of other things had happened that could be used to “prove” the opposite. That reminds me of astrology readings, but I don’t want to compare the book to that.

    I will say, that when I read The Fourth Turning in 1997, I would have argued vehemently that America was NOT in some “unraveling” period. Yes, I was wrong.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    They predicted (in 1992) a crisis coming up right about now. Guess we’ll see shortly.
  177. @Jim Don Bob
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Ninenations.PNG

    Why does the Breadbasket get two capitals? Or is Denver the capitol of The Empty Quarter?

    Weird choices for capitols, too; Boston, Atlanta, and Miami make sense—but why Kansas City? Why Detroit and not New York or Chicago? Why does Ecotopia include the southern coast of Alaska – I doubt the people there have much in common with typical residents of Seattle, Portland, or San José, Who seem the impetus for the name….

    C+ Needs explication.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Why Detroit and not New York"
     
    If New York City were the capitol, no one else would join.

    Even New York State does not allow New York City to be the capitol.
  178. @Jim Don Bob
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Ninenations.PNG

    See how Dixie takes half of Missouri but assiduously avoids Jayhawk Kansas?

  179. @Mr. Anon
    I think Burger King beat them to it.

    I think Burger King beat them to it.

    Burger King is Canadian now.

  180. @D. K.
    If you presume a bloody civil war, the eventual winners would be able to do as they eventually please. The point is, the fifty states all are sovereign already; they do not have to proclaim it and then prove it, as the United States itself once did (thanks to the then-monarchical French government). If those fifty sovereign states, once freed from the legal authority of the Union, decided to recombine in some other forms, that would be their respective prerogatives, as sovereign states. I would prefer the latter option to the former; but then, I am one of those racist extremists who considers the historical American Civil War of 1861-1865 to have been an unjustified abomination.

    Yes. I don’t understand how most Americans don’t suffer from cognitive dissonance by praising the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the right of “one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” while at the same time applauding the Lincoln regime’s violent suppression of the Confederate States, all of whom, I’m sure, thought they were merely exercising that same right.

  181. @Anonymous
    Eventually, the US is going to break apart in much the same way as the Soviet Union. I have no doubt of that, although I may not live to see it.

    But the idea of the 50 individual States being independent nations makes little sense practically or politically. I'm guessing there will be from four to six or seven nations formed out of the current Continental US, with lines sometimes but not always following the current state lines, and some present states being broken into two or more parts.

    California and Texas are unlikely to stay whole, several New England states unlikely to stay separate, and many arbitrary or geographically odd boundries will be eliminated, such as Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

    Chunks of Western Canada and Baja California may be part of the new nations as well. Mexico's military is utterly impotent and would not last a week against the California National Guard alone. Canada's is more serious, but even a semiserious revolt against rule by Ottawa and Frogs would succeed in the long run.

    Big question is: Who gets the nukes and why?

    Pacific States of America, Atlantic States of America, Confederate States of America.

    Each with sufficient economic and demographic heft to play in the international arena if they choose.

  182. @Daniel H
    It seems that all it takes for a new state to be admitted to the USA is a petition by the state and a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress to accept and establish the state. The procedure doesn't even need the support of the President. Yikes. This is dangerous. Why stop with Puerto Rico? Carry the idea on further to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and even the Phillipines (the population of such countries would overwhelmingly vote to be included in the USA). I think we can see how the United States of America will end.

    I thought Texas lost the right to split itself as part of readmission to the Union after the Civil War.

    A state can’t be split up without the consent of its legislature according to the US Constitution.

    Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

  183. @Almost Missouri

    "The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other."
     
    Or to put it another way, the equivalent of 7,000,000 deaths, proportional to today's population.

    And back then was a war over a relatively gentlemanly political disagreement, fought mostly by well regulated, uniformed military men of one continental ethnicity, who did not desire the mass extinction of the enemy.

    The modern equivalent would be heavily "irregular" (i.e., guerrilla, terrorist, warlord), unconstrained by law or manners, without clear battlelines, but with ghetto and third world models of conflict, who have been heavily propagandized that their enemy has no right to exist and deserves everything that can be heaped upon them as their former oppressor.

    So more like Afghanistan/Iraq/Yugoslavia/Rwanda than like Union and Confederacy.

    Way more than half of the deaths in the Civil War were due to disease or illness. I guess it could happen again.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Way more than half of the deaths in the Civil War were due to disease or illness.
     
    IIRC, Vietnam was the first US war where this was not the case. A bunch of guys living outdoors in close quarters with machinery and high explosives are a recipe for illness and accidents.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Once the medical infrastructure begins to crack up, I'm sure we'll have no problem topping those numbers. Heck, there are over 30 million diabetics alone. 30,000,000 - insulin = ?
  184. @Hapalong Cassidy
    I know that was TIC, but actually, I’ve wondered why there isn’t just one Dakota. I mean, there’s only one Montana, and both Dakotas combined would still be less in land area than Montana, and not that much more in population.

    Which Dakota was a state first?

  185. @D. K.
    FTS! Dissolve the Union into its fifty sovereign states-- and offer the District of Columbia sovereignty in its own right. (All that it would need to do is to agree to assume the accumulated national debt, and any other pre-existing financial obligations of the Federal Government.) Regardless, Whites are not yet a minority of the population of the United States; non-Hispanic White gentiles still comprise about a three-fifths supermajority of the country's resident population, an even bigger supermajority of actual American citizens, and a markedly larger supermajority of adult American citizens-- otherwise known as actual and potential voters. When Whites in most states fail to vote as this pundit would prefer them to do, they are voting in their states' respective interests-- and presumably in the interests of the country's White supermajority per se, collectively.

    What this left-wing Democratic activist qua pundit actually objects to is the American federal system itself-- which was the basis upon which many of the states were willing to join the Union, in the first place. If he wants to end the federal system set up by the Framers, fine; he should join me in calling for the dissolution of the United States as a union of sovereign states, with each finally taking its rightful place among the Family of Nations, and each deciding upon its own immigration and naturalization statute for the former American citizens who are not citizens of each respective state, as well as for anyone else who was not an American citizen, at the time of the Union's permanent dissolution.

    You could always make immigration from Europe easier, replenish original stock with new as there are plenty of right thinking Europeans yearning to be free of the EU. Getting into America as a white Englishman is not that easy, good and bad in that I guess….thanks to Ted K the drunk.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    We could, but it's not really that hard now, and there are few European takers for it. Most of them already have perfectly decent countries (if they can keep them).

    Might get an uptick in Poles or Balkans perhaps....
  186. @Hibernian
    There is spectacular natural beauty in NW Jersey.

    “There is spectacular natural beauty in NW Jersey.”

    Unfortunately, much of the ground water there has been polluted by the illegal dumping of chemicals by firms based in NYC and the wider metroplex.

  187. @Anon

    Transgender Woman Becomes First Ever World Champion in Women's Cycling
     
    This is great. The faster this stuff happens, the better. Right now everyone feels he or she can't comment or complain for fear of being called "transphobic." But I think there will be a tipping point, and when the dam bursts, be ready for a national "conversation" that will cause tranny heads to explode.

    Sports is such an easy place for the rift to develop, since the whole idea of having women separated off is because there is such an undeniable, clear gap between men and women in sports, at the elite level especially. This may or may not be different from, say, physics, but physics is squishy enough that it allows for people to believe what they want. But not sports.

    So as a gap develops between women and "women" in sports, there will be a call to break off women from trannies.

    I honestly think there are probably 1,000 trannies out there right now who could beat this Rachel McKinnon in cycling. They just don't know it yet. When the top 100 women in the sport are trannies, when women's sports effectively becomes tranny sport, well .... And that's exactly what is going to happen, testosterone tests or not. Bring on the sports TERFs!

    I was skeptical of the tranny invasion into women’s sports, because most guys that are pretty good at sports want to get girls, not be them. But just a few high profile cases will force feminists to choose between women’s sports and tranny rights.

  188. One certainly COULD argue that the Senate is an undemocratic institution that should be abolished. However…

    Every small state joined the Union with the assurance that it would have as much clout in the Senate as every larger state. Without that assurance, most of the original 13 colonies would have refused to join the Union.

    So, go ahead and revoke that Constitutional provision. But if you do, every small state has a right to consider its membership in the Union null and void. NOT because states have an inherent right to secede on a whim, but because promises were made, a contract (the Constitution) was signed, and now someone is trying to renege on those contractual obligations.

  189. @Clifford Brown
    I never get the sense that Texas has such radically different cultures than say is the case in California. The Bay Areas does feel different from the Los Angeles area and the agricultural heartland of California feels quite different from the libertarian hippy far northern region of the state. I can buy that California could break up.

    Texas on the other hand feels more solidified. Texas is Texas. There is a spirit to the place and there is a "Texas" mindset and history that the state government overtly supports. I actually think that California could learn a bit from Texas as Texas really incorporates Latinos into their state identity as Latino Texans while California basically sells the multicultural approach that presents Latinos as disenfranchised outsiders.

    In the end, Texans understand power and money, and breaking the state apart serves neither.

  190. @Achmed E. Newman
    Steve, that is what I want to write about in a review. These guys had some good concepts. To prove them, though, is impossible. They bring of lots and lots of examples in politics and other history, yet millions of other things had happened that could be used to "prove" the opposite. That reminds me of astrology readings, but I don't want to compare the book to that.

    I will say, that when I read The Fourth Turning in 1997, I would have argued vehemently that America was NOT in some "unraveling" period. Yes, I was wrong.

    They predicted (in 1992) a crisis coming up right about now. Guess we’ll see shortly.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, but they gave a range around '05 to '20, as I recall. We're near the end of that range, but, yes there'll be crisis before too long.
  191. @F0337

    The DC metro area is poised to pass Chicago’s in population, if it hasn’t already.
     
    Daresay it's happened, even by the 'official' stats:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area#List_of_combined_statistical_areas

    As to your other points, I worry about giving the Dems any smart ideas.
    What's to stop them annexing Africa next? Just pretend I didn't say that.

    The DC metro area is poised to pass Chicago’s in population, if it hasn’t already.

    Daresay it’s happened, even by the ‘official’ stats:

    Houston, Atlanta, and Seattle are the only ones in the top 15 without a team in all four major sports. None is in the NHL. Which is quite ironic, as Seattle won America’s first Stanley Cup. They lost their basketball team, too. And their first baseball team. Atlanta also lost an NHL team recently, or they’d be in the four-league category, too.

    Virginia Beach is the largest metro area with no major league franchises. It’s listed at #32. But that list is mighty suspicious, as Tampa-St Pete is not included. They’d be about the size of Orlando’s.

    How did Wikipedia lose three million people?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e2/27/b7/e227b71de1fe7cd26887e14423afd02b.jpg
  192. @Desiderius
    They predicted (in 1992) a crisis coming up right about now. Guess we’ll see shortly.

    Yeah, but they gave a range around ’05 to ’20, as I recall. We’re near the end of that range, but, yes there’ll be crisis before too long.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    No, pretty sure it's at the end of the unraveling, but it's been 25 years since I read the book. I'm sure the interwebs have the answer somewhere.
  193. @Mr. Anon
    Make every county in the country a state.

    Make every county in the country a state.

    Does Kalawao county have three non-lepers to send to Congress?

    Loving County, Texas, which before the recent erection of Kalawao was the least populated in the US, appears to be the only US county without a single church.

    Entering Loving County

  194. @Steve Sailer
    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946 (in the UK, it was much less of a big deal). But it's pretty arbitrary when in the 1960s the Baby Boom ended. Since the Baby Boom, there's no real distinctive features in the birth statistics, so it's just whose marketing pitch wins out.

    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946…

    I remember many references to a “baby boom”, but it wasn’t until the ’80s or so that the term “boomer” became common. Marketers are to blame for that. Or, rather, lazy “journalists” who get their story ideas from marketers.

    In other words, few of these “boomers” would have heard the term until well into adulthood. (The so-called “greatest” and “silent” generations are pure retronyms.)

    At any rate, it’s a pretty stupid basis for one’s identity. Indeed, so is everything other than family, race, nation, faith, and tongue.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I kind of agree that "Boomers", "Greatests", "Silents" etc. are retcons, but I do think there was an awareness of the Boomer generation even before the "Boomer" moniker got applied to it. It wasn't until the 1970s or so that it became self-evident that the post-war fertility increase was not going to continue indefinitely, so "boom" only became a logical descriptor afterwards. Before that, they were being referred to as "hippies", "yippies", and "our kids". Most of the referring, after all, was being done by their parents (so-called "Greatests").
  195. Who needs more electoral votes? Despite their protestations to the contray, we’re already living in a Dem-Controlled MOG. Don’t believe it? Why does the Left’s agenda keep rolling along? I guess you could ask the wave of Hondurans and Guatemalans on their way as they get shuttled from the border to their new homes.

  196. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Probably. I can't see the urban progressives agreeing to the Constitution's counter-majoritarian provisions forever. And simultaneously, I can't see the conservative flyovers agreeing to rule by the the cities. The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other.

    “The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other.”

    We are not even remotely on that trajectory. We like our consumer goodies and sportsball. As if you and other Alt Right types will go all Saxon on everyone.

    As far as David Leonhardt’s idea, it’s not going anywhere.

    • Replies: @Marty T
    Dems are also proposing packing the courts...which is pretty brazen in its hope that Trump won't try it first.
  197. @MBlanc46
    Disaggregation is coming, one way or another.

    More articles like this, please!

    White people need to wake up.

    Basically there’s a conflict of visions:

    — The state is legitimate, supreme and eternal.
    Basically Leonhardt’s vision–the Jewish vision–is that the state–it’s control of a particular territory–is what the legitimate, essential, permanent. And the critical function of a proper–moral–state is protecting Jewish interests–any granted rights, privileges, sinecures, etc.–against any pushback by the majority. This is broadened out to “minority rights” in the current prog playbook, but is essentially the same idea. State supremacy. Proper governance==protecting minorities.

    in contrast the American founding

    — The *people* are sovereign, their rights are legitimate and supreme.
    In the American vision, the people are sovereign. The state is transitory, derives only its just powers from the people’s consent and is subject to abolishment/replacement if it tramples the peoples’ rights. And there are no “minority rights”. All individuals have the same fundamental natural rights. But there is no right to have you minority culture protected, nor for your minority to attached itself and milk the majority. A just state is run in the interest of the nation’s *majority* and protective of individuals fundamental natural rights only.

    So yeah … keep these people yakking about how terrible it is that white people have some of (extremely limited) control over the government of the nation that their ancestors founded and built and with brains, blood and sweat. Maybe at some point white people will wake the hell up.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Very well put, AD. There are (at least) two fundamental attitudes in the populace. Those who see the state as a positive good, and those who see it as a necessary evil. Those who value security over liberty and those who value liberty over security. I always enjoy your comments and am not surprised that we’re largely in sync on this question.
  198. @Autochthon
    South Americans are very different from Central Americans (i.e., north American metsizos and Amerindians). I sometimses wonder how many people realise North America's southernmost nation is Panama and not Mexico.

    South Americans are mostly hard-working, even the mestizos (not the Amerindians, who suffer the same genetic bad luck as all Amerindians); central Americans (with the possible exceptions of Belize and Costa Rica) not so much. Visit Bogotá, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Quito, or Montevideo and compare them to Mexico City, San Salvador, Managua, Guatemala City to better understand my point. To be sure, South America is no Europe or Canada or Australia (and never will be – though those places may soon enough be destroyed to be like South America...), but to group South Americans with Central Americans (i.e., those in southern North America) is like grouping, say, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar with Japan, Korea, and China as "Orientals": there may be contexts in which the grouping holds validity or utility, but it belies insurmountable differences and is much more often not at all valid or useful.

    Yah, made a mistake – too tired to type: meant to type Central Americans (and, agree, that Amerindians are not the immigrants USA wants). And, agree about say, Buenos Aires being a much more functional and refined city than any in Mexico, Guatemala, etc.

    I think my point was that it is a misconception that Latinos in Texas vote only for Democrats. Latinos run a lot of small businesses that are dependent on Anglo customers/tourists/hospitality business. Texas Latinos have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to Democrats during elections, and they dislike being taken for granted by lefties – just my feeling. Many supported Trump.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    The bit about most Spanish speakers (not the shrill minority who purport to speak for them all and brand any disagreeing as an Uncle Tomás) not buying bullshit is pretty accurate. My wife once responded succinctly and perfectly when asked her opinion following a lengthy conversation about Donald Trump's agenda: "I think he is a man who cares very much about his country."

    I don't know myself anymore that he does, given the relative inaction implementing that agenda, but it's true that is at the root of what he sold everyone on. Whether we were had, or whether he simply cannot overcome the opposition of the establishment (or both) is a moot question.
    , @Jefferson
    "I think my point was that it is a misconception that Latinos in Texas vote only for Democrats"

    Why did Hillary Clinton win over 70% of the vote in the Texas counties who share a border with Mexico.


    "Texas Latinos have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to Democrats during elections,"

    Than why does Beta O'Rourke have majority support from Texas Hispanics even though he said Donald Trump should be impeached.
  199. @anin
    I know of 13 states south of the Mason-Dixon line that could form a nation. You could call it, I don't know, the Confederacy? And you can count on it that we will get our share of nukes, cause we want 'em.

    You’ll be too busy shagging your sisters for that (not that you have the IQ to win a war anyway)

    • Replies: @donut
    You're a rude asshole .
    , @Autochthon
    That's rather "neener neener" of you.

    Given the relative skill at war evinced in the one empirical experiment conducted thus far, it's hard to argue intelligence – certainly, at least, applied to martial matters – is lacking amongst the posterity of those experimenters to the south. Fighting an invader with overwhelming numbers, a titanically larger and more sophisticated industrial infrastructure, and complete naval superiority to a standstill for years before defeat by sheer attrition is a sign of superior mettle to that enemy's, not the opposite.

    Read your Longstreet.
  200. @midtown
    I also find it odd that the Nazi driver in Charlottesville still has not had his trial yet. It is already much more than a year ago. It was on video! Why should it take this long? My conspiratorial guess is, he truly does have a mental illness and will get off, so they are holding him as long as they can pre-trial.

    He is delusional; mentally ill. His mother had tried to have him involuntarily committed. I don’t have time to dig up the links, but there are plenty of them. He panicked and hit the gas pedal. If he was a normal white guy, he would be in the news constantly. No, MSM wants to forget about this since mental illness can’t be attacked and impugned in their world. I’m sure they are bummed.

    • Replies: @Trevor H.
    The MSM has no trouble spinning that or any other story exactly how they want. Inconvenient facts (such as those you mention) are simply left out of the story.
  201. @Redneck farmer
    Reminds me of an article about Russia in the 90s/00s. Author talked to Cossacks, who explained in a democracy it's not just one man, one vote. There must be economic equality as well. There example was if Jews are x% of the population, they should control x% of wealth and jobs.
    This, it was pointed out, shows the Cossacks don't understand real democracy, and are still anti-semitic.

    ‘Reminds me of an article about Russia in the 90s/00s. Author talked to Cossacks, who explained in a democracy it’s not just one man, one vote. There must be economic equality as well. There example was if Jews are x% of the population, they should control x% of wealth and jobs.
    This, it was pointed out, shows the Cossacks don’t understand real democracy, and are still anti-semitic.’

    This sort of thing is actually somewhat better. At least here the arguments — such as they are — are clearly and openly presented.

    Leonhardt, on the other hand, practices a kind of subterranean dishonesty. His Judaism is fairly well concealed — I had to go to an article in Haaretz to confirm my suspicions. As such, he is complaining about white privilege when he is a member of that white group that is most privileged of all — but that, he is not about to bring up.

  202. @Houston Texican
    As a 5th generation Texan, I’m guessing the preferred option would be to secede rather than splitting the state. Long live the Repulic of Texas.

    Why unnecessarily take so many of millions of generally impoverished and poorly-assimilated Mexicans along when you secede? Cut out southern Texas and have the rest of the State secede, before it’s too late.

  203. States have split before. …

    West Virginia is the only one I can think of, as it was carved out of Virginia during the Civil War.

    But here’s a fun fact: West Virginia is, and always has been, unconstitutional. The relevant provision is Article IV, Section 3, which provides:

    Section 3
    1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    The Constitution isn’t usually this unambiguous. But there is no verbal wiggle room here. The Virginia Legislature never consented to the split and, even if it had, the intervening semi-colon means that Legislative consent could only justify a combination of states, but not a division.

    Apparently, no one has ever even even tried to invent some after-the-fact sophistry to justify the existence of West Virginia. The state slogan on license plates should be “The Unconstitutional State.”

    P.S., Maine used to be some sort of territory of Massachusetts. But apparently, Massachusetts ejected it first, and then it applied for statehood.

  204. @Lagertha
    New Jersey: South needs to get the Jersey Nohhhf off their ass! South is beautiful; north is ugly and congested...all the probs of New Yawk.

    However, Jersians are moving to Florida, Carolinas, AL & MS by the droves.

    It’s “Jerseyans.”

    I know New Jerseyans who have settled long-term in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, mostly for retirement but a few younger and still working. Have never heard of any moving to Alabama and Mississippi, though surely there are a few going to those places from a State of nine million people.

    If you think North Jersey is mainly an ugly or unsafe place, you don’t know it well. Much of it is far nicer than South Jersey. (or should we pretend that North Jersey is all Newark and Patterson, and ignore Camden, Atlantic City, Vineland, and Trenton in South Jersey?)

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    get an effin'life! - I grew up skiin' at Vernon Valley! - My rant is about you guys having to pay for refugees for the next 2 decades! I don't live in Jersey anymore, but, obviously, you do....keep voting for Democrats you dumb ass.
  205. @Reg Cæsar


    The DC metro area is poised to pass Chicago’s in population, if it hasn’t already.
     
    Daresay it’s happened, even by the ‘official’ stats:
     
    Houston, Atlanta, and Seattle are the only ones in the top 15 without a team in all four major sports. None is in the NHL. Which is quite ironic, as Seattle won America's first Stanley Cup. They lost their basketball team, too. And their first baseball team. Atlanta also lost an NHL team recently, or they'd be in the four-league category, too.

    Virginia Beach is the largest metro area with no major league franchises. It's listed at #32. But that list is mighty suspicious, as Tampa-St Pete is not included. They'd be about the size of Orlando's.

    How did Wikipedia lose three million people?

  206. Affirmative Action for WHITE people???

    10% of the Senate is Jewish.

  207. @AndrewR
    You'll be too busy shagging your sisters for that (not that you have the IQ to win a war anyway)

    You’re a rude asshole .

    • LOL: AndrewR
  208. @Lagertha
    Yah, made a mistake - too tired to type: meant to type Central Americans (and, agree, that Amerindians are not the immigrants USA wants). And, agree about say, Buenos Aires being a much more functional and refined city than any in Mexico, Guatemala, etc.

    I think my point was that it is a misconception that Latinos in Texas vote only for Democrats. Latinos run a lot of small businesses that are dependent on Anglo customers/tourists/hospitality business. Texas Latinos have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to Democrats during elections, and they dislike being taken for granted by lefties - just my feeling. Many supported Trump.

    The bit about most Spanish speakers (not the shrill minority who purport to speak for them all and brand any disagreeing as an Uncle Tomás) not buying bullshit is pretty accurate. My wife once responded succinctly and perfectly when asked her opinion following a lengthy conversation about Donald Trump’s agenda: “I think he is a man who cares very much about his country.”

    I don’t know myself anymore that he does, given the relative inaction implementing that agenda, but it’s true that is at the root of what he sold everyone on. Whether we were had, or whether he simply cannot overcome the opposition of the establishment (or both) is a moot question.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    agreed. It is difficult to be an individualist, but it is the only way to live if...
  209. @AndrewR
    You'll be too busy shagging your sisters for that (not that you have the IQ to win a war anyway)

    That’s rather “neener neener” of you.

    Given the relative skill at war evinced in the one empirical experiment conducted thus far, it’s hard to argue intelligence – certainly, at least, applied to martial matters – is lacking amongst the posterity of those experimenters to the south. Fighting an invader with overwhelming numbers, a titanically larger and more sophisticated industrial infrastructure, and complete naval superiority to a standstill for years before defeat by sheer attrition is a sign of superior mettle to that enemy’s, not the opposite.

    Read your Longstreet.

  210. Speaking of Things That Only White People Do, there is the increasing incidence of selfiecide. And in this case, selfiecide combined with aptonyms:

    In B.C., three popular Instagrammers and vloggers died in July after plummeting from Shannon Falls, a popular tourist destination south of Squamish. Ryker Gamble, Alexey Lyakh and Megan Scraper fell some 30 metres into a pool, about halfway down the 335-metre falls.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4503672/no-selfie-zones/

    “Lyakh” may also qualify, as the sound they made upon landing. Or, vocally, by those who found them.

  211. @Anon

    Transgender Woman Becomes First Ever World Champion in Women's Cycling
     
    This is great. The faster this stuff happens, the better. Right now everyone feels he or she can't comment or complain for fear of being called "transphobic." But I think there will be a tipping point, and when the dam bursts, be ready for a national "conversation" that will cause tranny heads to explode.

    Sports is such an easy place for the rift to develop, since the whole idea of having women separated off is because there is such an undeniable, clear gap between men and women in sports, at the elite level especially. This may or may not be different from, say, physics, but physics is squishy enough that it allows for people to believe what they want. But not sports.

    So as a gap develops between women and "women" in sports, there will be a call to break off women from trannies.

    I honestly think there are probably 1,000 trannies out there right now who could beat this Rachel McKinnon in cycling. They just don't know it yet. When the top 100 women in the sport are trannies, when women's sports effectively becomes tranny sport, well .... And that's exactly what is going to happen, testosterone tests or not. Bring on the sports TERFs!

    Very few people are concerned about being called transphobic. But the number will go up, not down. That’s always how it works.

    [MORE]

  212. @Dtbb
    Way more than half of the deaths in the Civil War were due to disease or illness. I guess it could happen again.

    Way more than half of the deaths in the Civil War were due to disease or illness.

    IIRC, Vietnam was the first US war where this was not the case. A bunch of guys living outdoors in close quarters with machinery and high explosives are a recipe for illness and accidents.

  213. @Desiderius
    I wouldn’t be so sure. The Charlottesville set-up happened in Charlottesville for a reason. The SJW virus hit the coasts first. Don’t be so sure the interior isn’t next/already infected.

    Charlottesville is like Austin, TX, and for the same reason — a big, liberal university. Yes, there is some cancer in downstate Virginia, but not that much. It is mostly in NoVa and Richmond, with an assist from Charlottesville.

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Yeah Cincinnati seems to be holding reasonably steady with most people focusing our energies locally in any case, with the old union stronghold of northern Ohio much more open to Trump than, say, Romney and of course Columbus with the Big U + Capital chock full of Sinematic femme fatales of various genders.
  214. @Autochthon
    The bit about most Spanish speakers (not the shrill minority who purport to speak for them all and brand any disagreeing as an Uncle Tomás) not buying bullshit is pretty accurate. My wife once responded succinctly and perfectly when asked her opinion following a lengthy conversation about Donald Trump's agenda: "I think he is a man who cares very much about his country."

    I don't know myself anymore that he does, given the relative inaction implementing that agenda, but it's true that is at the root of what he sold everyone on. Whether we were had, or whether he simply cannot overcome the opposition of the establishment (or both) is a moot question.

    agreed. It is difficult to be an individualist, but it is the only way to live if…

  215. @RadicalCenter
    It's "Jerseyans."

    I know New Jerseyans who have settled long-term in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, mostly for retirement but a few younger and still working. Have never heard of any moving to Alabama and Mississippi, though surely there are a few going to those places from a State of nine million people.

    If you think North Jersey is mainly an ugly or unsafe place, you don't know it well. Much of it is far nicer than South Jersey. (or should we pretend that North Jersey is all Newark and Patterson, and ignore Camden, Atlantic City, Vineland, and Trenton in South Jersey?)

    get an effin’life! – I grew up skiin’ at Vernon Valley! – My rant is about you guys having to pay for refugees for the next 2 decades! I don’t live in Jersey anymore, but, obviously, you do….keep voting for Democrats you dumb ass.

  216. Anon[138] • Disclaimer says:

    >Texas Latinos…

    Your romantic observations, or illusions, may have been true or relevant a decade or so ago, but these “Texas Latinos” you speak of have in subsequent years been joined by countless millions of their kin. There is no sense in distinguishing them anymore, and we do ourselves and our race a disfavor pretending we should, or should even care. They go or we go, there isn’t a cut or breed that’s out ally.

    t. lifelong Texan

  217. @Coemgen
    OT: I just watched a 90 second segment on a Boston area news station about yet another hate crime.

    The [anti-]anti-hate groups must need more money to fight "the Deplorables" this coming election.

    These stories are in the local news coast to coast on an almost daily basis. Most are hoaxes but they’re almost never followed up. Since it’s just local news it doesn’t gain enough “important” attention to get sorted out.

    And even the national stories are usually swept under the rug when they’re inconvenient. Remember the Air Force Academy story from last year? Front page news, until…

  218. @Lagertha
    He is delusional; mentally ill. His mother had tried to have him involuntarily committed. I don't have time to dig up the links, but there are plenty of them. He panicked and hit the gas pedal. If he was a normal white guy, he would be in the news constantly. No, MSM wants to forget about this since mental illness can't be attacked and impugned in their world. I'm sure they are bummed.

    The MSM has no trouble spinning that or any other story exactly how they want. Inconvenient facts (such as those you mention) are simply left out of the story.

  219. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, but they gave a range around '05 to '20, as I recall. We're near the end of that range, but, yes there'll be crisis before too long.

    No, pretty sure it’s at the end of the unraveling, but it’s been 25 years since I read the book. I’m sure the interwebs have the answer somewhere.

  220. @midtown
    Charlottesville is like Austin, TX, and for the same reason -- a big, liberal university. Yes, there is some cancer in downstate Virginia, but not that much. It is mostly in NoVa and Richmond, with an assist from Charlottesville.

    Yeah Cincinnati seems to be holding reasonably steady with most people focusing our energies locally in any case, with the old union stronghold of northern Ohio much more open to Trump than, say, Romney and of course Columbus with the Big U + Capital chock full of Sinematic femme fatales of various genders.

  221. @Achmed E. Newman
    I could see a lot of bad blood between the two Dakotas, such as where would the Lawrence Welk museum be located?

    There are 2 burial places for Sitting Bull, one in North Dakota & one in South Dakota. No one really knows for sure.

  222. @Corvinus
    "The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other."

    We are not even remotely on that trajectory. We like our consumer goodies and sportsball. As if you and other Alt Right types will go all Saxon on everyone.

    As far as David Leonhardt's idea, it's not going anywhere.

    Dems are also proposing packing the courts…which is pretty brazen in its hope that Trump won’t try it first.

  223. @Dtbb
    Way more than half of the deaths in the Civil War were due to disease or illness. I guess it could happen again.

    Once the medical infrastructure begins to crack up, I’m sure we’ll have no problem topping those numbers. Heck, there are over 30 million diabetics alone. 30,000,000 – insulin = ?

  224. @Thud
    You could always make immigration from Europe easier, replenish original stock with new as there are plenty of right thinking Europeans yearning to be free of the EU. Getting into America as a white Englishman is not that easy, good and bad in that I guess....thanks to Ted K the drunk.

    We could, but it’s not really that hard now, and there are few European takers for it. Most of them already have perfectly decent countries (if they can keep them).

    Might get an uptick in Poles or Balkans perhaps….

  225. @Autochthon
    Why does the Breadbasket get two capitals? Or is Denver the capitol of The Empty Quarter?

    Weird choices for capitols, too; Boston, Atlanta, and Miami make sense—but why Kansas City? Why Detroit and not New York or Chicago? Why does Ecotopia include the southern coast of Alaska – I doubt the people there have much in common with typical residents of Seattle, Portland, or San José, Who seem the impetus for the name....

    C+ Needs explication.

    “Why Detroit and not New York”

    If New York City were the capitol, no one else would join.

    Even New York State does not allow New York City to be the capitol.

  226. @Reg Cæsar

    Most generational names are made up by marketers. The Baby Boom really was a big deal and in the US it really did start in 1946...
     
    I remember many references to a "baby boom", but it wasn't until the '80s or so that the term "boomer" became common. Marketers are to blame for that. Or, rather, lazy "journalists" who get their story ideas from marketers.

    In other words, few of these "boomers" would have heard the term until well into adulthood. (The so-called "greatest" and "silent" generations are pure retronyms.)

    At any rate, it's a pretty stupid basis for one's identity. Indeed, so is everything other than family, race, nation, faith, and tongue.

    I kind of agree that “Boomers”, “Greatests”, “Silents” etc. are retcons, but I do think there was an awareness of the Boomer generation even before the “Boomer” moniker got applied to it. It wasn’t until the 1970s or so that it became self-evident that the post-war fertility increase was not going to continue indefinitely, so “boom” only became a logical descriptor afterwards. Before that, they were being referred to as “hippies”, “yippies”, and “our kids”. Most of the referring, after all, was being done by their parents (so-called “Greatests”).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Awareness of the Baby Boom generation was probably a real thing by, say, 1964. But offhand I can't date it very precisely. Updike wrote a short story about the 1950s called "When Everybody Was Pregnant." But I see now it was published in 1971. Updike was awfully bright so I would have expected his story was from earlier. But it wasn't.

    Wolfe's first short story about the black baseball star making a commercial is from the mid-1970s It includes a bit with a middle-aged advertising exec exclaiming about how there were suddenly all these beautiful young girls around, which is presumably a reference to how Baby Boom girls flooded into the work force from 1964 onward, which caused a lot of divorces as managers traded in for this year's model.

    But I can't really figure out when smart guys like Updike and Wolfe first noticed the Baby Boom.

    , @Desiderius
    Pretty sure Silent pre-dated Strauss and Howe and was adopted by them. Same with Lost.
  227. @Almost Missouri
    I kind of agree that "Boomers", "Greatests", "Silents" etc. are retcons, but I do think there was an awareness of the Boomer generation even before the "Boomer" moniker got applied to it. It wasn't until the 1970s or so that it became self-evident that the post-war fertility increase was not going to continue indefinitely, so "boom" only became a logical descriptor afterwards. Before that, they were being referred to as "hippies", "yippies", and "our kids". Most of the referring, after all, was being done by their parents (so-called "Greatests").

    Awareness of the Baby Boom generation was probably a real thing by, say, 1964. But offhand I can’t date it very precisely. Updike wrote a short story about the 1950s called “When Everybody Was Pregnant.” But I see now it was published in 1971. Updike was awfully bright so I would have expected his story was from earlier. But it wasn’t.

    Wolfe’s first short story about the black baseball star making a commercial is from the mid-1970s It includes a bit with a middle-aged advertising exec exclaiming about how there were suddenly all these beautiful young girls around, which is presumably a reference to how Baby Boom girls flooded into the work force from 1964 onward, which caused a lot of divorces as managers traded in for this year’s model.

    But I can’t really figure out when smart guys like Updike and Wolfe first noticed the Baby Boom.

  228. @Almost Missouri
    I kind of agree that "Boomers", "Greatests", "Silents" etc. are retcons, but I do think there was an awareness of the Boomer generation even before the "Boomer" moniker got applied to it. It wasn't until the 1970s or so that it became self-evident that the post-war fertility increase was not going to continue indefinitely, so "boom" only became a logical descriptor afterwards. Before that, they were being referred to as "hippies", "yippies", and "our kids". Most of the referring, after all, was being done by their parents (so-called "Greatests").

    Pretty sure Silent pre-dated Strauss and Howe and was adopted by them. Same with Lost.

  229. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Probably. I can't see the urban progressives agreeing to the Constitution's counter-majoritarian provisions forever. And simultaneously, I can't see the conservative flyovers agreeing to rule by the the cities. The last time we had this degree of political and economic imbalance we killed 600,000 of each other.

    Historical comparisons are always dicey, but to the extent that I have a sense of the 1850s, it’s starting to feel like the 1850s.

  230. @AnotherDad
    More articles like this, please!

    White people need to wake up.

    Basically there's a conflict of visions:

    -- The state is legitimate, supreme and eternal.
    Basically Leonhardt's vision--the Jewish vision--is that the state--it's control of a particular territory--is what the legitimate, essential, permanent. And the critical function of a proper--moral--state is protecting Jewish interests--any granted rights, privileges, sinecures, etc.--against any pushback by the majority. This is broadened out to "minority rights" in the current prog playbook, but is essentially the same idea. State supremacy. Proper governance==protecting minorities.

    in contrast the American founding

    -- The *people* are sovereign, their rights are legitimate and supreme.
    In the American vision, the people are sovereign. The state is transitory, derives only its just powers from the people's consent and is subject to abolishment/replacement if it tramples the peoples' rights. And there are no "minority rights". All individuals have the same fundamental natural rights. But there is no right to have you minority culture protected, nor for your minority to attached itself and milk the majority. A just state is run in the interest of the nation's *majority* and protective of individuals fundamental natural rights only.


    So yeah ... keep these people yakking about how terrible it is that white people have some of (extremely limited) control over the government of the nation that their ancestors founded and built and with brains, blood and sweat. Maybe at some point white people will wake the hell up.

    Very well put, AD. There are (at least) two fundamental attitudes in the populace. Those who see the state as a positive good, and those who see it as a necessary evil. Those who value security over liberty and those who value liberty over security. I always enjoy your comments and am not surprised that we’re largely in sync on this question.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    True. I think the utilitarian view also dispenses toward liberty. The security gains seem to be imaginary. Consider victims of mass shooters. Statistically speaking, they're navel lint. Stupid people may think gains from the 2nd are even more ephemeral, but the 2nd is a linchpin of a whole web of freedoms that we enjoy day in, day out, 24/7/365. To say nothing of the poorly-documented but certainly widespread phenomenon of non-violent self-defense via brandishing.
  231. @MBlanc46
    Very well put, AD. There are (at least) two fundamental attitudes in the populace. Those who see the state as a positive good, and those who see it as a necessary evil. Those who value security over liberty and those who value liberty over security. I always enjoy your comments and am not surprised that we’re largely in sync on this question.

    True. I think the utilitarian view also dispenses toward liberty. The security gains seem to be imaginary. Consider victims of mass shooters. Statistically speaking, they’re navel lint. Stupid people may think gains from the 2nd are even more ephemeral, but the 2nd is a linchpin of a whole web of freedoms that we enjoy day in, day out, 24/7/365. To say nothing of the poorly-documented but certainly widespread phenomenon of non-violent self-defense via brandishing.

  232. @AndrewR
    Hispanics are not necessarily "non-white."

    Anyway, the entire target audience for this article lacks either the basic numeracy needed to grasp your point, or the honesty needed to admit it and it's logical implications. The vast majority likely lack both.

    “Hispanics are not necessarily “non-white.”

    Than what’s the problem with open borders? Open borders just makes America Whiter because it would overwhelmingly be Hispanics who would take advantage of a borderless U.S because they are our Southern neighbors.

  233. @Lagertha
    Yah, made a mistake - too tired to type: meant to type Central Americans (and, agree, that Amerindians are not the immigrants USA wants). And, agree about say, Buenos Aires being a much more functional and refined city than any in Mexico, Guatemala, etc.

    I think my point was that it is a misconception that Latinos in Texas vote only for Democrats. Latinos run a lot of small businesses that are dependent on Anglo customers/tourists/hospitality business. Texas Latinos have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to Democrats during elections, and they dislike being taken for granted by lefties - just my feeling. Many supported Trump.

    “I think my point was that it is a misconception that Latinos in Texas vote only for Democrats”

    Why did Hillary Clinton win over 70% of the vote in the Texas counties who share a border with Mexico.

    “Texas Latinos have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to Democrats during elections,”

    Than why does Beta O’Rourke have majority support from Texas Hispanics even though he said Donald Trump should be impeached.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS