The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Sailer in Taki's: "The Case for Continentalism"
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

The Case for Continentalism
by Steve Sailer
July 12, 2017

… At present, however, Europeans are sending out ships to tow the huddled masses across the Mediterranean. How can Europe avoid winding up like Detroit writ large without organizing a perimeter defense? But Europeans can’t muster the will for self-preservation without developing some continental self-respect: the idea, now largely forbidden, that they deserve their home continent.

What’s striking about the ascendancy among the respectable classes of globalist fanaticism is how forgotten has become the middle ground between nationalism and globalism of continentalism.

The word “continentalist” barely exists today, even though what is now the European Union was founded on the lost notion that Europeans ought to be more neighborly toward one another than they are toward the rest of the world.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    //www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-in-takis-the-case-for-continentalism/#comment-1931866
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” resonates here. “Send forth the best ye breed” has been replaced with “Bring in the worst that’s bred”.

    Read More
    • LOL: The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” resonates here. “Send forth the best ye breed” has been replaced with “**Bring in the worst that’s bred**”."

    **You realize that would include Eastern and Southern Europeans, right?
  3. The EU is out of balance, really, and one problem is, that the EU elites still shiver, when they think of the EU borders. That’s what Macron hinted at – and that hint was too much already. Poles think different though, as do most of the once Eastern Block countries, like Slowakia and Hungary etc.

    The solution at the moment is Bill Gatesian, kinda: Explain the enormous chances for EU/World-economies, that are offered in prospering (= growing populations and at some places (Ethiopia, Nigeria) even already growing economies). The hope is: If Europe realizes the enormous economic chances in Africa, this continent will – in the happy end – prosper, and – – – migration will come to a halt.

    As Steve Sailer points out, Helmut Schmidt, former chancellor of Germany, opposed this view, and he did it more openly, the longer he lived. In an interview with the German magazine Focus, he said in 2005: “We have to stop immigration from strange cultures.” (6th of June, 2005).
    “He who wants to increase the number of Muslims in Germany, risks to endanger our inner peace.” (In his autobiography Außer Dienst (=Out of Office), p. 236, 2008

    Schmidt defended the most important (and best) German critic of Merkel’s immigration policy, ex-Banker and ex-politician turned writer Thilo Tarrazin. Sarrazin holds, that Merkel’s open borders politics make for the biggest mistake in German history – since 1945, ok.

    The one point, Schmidt did not agree with Sarrazin, was the HBD-aspect in Sarrazin’s books. Sarrazin is well read, and knows the literature – not only that of Murray/Herrnstein, but that of German psychologist and IQ expert Heiner Rindermann as well (who, as it turns out, thinks, that Steve Sailer is a great science-journalist).

    Read More
  4. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The irony, of course, is that Poles accept a vision of a planet wrecked by terrorists and sullied by migrants when not a single terrorist act has taken place in Poland for decades and there are almost no refugees within the country’s borders.

    Following on from the Butterfield Effect, the New York Times continues to pioneer new techniques in journalism.

    Trump: The West is Copernicus, symphonies, cathedrals, …

    The Mask Slips: Wrong. The West is the institutional compromises we made to keep us from killing each other, and if we don’t extend them into an invitation for the rest of the world that never developed them to come and live with us, we’ll cease to be the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Nothing about the NYT has surprised me since their famous headline years back: "Prison Population Soars Despite Drop in Crime Rate". Willful stupidity is a powerful force.
  5. “Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other.”

    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific ‘political’ stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes – WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Don't Ashkenazis have 50% "Germanic" (or at least Northern European) DNA? Thank explains the affinity a bit I suppose
    , @Diversity Heretic
    Franks and Goths were Germanic tribes too, at least c. 5th and 6th Century AD. Evidently they lost their special status as they moved south.
    , @El Dato

    The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages
     
    The English ruled Celts in the 18th century? How so?

    they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally.
     
    I dunno. They were rather hard in Africa, and also didn't look at Chinese in a particularly friendly way.

    And the Germans and Belgian were not above a little ultrakill for pacification (Namibia) and fun & profit (Kongo), so there is no real consistency here.
    , @gregor
    Reminiscent of Moldbug's suggestion that the seemingly very Jewish leftism that infected the West in the 20th century actually came from "WASPs" and their "ultra-Calvinism."

    I can believe that whites are fundamentally more individualist and less clannish and that these characteristics have made them vulnerable to modern pathological liberalism, but I disagree that what we are seeing now is an "inherent part of Germanic culture" or that Jews have merely been following the lead of "WASP" or "Germanic" liberals.
    , @Kylie
    What Sailer describes[leap-frogging loyalties] is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes – WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German)."

    Which is why I strongly identify with the half of my ancestry which is Slavic, to the point that I sometimes forget the rest is one quarter German and one quarter English.

    Eff that leap-frogging loyalty crap. It's inherently suicidal. I have no use for it. The other isn't exotic or romantic or--shudder--vibrant. It's different, strange, foreign. Alien.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    George Washington and the other Virginia aristocrats were Anglo-Normans. The Anglo-Saxons in New England didn't like them for that fact, but the New Englanders respected them. After all, the Anglo-Saxons had gotten their asses kicked so good on Senlac Hill at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 that the Saxon political system was exterminated in England.

    Lawyers such as New Englander John Adams came from a conquered people. Many a New Englander thought the War Between the States was belated payback for the Battle of Hastings.
    , @Anonymous
    Prussia - the leading German state, and, in fact, the instigator and originator of the modern unitary 'Germany' was always around 50% 'Slavic' in ethnicity.
    The western and southern German states had very little to do with Slavs.
    In fact, originally, Prussia was a vassal of Poland.
    , @Corvinus
    "The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans."

    ALL nations and cultures have produced people who write romanticize one group while calling another group inferior. Again, it is not exclusively a German phenomenon.

    "What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture"

    What he described is inherent in human beings.
    , @Anon
    > The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews

    Citation required. I think you're wrong on both counts.

    Jews seem to love to tell everybody that Nazis called them "untermenschen". Real Nazis like Goebbels knew better than that:

    ...one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

  6. It would seem that at some point the peaceful migration will turn turn into a violent invasion. A charismatic strongman able to unite “people of color” would have an ever increasing amount of expendable bodies to use in violent conflict and I don’t think the current leadership/populace of Europe would have much stomach for millions of dead black bodies littering their fields, towns, and cities. Good night Irene.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    There are plenty of European Christians born after 1965 who would love the opportunity to expel the foreigners and retaliate against the globalizers who are using the non-Europeans as demographic weapons. This is why the globalized central banks have resorted to monetary extremism. When the next global financial implosion hits, young people will make their move against the evil baby boomers and evil 68ers who are pushing mass immigration and multicultural mayhem.
    , @Jaakko Raipala
    This would be great news, then we would finally fight and defeat them.

    The whole problem right now is that Europeans are unable to conceptualize conflict that isn't an organized campaign as a war to be fought. We are used to thinking of wars between states and it's very bad for your reputation to be the clear aggressor in those. Every European war tends to get preceded by a long period of states ignoring the build up and hostile intent of another state with politicians swearing that they're going to reach peace through their policies.

    But once someone actually does invade and the war is on, then all that appeasement and advocacy of coexistence goes out the window and states gear up for war. If this deluge of people actually organized itself into an invasion force and declared war on us, it would be very good news as then we'd be publically challenged into a fight and there would no longer be a way out for politicians to claim that this multicultural chaos is just a temporary thing that will pass as the migrants integrate and so on.
  7. Monetary extremism from the European Central Bank is allowing the European Union, the European Commission and other transnational criminal outfits with the appellation “European” to buy off enough of the population in member nation-states of the European Union to pacify the populations sufficiently to render them insensate to the civilizational dangers of nation-wrecking mass immigration and multicultural mayhem.

    Same as in the United States, just a bit different is all.

    Read More
  8. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Continentalism (ie a special Europe-wide identity) does not exist because it was never intended or desired to exist. The end goal is and has always been a global government for the entire earth. The disassembly of European states and their junction into an EU was merely the first step.

    The horror and demoralization of World War II was the fulcrum that permitted European peoples to be pried loose from their national identities. It provided the leverage necessary to prise European countries apart. Forming them into a tight, cohesive unitary identity would take hundreds of years.

    At this stage, however, creation of a strong European identity would delay or prevent the creation of a global identity and polity. To the globalists, Europe must not cohere, congeal and solidify, it must remain an open society. The longer Europe stays fuzzy and open at its boundaries, the better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @GW
    This is exactly right. The EU was never about unity despite its name; it was about ridding Europeans of national identity. I'm sure liberals writ large had the inane belief that unity amongst all Europeans would emerge once individual nations lost influence and power (just as communists said the state would naturally dissolve once everyone was equal in class and wealth), but this was merely a convient excuse for instituting policies that would destroy Europe.

    A pan-European identity will always necessarily be broad and rather weak unless in times of continent-wide trouble. It will be centered around a defense of the continent or Christianity--see the Crusades or Identity Evropa.
  9. The EU bloc’s leaders basically are trying to create a United States of Europe, complete with their own period of massive in-migration to show that they are as welcoming to the huddled masses as the storyline on the America of 100 years ago says it was. Unfortunately for current and future Europeans, the people they are embracing are about as anti-Euro in terms of religion and culture as possible and thanks to cell phones, social media and easy trans-continental travel they retain strong links to their homelands rather than being forced to assimilate like immigrants to America had to in the early 20th century. Toss in consanguinity and low levels of education/skill in societies that require brains to get ahead, and the major nations of the EU have imported a permanent underclass that seethes with resentment to outright hatred of the host nation. Without an effort to expel as many of them as possible in the next 10-15 years, Europe is doomed.

    Read More
  10. There are no “Europeans” in Europe. There are Germans, French, English, Italians, Hungarians, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Dutch and the like.

    There are only Europeans in the United Sates, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and wherever else European Christians have explored, settled and colonized.

    There are people in the United States who have English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, French, Italian, Dutch and Hungarian ancestors. They are part of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. They are White Core Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur

    There are people in the United States who have English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, French, Italian, Dutch and Hungarian ancestors. They are part of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. They are White Core Americans.
     
    You left out the Latvians.

    It's pretty funny that you think you can decide who is "core." I'll go with the first ethnicities to settle on American soil. American Indians, Spanish, and Jews. We also have to include British and Dutch folks. Everyone else has to go, and pronto! (except the Chinese can stay, I'll fit them into a true "core" definition somehow...how about a high IQ core?)
  11. @TWalsh2
    It would seem that at some point the peaceful migration will turn turn into a violent invasion. A charismatic strongman able to unite "people of color" would have an ever increasing amount of expendable bodies to use in violent conflict and I don't think the current leadership/populace of Europe would have much stomach for millions of dead black bodies littering their fields, towns, and cities. Good night Irene.

    There are plenty of European Christians born after 1965 who would love the opportunity to expel the foreigners and retaliate against the globalizers who are using the non-Europeans as demographic weapons. This is why the globalized central banks have resorted to monetary extremism. When the next global financial implosion hits, young people will make their move against the evil baby boomers and evil 68ers who are pushing mass immigration and multicultural mayhem.

    Read More
  12. “Antinationalist ideology is in the grips of a purity spiral resembling Salem in 1692.”

    Ngram shows the word “multicultural” emerging moderately in the ’70s, then rocketing into mainstream usage around the collapse of the Iron Curtain. “Diversity” shows a similar spike. In light of Communism’s similarities to eschatological millenariaism, self-abnegating multi-culturalism might be likened to the late stage of a suicide cult, just on the brink of drinking the kool-aid or torching the compound. Mass suicides often stem from disappointed eschatological prophecies or the imminent demise of a beloved cause- see Germany in 1945, Russian Old Believers after their excommunication, Montanists under Emperor Leo III, and (of course) Jonestown in 1978.

    Although it seems quaint to many young people today, Communism (along with its milder cousin, Socialism) was deeply captivating to Western intellectuals at one time. In contrast to the emotion-drenched vapidity of modern PC, old-fashioned Socialism cloaked itself in rationalistic, psuedo-scientific jargon that appealed to harder minds. Lost in Harvard’s Widener Library, I once found myself wandering amongst countless shelves stacked with what seemed like every Socialist economic journal ever written- all presumably requested by professors who read and taught them in deadly earnest. Even many intellectuals who scorned Stalinist dictatorship grudgingly admired Socialism as a noble experiment from which the West might learn a thing or two. Solzhenitsyn’s 1973 publication of The Gulag Archipelago was a punch in the gut to many, and the fall of the USSR surely confused and unsettled men who would be loath to admit it now. It is not a coincidence that the moronic and suicidal Cult of Diversity arose to fill the vacuum exactly as the old religion of Scientific Socialism was dying. Every form of post-Enlightenment revolutionary utopianism having miserably failed to reform the West according to their liking, the Left have abandoned improving our civilization and are instead dousing it in gasoline and feeling for the match-book. Since sane people naturally recoil from self-annihilation, it is necessary for the fanatics to relentlessly browbeat any wafflers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    I like your analogy. The white Left these days is increasingly resembling one of those religions that turn to mass suicide when the millennium fails to materialise or the prophecies turn out to be delusional. They'll still be proclaiming the glories of multiculturalism as the last remnants of them are brutalised, raped and beheaded by the invaders. And like Jim Jones, they won't want anyone else to opt out of the mass annihilation.
  13. The EU is a pretty clear example of Left wing mission creep that was more or less mirrored in North America at about the same times.

    A common market and a common currency among equal trading partners seems like a good enough idea as far as that goes, but then you add unequal trading partners and declare the need for a “common labor market” and so forth.

    At least the Europeans made an explicit call for open borders for labor, whereas in the U.S. with NAFTA and whatnot it was done surreptitiously by politicians who for decades declared opposition to illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America while hampering enforcement efforts.

    Read More
  14. The reality is that open borders “multiculturalism” is just a newfangled kind of racism – a racism that says we have to let all the Third Worlders come to the West because they can never be happy or prosperous living in countries run by people who look like them; the kind of racism which assumes that Western culture and values are so universal and superior that the Third Worlders, upon arriving, will immediately grasp their inherent superiority and embrace them and accept them as their own, while clinging only to minor, irrelevant differences such as food, dance, dress, naming conventions, religion, jihadism, cousin marriage, honor killings, polygamy, etc.

    Read More
  15. “So, I expect that more and more you’ll see Caucasian people dropping contrived hints that they aren’t really white, until only Prince Charles is left.

    “Which white group will be the last to defect? I’m guessing Poles. They don’t seem terribly opportunistic. But this trend will test even their loyalty and common sense. I expect in a couple of decades to be reading about how even Poles are now identifying as part-Mongolian Eurasians.”

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-flight-from-white.html

    Why must that man be right so much?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Would now be a good time to bring up the old Sarmatian hypothesis?
  16. Before everyone gets excited about the dynamic and prosperous Poland, a quote from London Review of Books (via Marginal Revolution.)

    Andrzej Buła, the marshal of Opole and Civic Platform leader in the province, told me that the EU was funding 40 per cent of the provincial budget, while unemployment had dropped from 14 to 8 per cent.

    Poland is Europe’s welfare case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    I disagree. The EU is funding mainly fixed capital investment, giving them a leg up in catch up growth - infrastructure etc. You can argue against the policy, but it is not welfarism. My country has been unable to access the funding, which is why we are net payers to the EU budget. But Poland is a success story.
  17. I like to compare belief in open borders to creationism. The creationist believes that God created the world and all that’s in it. He believes it for no reason other than that someone told him so, and he liked the idea, so it’s true, irregardless of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, and the person who tells him it isn’t true isn’t just wrong but evil.

    The same holds true for open borders. Someone somewhere declared that open borders were the right thing to believe, and so these people believe it, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and anyone who disagrees with it is the worst form of evil – a racist. Just don’t point out to them that the first scripture in their Open Borders Bible – “The New Colossus” – was written just one year after Congress voted overwhelmingly for the Chinese Exclusion Act. It might get them to thinking it’s all a myth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @GW
    A rather bad analogy, particularly with all the problems atheists have in explaining the origin of life and the why there universe had a beginning. Hint, it's currently a "we don't know." Not to mention the astronomical unlikeliness of finding ourselves in a finely-tuned world.

    But the bigger problem is epistemological...you seem to have the silly idea that the problem is one of ignoring the evidence. If only open-borders advocates would do a cost-benefit analysis of the situation they would see the light!

    It's time to stop thinking this way--these people aren't misguided but rather actively opposed to the West being a unique entity and will help accelerate its decline and seek to reduce its identity as when given the chance.

    The more you tell them that open borders hurt the traditional social order of Europe, the more they push to open them, as they despise their fathers and the faith and civilization they received.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    He believes it for no reason other than that someone told him so,

     

    Project much?

    massive amounts of evidence to the contrary
     
    Right, because we all know that something comes from nothing all the time! Why, just look under your pillow the morning after you placed your tooth under it and you have proof. And the millions of children all over the world visited by the tooth fairy prove your point with massive amounts of evidence, don't they?
  18. Poland is extremely nondiverse.

    How did this come to be? All credit for modern Poland’s homogeneity goes to the following two gentlemen:

    - Hitler, who killed almost all the Jews (although the Poles did a good job of chasing out the few that remained.)
    - Stalin, who separated lands populated by Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Lithuanians, and later expelled all Germans.

    It’s fun to contemplate what Poland would be like right now if none of this happened. The east of the country would’ve been afflicted by a separatist movement by the Banderite Ukrainians, which most likely would be violent and terroristic (as it was in the 1930s.) At the same time, Polish cultural, business, and, quite possibly, ruling elite would be German and Jewish.

    Read More
  19. @Jake
    "Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other."


    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific 'political' stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes - WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    Don’t Ashkenazis have 50% “Germanic” (or at least Northern European) DNA? Thank explains the affinity a bit I suppose

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    Their European ancestry is mostly Italian, I've read.
    , @Clyde

    Don’t Ashkenazis have 50% “Germanic” (or at least Northern European) DNA? Thank explains the affinity a bit I suppose.
     
    Don't panic go Germanic. Germanic runs the EU. Especially when I read that Poland or a Poland province is propped up 40% by EU (meaning Germanic) subsidies. This makes defiance on Angela Merkel's Muslim-African refugee settlement difficult. Poland's refusal to accept such useless refugees is in the EU Courts. Which way do you think they will rule? Hint- follow the money. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
    , @European-American
    Slightly OT but this is a fun page and map. Other countries call Germany by the name of the particular tribe that invaded them, or something. And "Ashkenaz" is a retconned Hebrew name for Germany, or its biblical founding father, or something. And France of course extended courtesy to naming itself after one Germanic invading tribe.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Germany
  20. @Anonymous


    The irony, of course, is that Poles accept a vision of a planet wrecked by terrorists and sullied by migrants when not a single terrorist act has taken place in Poland for decades and there are almost no refugees within the country’s borders.
     

     
    Following on from the Butterfield Effect, the New York Times continues to pioneer new techniques in journalism.

    Trump: The West is Copernicus, symphonies, cathedrals, ...

    The Mask Slips: Wrong. The West is the institutional compromises we made to keep us from killing each other, and if we don't extend them into an invitation for the rest of the world that never developed them to come and live with us, we'll cease to be the West.

    Nothing about the NYT has surprised me since their famous headline years back: “Prison Population Soars Despite Drop in Crime Rate”. Willful stupidity is a powerful force.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Totally forgot about that headline. What a hoot!!!!
  21. @Wilkey
    I like to compare belief in open borders to creationism. The creationist believes that God created the world and all that's in it. He believes it for no reason other than that someone told him so, and he liked the idea, so it's true, irregardless of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, and the person who tells him it isn't true isn't just wrong but evil.

    The same holds true for open borders. Someone somewhere declared that open borders were the right thing to believe, and so these people believe it, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and anyone who disagrees with it is the worst form of evil - a racist. Just don't point out to them that the first scripture in their Open Borders Bible - "The New Colossus" - was written just one year after Congress voted overwhelmingly for the Chinese Exclusion Act. It might get them to thinking it's all a myth.

    A rather bad analogy, particularly with all the problems atheists have in explaining the origin of life and the why there universe had a beginning. Hint, it’s currently a “we don’t know.” Not to mention the astronomical unlikeliness of finding ourselves in a finely-tuned world.

    But the bigger problem is epistemological…you seem to have the silly idea that the problem is one of ignoring the evidence. If only open-borders advocates would do a cost-benefit analysis of the situation they would see the light!

    It’s time to stop thinking this way–these people aren’t misguided but rather actively opposed to the West being a unique entity and will help accelerate its decline and seek to reduce its identity as when given the chance.

    The more you tell them that open borders hurt the traditional social order of Europe, the more they push to open them, as they despise their fathers and the faith and civilization they received.

    Read More
  22. @Anonymous
    Continentalism (ie a special Europe-wide identity) does not exist because it was never intended or desired to exist. The end goal is and has always been a global government for the entire earth. The disassembly of European states and their junction into an EU was merely the first step.

    The horror and demoralization of World War II was the fulcrum that permitted European peoples to be pried loose from their national identities. It provided the leverage necessary to prise European countries apart. Forming them into a tight, cohesive unitary identity would take hundreds of years.

    At this stage, however, creation of a strong European identity would delay or prevent the creation of a global identity and polity. To the globalists, Europe must not cohere, congeal and solidify, it must remain an open society. The longer Europe stays fuzzy and open at its boundaries, the better.

    This is exactly right. The EU was never about unity despite its name; it was about ridding Europeans of national identity. I’m sure liberals writ large had the inane belief that unity amongst all Europeans would emerge once individual nations lost influence and power (just as communists said the state would naturally dissolve once everyone was equal in class and wealth), but this was merely a convient excuse for instituting policies that would destroy Europe.

    A pan-European identity will always necessarily be broad and rather weak unless in times of continent-wide trouble. It will be centered around a defense of the continent or Christianity–see the Crusades or Identity Evropa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Exactly. When pan-Europeanism is invoked, I mostly think of the notion of "Christiandom." But without something akin to Christianity - which in itself also had to be settled with a number of brutal internal wars - I don't see anything else being quite as effective as an identity.
    , @Anonymous
    That's right. 'European' nationalism is weak to non-existent. Europeans won't fight for Europe, or will do so with little enthusiasm. There's a parallel here with Italian nationalism. You can force people into a state but you can't force them to like it, still less to give their lives for it.
  23. @GW
    This is exactly right. The EU was never about unity despite its name; it was about ridding Europeans of national identity. I'm sure liberals writ large had the inane belief that unity amongst all Europeans would emerge once individual nations lost influence and power (just as communists said the state would naturally dissolve once everyone was equal in class and wealth), but this was merely a convient excuse for instituting policies that would destroy Europe.

    A pan-European identity will always necessarily be broad and rather weak unless in times of continent-wide trouble. It will be centered around a defense of the continent or Christianity--see the Crusades or Identity Evropa.

    Exactly. When pan-Europeanism is invoked, I mostly think of the notion of “Christiandom.” But without something akin to Christianity – which in itself also had to be settled with a number of brutal internal wars – I don’t see anything else being quite as effective as an identity.

    Read More
  24. By early 2016, after the Cologne sex assaults, we started to see it grudgingly, quietly admitted that Merkel had simply blundered.

    The biggest blunder of all is to think that it was a blunder.

    Read More
  25. @Jake
    "Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other."


    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific 'political' stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes - WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    Franks and Goths were Germanic tribes too, at least c. 5th and 6th Century AD. Evidently they lost their special status as they moved south.

    Read More
  26. “The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.”

    Indeed, it was this line of thinking that led Germany to being allied with Turkey during WW1. This proved to be a costly mistake; maybe the costliest of the entire war. The problem was that Palestine was controlled by Turkey. By 1916 both the British and the Germans were openly enthusiastic about providing a homeland for the Jews. But Jewish leaders were insistent on Palestine, and Germany couldn’t very well turn their back on their Turkish allies. Hence the Balfour Declaration and the successful joint British-Jewish propaganda effort to bring America into the war on their side.

    Read More
  27. This whole “irony” of Poland being free of terrorism reminds me of the complaints here in the US about how hypocritical the Trump voters in the Midwest were. Hey, they lived in predominately white states; why complain about Mexican immigrants? Maybe because they didn’t want to see every state in the Union become white minority before trying to do something about it.

    Read More
  28. That’s a very, very good column. It’s not easily shareable, quite, because of lines like the one about Detroit. But it lands about 40 punches.

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American
    Yeah, I did a double take on the Detroit line:

    How can Europe avoid winding up like Detroit writ large
     
    That requires a little unpacking, no?

    It's confusing because most people don't know what happened to Detroit. "Car companies no longer so successful, something like that?" So it will draw blank stares from many people.

    (The following quote might help)

    "The heaviest casualty, however, was the city. Detroit's losses went a hell of a lot deeper than the immediate toll of lives and buildings. The riot put Detroit on the fast track to economic desolation, mugging the city and making off with incalculable value in jobs, earnings taxes, corporate taxes, retail dollars, sales taxes, mortgages, interest, property taxes, development dollars, investment dollars, tourism dollars, and plain damn money. The money was carried out in the pockets of the businesses and the white people who fled as fast as they could. The white exodus from Detroit had been prodigiously steady prior to the riot, totaling twenty-two thousand in 1966, but afterwards it was frantic."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot#Aftermath
     
    But the remark is also confusing because the population changes that led to what happened to Detroit were the result of internal migration within the continent. So the mask of "citizenism" slips a little. It's one of the most racist things I've ever read on this blog. Not that there's anything wrong with that?... Just that it might benefit from some care and explanation. It can't really be used as-is.
  29. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Remarkably, European solidarity, once the progressive cause par excellence, is increasingly viewed as hateful racism, as suggested by the conventional wisdom’s berserk reaction to President Trump’s speech last week in Warsaw in praise of the people of Poland and of the Western civilization of which they are a part.

    Logic of Imperialism: Nationalism is good when it can be used against the rival empire, real or imagined. Nationalism is bad when it resists one’s own empire or is supported by the rival empire.

    So, during WWI, the British Imperialists supported Arab nationalism against the Turks. But once the British gained power over the Muslim world, they no longer liked Arab nationalism. Nasser was one of the most hated man.

    We see the schizo mindset of the US in Poland and Ukraine. During the Cold War, Polish nationalism was given moral support against the Soviet empire. And even after the Cold War, US fully supported Polish nationalist animus against Russia. However, at the same time, the US tried to weaken Polish resistance to US globalist-imperialism with homo agenda and open borders. Schizo.

    Same with Ukraine. US even aided neo-nazis to topple Russia-friendly regime. Ukrainian nationalism, even the most far-right kind, has been a gold mine against Russia. At the same time, US pushes homo agenda on Ukraine to break its resistance to globalist hegemony.

    “We encourage your nationalism against the other empire while at the same time weakening its resistance to our empire.”

    Read More
  30. Those Europeans should be ashamed of depriving Africa of all that human capital.

    Read More
  31. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    But Europeans can’t muster the will for self-preservation without developing some continental self-respect: the idea, now largely forbidden, that they deserve their own continent.

    More importantly, they need the uniqueness of identity.

    The real problem is the idea of ‘New European’.

    After all, even globalists can agree that Europeans should have their own continent. But if the new concept of ‘European’ says any African or Muslim can be ‘European’, then the EU cannot say no to these ‘New Europeans’. Identity needs territory but is primarily ethno. Jews were nomads without a land but survived as people and culture because of sense of uniqueness of identity.

    We need to first establish the identity before claiming the territory.
    If anyone can claim your identity, then they can claim your territory as well.
    If any Somalian can claim to wanna be ‘New Swede’, he is ‘Swedish’ and has right to Sweden.
    If 10 million Hindus can claim to wanna be ‘new Poles’, Poland has to let them in UNLESS Poland insists on rooted identity for Polishness. “Do you have the blood of the forbears who resisted German and Russian invaders and occupiers OR are you just larping as ‘Pole’ for access to material rewards?”

    The problem of America is its concept of identity has become so slack and loose. Anyone can claim to want to be ‘American’, so the US can’t say no.

    This Americanization of European Identity will be its undoing.
    McRope or give them enough eu-rope.

    http://media.fanfire.com/images/product/zoom/CLS/CLS58633.jpg

    So let me briefly make the case for continentalism. Europe’s not my continent, so I don’t have particularly strong views on how Europeans ought to arrange their affairs.

    Europe should be seen by all whites anywhere like Israel is seen by Jews anywhere. Sacred homeland. Identity trumps territory. Even Poles in the US should always see Poland as home. Even Italians in America should also see Italy as home. Identity is blood and memory. It is more than geo-politics.

    Read More
  32. @Jake
    "Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other."


    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific 'political' stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes - WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages

    The English ruled Celts in the 18th century? How so?

    they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally.

    I dunno. They were rather hard in Africa, and also didn’t look at Chinese in a particularly friendly way.

    And the Germans and Belgian were not above a little ultrakill for pacification (Namibia) and fun & profit (Kongo), so there is no real consistency here.

    Read More
  33. The Case for Continentalism

    Won’t read the Taki thing, but the title is interesting.
    So, Sailer now is in favour of a continental (con-?)federations? That would make interesting groupings, like the USA with Mexico & Canada in one union, or even the whole of America (a latino-dominated union?). Asia (or even Eurasia) as a union would be quite a conglomerate of different cultures. Could get funny.
    Seems unlikely that Sailer really wants that…

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    So you're not going to read it, but are going to comment/criticize anyway. Based on the title.

    Are you friends with the "I won't read racist "The Bell Curve" because it's racist" ninnies?
  34. @Thea
    Don't Ashkenazis have 50% "Germanic" (or at least Northern European) DNA? Thank explains the affinity a bit I suppose

    Their European ancestry is mostly Italian, I’ve read.

    Read More
  35. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The idea of globalism is infectious to elites because being the ruler of just their countrymen sounds small and petty and boring. It doesn’t sound regal enough. Why just be king when you can be an emperor?
    Why own your little boat when you be one of the VIP’s on the mega-yacht? Imagine a mega ship called Glob where the elites are invited aboard to be special guests who can also larp as captains of the ship and given turns at the wheel(if only for effect). If the elites refuse such invitation, they will feel small on their own boats while the Glob cruise is passing by. Of course, they can sail their boats safely away from the big Titanic but elites are drawn to power, so their ships draw nearer, and they climb onboard. The proximity to the big ship splashes water on the small ships and threatens to flood and sink them. But the elites don’t care since they gain VIP status on the mega-ship. Today, as the European boats are being flooded with Third World waves unleashed by globalism, the elites climb onboard the Mega ship called Glob and larp as grandiose new co-emperors of the world. They are like Puyi the bogus puppet-emperor under the Japanese.

    So, when European leaders join with globalism, they feel as co-leaders of the world. What about the harm it does to their own peoples? Their own egotism and vanity trumps all.

    Globalism makes even leaders of fallen European nations feel big and important, as world figures. They get to ride american military and economic coattails and feel as part of the World Order.

    It’s the New Emperor’s League.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/treaties-and-alliances/three-emperors-league

    Somali pirates, migrant/refugee boats, US naval power, etc.

    It used to be said air power greatly reduced power of seas. Now, it’s back. It’s Desolation Row.

    Praise be to Nero’s Neptune
    The Titanic sails at dawn
    And everybody’s shouting
    “Which Side Are You On?”
    And Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot
    Fighting in the captain’s tower
    While calypso singers laugh at them
    And fishermen hold flowers
    Between the windows of the sea
    Where lovely mermaids flow
    And nobody has to think too much
    About Desolation Row

    We need a national mutiny on the bounty.

    Read More
  36. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @GW
    This is exactly right. The EU was never about unity despite its name; it was about ridding Europeans of national identity. I'm sure liberals writ large had the inane belief that unity amongst all Europeans would emerge once individual nations lost influence and power (just as communists said the state would naturally dissolve once everyone was equal in class and wealth), but this was merely a convient excuse for instituting policies that would destroy Europe.

    A pan-European identity will always necessarily be broad and rather weak unless in times of continent-wide trouble. It will be centered around a defense of the continent or Christianity--see the Crusades or Identity Evropa.

    That’s right. ‘European’ nationalism is weak to non-existent. Europeans won’t fight for Europe, or will do so with little enthusiasm. There’s a parallel here with Italian nationalism. You can force people into a state but you can’t force them to like it, still less to give their lives for it.

    Read More
  37. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.
    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other.

    Leapfrogging amplifies self-righteous virtue-vanity while decreasing burden of responsibility.

    If you focus on your own kids, you gotta feed them, clothe them, educate them. You can’t make grand moral claims about humanity, but you got a real burden and obligation.

    But if you neglect your kids and say you love all the children of the world, you can overlook the responsibility to your kids while promoting yourself as someone who CARES so much. Pro-Bono.

    So, when elites say they care about all of humanity, they can dodge and neglect real responsibilities to own nations while thumping their chests about humanity.

    Globalism ‘ennobles’ by giving license to unload one’s personal/national burden.

    “Why aren’t you taking care of your kids?”

    “I’m too busy singing songs about the children of the world.”

    Do less but claim more.

    Read More
  38. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Alfa158
    Nothing about the NYT has surprised me since their famous headline years back: "Prison Population Soars Despite Drop in Crime Rate". Willful stupidity is a powerful force.

    Totally forgot about that headline. What a hoot!!!!

    Read More
  39. @Jake
    "Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other."


    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific 'political' stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes - WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    Reminiscent of Moldbug’s suggestion that the seemingly very Jewish leftism that infected the West in the 20th century actually came from “WASPs” and their “ultra-Calvinism.”

    I can believe that whites are fundamentally more individualist and less clannish and that these characteristics have made them vulnerable to modern pathological liberalism, but I disagree that what we are seeing now is an “inherent part of Germanic culture” or that Jews have merely been following the lead of “WASP” or “Germanic” liberals.

    Read More
  40. @Charles Pewitt
    There are no "Europeans" in Europe. There are Germans, French, English, Italians, Hungarians, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Dutch and the like.

    There are only Europeans in the United Sates, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and wherever else European Christians have explored, settled and colonized.

    There are people in the United States who have English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, French, Italian, Dutch and Hungarian ancestors. They are part of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. They are White Core Americans.

    There are people in the United States who have English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, French, Italian, Dutch and Hungarian ancestors. They are part of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. They are White Core Americans.

    You left out the Latvians.

    It’s pretty funny that you think you can decide who is “core.” I’ll go with the first ethnicities to settle on American soil. American Indians, Spanish, and Jews. We also have to include British and Dutch folks. Everyone else has to go, and pronto! (except the Chinese can stay, I’ll fit them into a true “core” definition somehow…how about a high IQ core?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    It’s pretty funny that you think you can decide who is “core.” I’ll go with the first ethnicities to settle on American soil. American Indians, Spanish, and Jews. We also have to include British and Dutch folks. Everyone else has to go, and pronto! (except the Chinese can stay, I’ll fit them into a true “core” definition somehow…how about a high IQ core?)

     

    The United States is a European Christian nation-state. I won't argue with those that say the United States is British Protestant, they have a damn good case.
  41. The problem with continentalism is that it assumes that replacing your population is just fine and dandy as long as the new people look vaguely similar. I’m still angry that the elites decided to replace me and mine with Poles, because when we want living wages we’re entitled slobs, but when they want cheap labour they’re worth it what are you some kind of racist.

    Yes, pretty much anything is better than bringing in any number of Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans. But personally I want a better choice between getting replaced by amiable Catholics, and getting run out by people whose religion has no prohibition against heterosexual rape.

    Focusing on the Muslims, while very necessary, doesn’t change the fact that Eastern Europeans have royally screwed over Western Europeans and, once the Muslims have been run out (let me dream, okay?) the same will have to be done to them. Any pan European alliance will be temporary if it’s not to be a deeply uninspiring decision over who we let destroy us.

    Read More
  42. @Jake
    "Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other."


    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific 'political' stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes - WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    What Sailer describes[leap-frogging loyalties] is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes – WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).”

    Which is why I strongly identify with the half of my ancestry which is Slavic, to the point that I sometimes forget the rest is one quarter German and one quarter English.

    Eff that leap-frogging loyalty crap. It’s inherently suicidal. I have no use for it. The other isn’t exotic or romantic or–shudder–vibrant. It’s different, strange, foreign. Alien.

    Read More
  43. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Just one quibble, Steve.

    I very much doubt that UKIP are in favour of further Pakistani immigration into the UK.
    That line about UKIP moaning about the Polish influx, but being welcoming Pakistani immigration is really just playing to the gallery in an effort to earn ‘anti-racist’ cooties, UKIP is forever plagued by the familiar ‘Nazi’ epithets. It’s just a debating point which has the ‘merit’ of being anti-EU whilst embellishing ‘non-racist’ ‘credentials’.

    Read More
  44. @Jake
    "Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other."


    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific 'political' stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes - WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    George Washington and the other Virginia aristocrats were Anglo-Normans. The Anglo-Saxons in New England didn’t like them for that fact, but the New Englanders respected them. After all, the Anglo-Saxons had gotten their asses kicked so good on Senlac Hill at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 that the Saxon political system was exterminated in England.

    Lawyers such as New Englander John Adams came from a conquered people. Many a New Englander thought the War Between the States was belated payback for the Battle of Hastings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Nigel Farage used the repetition of the phrase "AUSTRALIAN STYLE POINT" system to describe UKIP's immigration policy as a crucifix to ward off the anti-White ghouls in the British media that use the accusation of RACISM to attack people.

    Farage once called it the "Australian style pint" system as an homage to Australian ale or lager.

    Farage was making the claim that the UK now has no control over immigration policy because the free movement of people edict of the EU lets in anybody to Britain. So Farage said that the UK, outside of the nation-state prison house that is the EU, could develop an immigration system like the Australians have that picks entrants by a points system that rewards educational attainment and English language proficiency and the like to determine eligibility for immigration to Australia.

    https://youtu.be/n8CybH0rrp0
  45. “Their politics were set for life at age six in the schoolyard.”

    yet another reason to homeschool your kids!

    Read More
  46. @Njguy73
    "So, I expect that more and more you'll see Caucasian people dropping contrived hints that they aren't really white, until only Prince Charles is left.

    "Which white group will be the last to defect? I'm guessing Poles. They don't seem terribly opportunistic. But this trend will test even their loyalty and common sense. I expect in a couple of decades to be reading about how even Poles are now identifying as part-Mongolian Eurasians."

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-flight-from-white.html

    Why must that man be right so much?

    Would now be a good time to bring up the old Sarmatian hypothesis?

    Read More
  47. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jake
    "Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other."


    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific 'political' stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes - WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    Prussia – the leading German state, and, in fact, the instigator and originator of the modern unitary ‘Germany’ was always around 50% ‘Slavic’ in ethnicity.
    The western and southern German states had very little to do with Slavs.
    In fact, originally, Prussia was a vassal of Poland.

    Read More
  48. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Sorry for appearing ‘cynical’ but as far as I can see the EU seems to serve only two purposes:
    1/. Economically stagnate and deflate the European continent to such an extent so that in the not-too-distant future typical EU income per head will be no greater than the global average income per head.
    2/. Invite in as many Africans and Asians as physically and humanly possible into Europe so that Europe will leave this century as a mostly black/brown continent.

    Read More
  49. @Judah Benjamin Hur

    There are people in the United States who have English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, French, Italian, Dutch and Hungarian ancestors. They are part of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. They are White Core Americans.
     
    You left out the Latvians.

    It's pretty funny that you think you can decide who is "core." I'll go with the first ethnicities to settle on American soil. American Indians, Spanish, and Jews. We also have to include British and Dutch folks. Everyone else has to go, and pronto! (except the Chinese can stay, I'll fit them into a true "core" definition somehow...how about a high IQ core?)

    It’s pretty funny that you think you can decide who is “core.” I’ll go with the first ethnicities to settle on American soil. American Indians, Spanish, and Jews. We also have to include British and Dutch folks. Everyone else has to go, and pronto! (except the Chinese can stay, I’ll fit them into a true “core” definition somehow…how about a high IQ core?)

    The United States is a European Christian nation-state. I won’t argue with those that say the United States is British Protestant, they have a damn good case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The United States is a European Christian nation-state. "

    The United States was founded by Europeans who were Christians. Today, it is a mutt nation with various races, ethnicities, and religions other than European and other than Christian.
    , @Judah Benjamin Hur
    That was never legally or factually the case and it's a totally absurd claim by this late date, but you are free to say anything you want. Not only were we founded on religious liberty (which allowed Jews to be on the home team), but also political freedom.

    Just keep in mind that when you essentially try to kick people off the team or relegate them to a second-class fringe, you are encouraging them to support open borders. That's very alt.stupid
  50. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    OT
    Some friends related their attendance at The Merchant of Venice being presented at the Will Geer Theatricum Botanicum in Topanga Canyon (Los Angeles). They said that the play itself was presented well.

    What followed is a harbinger of some theater events. Two temples were in attendance to discuss the play themes afterwards. That appeared to have been a condition for allowing the plays to go on without some more pointed protest. Is that a form of censorship, and perhaps some retconning or other tampering with the literary record and history?

    Read More
  51. “Hey, they lived in predominately white states; why complain about Mexican immigrants? Maybe because they didn’t want to see every state in the Union become white minority before trying to do something about it.”

    The error lies in the assumption that just because they live in overwhelmingly white cities or towns that they haven’t seen the consequences of mass immigration or “diversity.” I used to live in a city that was over 90% white. Every day on the way to the office I got to drive past the local charity clinic as dozens upon dozens of patients – 98% Hispanic – queued up outside the doors waiting for them to open. These kind of scenes are visible all over America, even in the whitest states imaginable. The problem isn’t lack of exposure to diversity, but lack of exposure to *brainwashing*.

    Read More
  52. @El Dato

    The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages
     
    The English ruled Celts in the 18th century? How so?

    they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally.
     
    I dunno. They were rather hard in Africa, and also didn't look at Chinese in a particularly friendly way.

    And the Germans and Belgian were not above a little ultrakill for pacification (Namibia) and fun & profit (Kongo), so there is no real consistency here.

    Have you heard about a place called Ireland?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Scotland, Man, and Wales are doubtless also bizarre, undreamt of places to the fellow. To be fair to him, if memory serves, the English were out of Brittany by then.
  53. @Charles Pewitt
    George Washington and the other Virginia aristocrats were Anglo-Normans. The Anglo-Saxons in New England didn't like them for that fact, but the New Englanders respected them. After all, the Anglo-Saxons had gotten their asses kicked so good on Senlac Hill at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 that the Saxon political system was exterminated in England.

    Lawyers such as New Englander John Adams came from a conquered people. Many a New Englander thought the War Between the States was belated payback for the Battle of Hastings.

    Nigel Farage used the repetition of the phrase “AUSTRALIAN STYLE POINT” system to describe UKIP’s immigration policy as a crucifix to ward off the anti-White ghouls in the British media that use the accusation of RACISM to attack people.

    Farage once called it the “Australian style pint” system as an homage to Australian ale or lager.

    Farage was making the claim that the UK now has no control over immigration policy because the free movement of people edict of the EU lets in anybody to Britain. So Farage said that the UK, outside of the nation-state prison house that is the EU, could develop an immigration system like the Australians have that picks entrants by a points system that rewards educational attainment and English language proficiency and the like to determine eligibility for immigration to Australia.

    Read More
  54. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    You tend to favor more empirical approaches than theoretical ones, so it’s unusual when you drop your usual empirical attitude to force a vaguely conceived theory on things. I imagine it’s tied to your interest in group selection theories and Salter’s theories, which you don’t write much about but have alluded to in the past.

    There’s no empirical support for “concentric degrees of territorial neighborliness” and “concentricism”. Organisms, human or otherwise, simply don’t behave that way. What happens is that some pole, some center, conquers and subdues territory, and through some combination of force and incentive, binds the territory to share common interest with the pole. This pole and territory then proceed to conflict with the next adjacent territory. Otherwise, neighboring territories conflict with each other and ally with far flung territories to get one over their neighbors.

    The “vast intercontinental empires of a century ago are nearly all gone” because they were defeated by 2 vast intercontinental empires during WW2 and the Cold War and are now replaced by a vast intercontinental system of alliances that pits countries like the US, Japan, and South Korea against North Korea, China, and Russia, and pits the US and Eastern Europe against Russia.

    If you look at Peru, when the Spanish invaded the Incan Empire, different Peruvian groups allied with the Spanish to fight other Peruvians. When the Manchus took over China, they proceeded to attack and conquer various pastoralists much like themselves.

    Read More
  55. @Rapparee

    "Antinationalist ideology is in the grips of a purity spiral resembling Salem in 1692."
     
    Ngram shows the word "multicultural" emerging moderately in the '70s, then rocketing into mainstream usage around the collapse of the Iron Curtain. "Diversity" shows a similar spike. In light of Communism's similarities to eschatological millenariaism, self-abnegating multi-culturalism might be likened to the late stage of a suicide cult, just on the brink of drinking the kool-aid or torching the compound. Mass suicides often stem from disappointed eschatological prophecies or the imminent demise of a beloved cause- see Germany in 1945, Russian Old Believers after their excommunication, Montanists under Emperor Leo III, and (of course) Jonestown in 1978.

    Although it seems quaint to many young people today, Communism (along with its milder cousin, Socialism) was deeply captivating to Western intellectuals at one time. In contrast to the emotion-drenched vapidity of modern PC, old-fashioned Socialism cloaked itself in rationalistic, psuedo-scientific jargon that appealed to harder minds. Lost in Harvard's Widener Library, I once found myself wandering amongst countless shelves stacked with what seemed like every Socialist economic journal ever written- all presumably requested by professors who read and taught them in deadly earnest. Even many intellectuals who scorned Stalinist dictatorship grudgingly admired Socialism as a noble experiment from which the West might learn a thing or two. Solzhenitsyn's 1973 publication of The Gulag Archipelago was a punch in the gut to many, and the fall of the USSR surely confused and unsettled men who would be loath to admit it now. It is not a coincidence that the moronic and suicidal Cult of Diversity arose to fill the vacuum exactly as the old religion of Scientific Socialism was dying. Every form of post-Enlightenment revolutionary utopianism having miserably failed to reform the West according to their liking, the Left have abandoned improving our civilization and are instead dousing it in gasoline and feeling for the match-book. Since sane people naturally recoil from self-annihilation, it is necessary for the fanatics to relentlessly browbeat any wafflers.

    I like your analogy. The white Left these days is increasingly resembling one of those religions that turn to mass suicide when the millennium fails to materialise or the prophecies turn out to be delusional. They’ll still be proclaiming the glories of multiculturalism as the last remnants of them are brutalised, raped and beheaded by the invaders. And like Jim Jones, they won’t want anyone else to opt out of the mass annihilation.

    Read More
  56. @Thea
    Don't Ashkenazis have 50% "Germanic" (or at least Northern European) DNA? Thank explains the affinity a bit I suppose

    Don’t Ashkenazis have 50% “Germanic” (or at least Northern European) DNA? Thank explains the affinity a bit I suppose.

    Don’t panic go Germanic. Germanic runs the EU. Especially when I read that Poland or a Poland province is propped up 40% by EU (meaning Germanic) subsidies. This makes defiance on Angela Merkel’s Muslim-African refugee settlement difficult. Poland’s refusal to accept such useless refugees is in the EU Courts. Which way do you think they will rule? Hint- follow the money. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Germanic runs the EU."
     
    I disagree. Germany is largely paying the bills and dragging the EU from one crisis to another, but it's the unelected Eurocracy who are running the EU towards the cliff.
  57. Apparently ‘western values’ includes a kind of demographic self-immolation.

    Read More
  58. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The EU is out of balance, really, and one problem is, that the EU elites still shiver, when they think of the EU borders. That’s what Macron hinted at – and that hint was too much already. Poles think different though, as do most of the once Eastern Block countries, like Slowakia and Hungary etc.

    Elites seem mostly self-interested.

    So, the elites of any nation aren’t necessarily nationalist/patriotic or globalist/imperialist.

    It’s a game of What’s-in-it-for-me?

    There are exceptional figures in history who will risk status, standing, and safety for conviction.
    Whatever one thinks of Mandela, you gotta give him credit for not caving in. He could have made a deal much earlier and led a pretty posh life as a collaborator ‘elite’ of White Rule, but he chose prison instead. He only made a deal only when black rule was ensured.

    But most elites are not like that. They were not forged by struggle, hardship, and culture of courage. They are the products of the System that rewards those who ‘study hard’, listen and follow, say the right things, and go along. Now, the rules of the system may change over time, but most people who move up the system do so by not making waves. They go with the flow.

    Figures who choose to make waves are rare(and of course, can be dangerous, like Mao or Hitler or Lenin). But they do have an admirable quality lacking in the systemissars. They swim against currents. It’s like one of Mao’s poems about causing waves.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/poems/poems01.htm

    “Remember still
    How, venturing midstream, we struck the waters
    And waves stayed the speeding boats?”

    [MORE]

    Life seeks comfort and joy, but sometimes it is this willingness to struggle that makes things possible. It’s like salmon must swim against currents and make that heroic journey upstream to ensure survival of the species. Globalism is set to destroy the nursery-streams of Europe. Globalism tells white salmons to stay in the global pool and not make the heroic journey to save and perpetuate their species. (As vile as the invader migrants from Africa and Muslim world are, they do have a powerful life force. They are like so many sperms swimming desperately toward the Euro-Ovary.)
    Most elites are products of the system. The system favor those with personality traits of grinds, drones, and toadies. Sure, these are people of some intelligence and ability, but they don’t have fire in the gut. They just got yummy yummy yummy they got glob in the tummy.

    Trump made a difference because he had a contrary personality. Ross Perot almost made the same kind of difference because he needed maverick qualities to make it in business. But Eurocrats are mostly ‘teachers pets’.
    They are like Teen Idols or Pop Idols or the Monkees, clones groomed by the Industry.

    Most elites will go with nationalism if that secures their privilege. Or they will go with globalism if that offers the goodies. Putin is an outlier because he chose nation over globalism. Orban too is proving to be an exceptional figure(though less savvy and smart than Putin). I suspect Vietnamese elites shifted to globalism cuz they could get rich off it. In contrast, North Korean ‘nationalism’ is bogus because the sole reason Kim dynasty clings to it is to ensure their privilege based on tyranny of mediocrity. Any meaningful reform will undermine its grip.

    True nationalists choose patriotism for a higher cause regardless of personal advantages. It’s like loyalty in THE GODFATHER. There is loyalty based on money. Then, there is true loyalty based on blood and honor.

    Eurocrats are really just fancy Eurocrooks, a bunch of Johnny Ola’s to the Glob.

    Another problem is the logic of -ism. The problem isn’t so much multiculturality as multiculturalism.

    -Ity means the state of things. It doesn’t say it is good and therefore, there must be more of it.
    In contrast, -Ism says whatever that exists happens to be good and there must be MORE of it. Ism is a mechanism. And that makes all the difference.

    Diversity isn’t as problematic as Diversism.

    Diversity as -ity is a scar. It is not a cancer.
    Diversity as -ism is a cancer. It never stops expanding.

    Take the Kurdish minority in Turkey, Palestinian minority in Israel, and Korean minority in Japan. All are scars, not cancers. Due to imperialism, these nations ended up with problematic diversity.
    Zionists failed to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians. So, there are still Arabs in Israel. Most get along, but there are tensions. Kurds are a very problematic minority in Turkey, but Turks don’t believe Turkey should have MORE Kurds. Turkey has Kurdish diversity, not Kurdish diversism. Turks try to deal with the problem, but they don’t want to make it worse by welcoming Kurds from Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. And Koreans exist in Japan cuz they were brought over as forced-labor during war yrs. They chose to stay(cuz Japan is richer), and there have been tensions and distrust. But it’s a scar, not a cancer, because Japanese don’t believe in the -ism that Japan should take in endless numbers of other Asians such as Koreans, Chinese, Hindus, etc. And Russian minorities are scars than cancers in Baltic republics. Their presence pose a problem to social matters and politics, but Baltic folks don’t believe their nations will be made better by having MORE Russians.

    And Western Europeans thought likewise in the past. Sure, there was some degree of diversity due to migrations of people during imperialism, WWI and WWII. Also, France understandably accepted Algerians who had collaborated with the French since they might get slaughtered upon French withdrawal. So, presence of non-Europeans was a scar, not a cancer. It was -ity, not -ism.

    But something happened in the 60s. May 68 and similar events changed the ideology of Europe. What was once -ity was made into an -ism, an mechanism. What was scar tissue became cancer cells.

    -Ity may be ugly but it is stable. In contrast, -Ism is tireless in its ravenous hunger for growth. There was some truth to what Sontag said about the white race. That it is a cancer. It was the white race that became tirelessly inventive, creative, productive, expansive, transfomative, etc. These led to great achievements, but it’s like Sorcerer’s Apprentice. It is an addiction to the mechanism for change for change’s sake.
    Prior to rise of Modern West, every civilization either rose and fell in cycles OR reached a stasis or equilibrium, like Egypt’s long stability or how Chinese reached a limit in progress and remained constant. In contrast, modern West unlocked a mechanism for ceaseless change. Much of this was good and heroic, but now, we are seeing its cancerous side, this addiction to endless ‘growth’ and expansion and transformation. And this mindset explains the crazy ideology of current EU. Why not change EU into ‘New Europe’ if ‘western values’ are always about something new? Why not go whole hog and even change the entire population? “Inside every European, there is a New European trying to get out.”

    The danger of -Ism can be illustrated by the following model.

    Imagine two Europese.

    One Europe has 1 million non-Europeans as divers-ity. But it is an -ity, a state of affairs that Europeans accept but don’t idealize and glorify as wondrous.

    Other Europe has 100 non-Europeans as divers-ism. Now, 100 is far fewer than a million.
    So, from the viwepoint of nationalists, it would appear that Europe with one million non-white diversity is much worse off than Europe with 100 non-white diversism.

    But the thing is the Europe with 1 million non-whites only try to cope with the diversity as a scar or wound. It is not trying to have more of it. So, there is stability. Non-whites are like a tattoo. Maybe ugly, but it’s not gonna grow.

    In contrast, though 100 non-whites seem small in number, the power of Divers-ism means that this Europe believes that those 100 are so wonderful and that EU needs more and more of them. So, those 100 should invite all their relatives and EU should welcome more of their kind. Will it ever stop? Does cancer ever stop of its own accord? No. So, the -ism makes diversity into a melanoma, not a tattoo. It grows and grows and grows and never stops until the organism is dead.

    It is when -ity turns into -ism that a wound turns into a disease. And Europe caught a disease called diversitis.
    Today, even the notion that native whites will be minorities isn’t seen as a terrible thing. Many welcome it as the greatest thing since the diversitis virus have eaten away sense in their brains.

    Read More
  59. There was reportedly a Times of London headline that went something like, “Fog in Channel, Continent Cut Off.”

    The boats are being dragged across the finish line in the Med, and there are plenty of globalists in old Blighty who are saying they should do their part and take some of them.

    The EU is nothing more than a mutual suicide pact. If the Brits had any sense, they’d fill in the Chunnel and station the Royal Navy in the Channel, but that’s just wishful thinking along the lines of the 19th century or so. This is not your great-grandfather’s British Empire.

    Read More
  60. @Clyde

    Don’t Ashkenazis have 50% “Germanic” (or at least Northern European) DNA? Thank explains the affinity a bit I suppose.
     
    Don't panic go Germanic. Germanic runs the EU. Especially when I read that Poland or a Poland province is propped up 40% by EU (meaning Germanic) subsidies. This makes defiance on Angela Merkel's Muslim-African refugee settlement difficult. Poland's refusal to accept such useless refugees is in the EU Courts. Which way do you think they will rule? Hint- follow the money. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    “Germanic runs the EU.”

    I disagree. Germany is largely paying the bills and dragging the EU from one crisis to another, but it’s the unelected Eurocracy who are running the EU towards the cliff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fredrik
    Indeed,
    and the Eurocracy is French/Italian/Belgian.
  61. @inertial
    Before everyone gets excited about the dynamic and prosperous Poland, a quote from London Review of Books (via Marginal Revolution.)

    Andrzej Buła, the marshal of Opole and Civic Platform leader in the province, told me that the EU was funding 40 per cent of the provincial budget, while unemployment had dropped from 14 to 8 per cent.
     
    Poland is Europe's welfare case.

    I disagree. The EU is funding mainly fixed capital investment, giving them a leg up in catch up growth – infrastructure etc. You can argue against the policy, but it is not welfarism. My country has been unable to access the funding, which is why we are net payers to the EU budget. But Poland is a success story.

    Read More
  62. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Nationalism and continentalism, and every other level of political organization for that matter, involve leapfrogging loyalties and aren’t examples of concentricism. They involve leapfrogging loyalties to a specific level for the purpose of organizing non-concentrically with respect to sub-units and other groups at a specific level.

    Read More
  63. Anon says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    globalist dogma has become more extreme because they are fearful that anti-immigration dissent may keep some immigrants from coming to the West. They are desperate for as many immigrants as they can get because the ponzi economy is in danger if we have another recession soon….another recession may cause westerners to lose confidence in going into debt….immigration increases consumer demand and thus props up the consumption-based ponzi economy…it’s all about avoiding recession via population growth…

    Read More
  64. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It became necessary to destroy Europe to save it.

    But what does it need saving from?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But what does it need saving from?

    Europeans and their Europeanness.

  65. @Anonymous

    It became necessary to destroy Europe to save it.
     
    But what does it need saving from?

    But what does it need saving from?

    Europeans and their Europeanness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In a scorched-earth campaign to bring European values to Europe, Europeans must perish -- something like that then.

    Because we know Europe, or Poland, can't be a society where no man is judged by his race or religion when it doesn't have the same proportion of Africans as does the planet?

    It seems to contain the suggestion that Europe was looking to wage a campaign, looking to solve a problem (like cultural, political and reproductive exhaustion). But didn't the problem come to us (because they are more numerous and immiserated than us) and we just couldn't say no without contradicting universalized perversions of European "values" we invented to keep the peace among and between Europeans?

    Then were we really so defenseless all this time until Africans could smartphone their way across the Mediterranean? No, e.g. Schmidt.

    So they really did initiate a universalist jihad against us, because it's based on virtues they, the invincibles, the intellectual and moral elite, can afford to pay to prove they're better than their neighbors.

    After all, you lower classes kind of suck so you don't have a leg to stand on, criticizing Mohammeds.
  66. @bomag
    Kipling's "White Man's Burden" resonates here. "Send forth the best ye breed" has been replaced with "Bring in the worst that's bred".

    “Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” resonates here. “Send forth the best ye breed” has been replaced with “**Bring in the worst that’s bred**”.”

    **You realize that would include Eastern and Southern Europeans, right?

    Read More
  67. There could hardly be a clearer example of leapfrogging loyalties than the attachment of British left-liberals to the European Union. At home, it is impossible for People Like Us to hold a conversation with working class types because their ghastly talk consists of slow, inarticulate, repetitive natter. Abroad, it is impossible for the entirely different reason that we do not speak their language well enough to discover what they are like and never have reason to speak to them anyway. It all goes to show that the intolerant, prejudiced British need to become more European, like their betters.

    As for the Polish working class, do not overlook its rebellion against imposed left wing rule. There were a number of post-Communists in Tony Blair’s New Labour party, not least Peter Mandelson, Blair’s personal appointment to the European Commission.

    Read More
  68. @Jake
    "Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other."


    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific 'political' stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes - WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    “The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.”

    ALL nations and cultures have produced people who write romanticize one group while calling another group inferior. Again, it is not exclusively a German phenomenon.

    “What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture”

    What he described is inherent in human beings.

    Read More
  69. @Charles Pewitt

    It’s pretty funny that you think you can decide who is “core.” I’ll go with the first ethnicities to settle on American soil. American Indians, Spanish, and Jews. We also have to include British and Dutch folks. Everyone else has to go, and pronto! (except the Chinese can stay, I’ll fit them into a true “core” definition somehow…how about a high IQ core?)

     

    The United States is a European Christian nation-state. I won't argue with those that say the United States is British Protestant, they have a damn good case.

    “The United States is a European Christian nation-state. ”

    The United States was founded by Europeans who were Christians. Today, it is a mutt nation with various races, ethnicities, and religions other than European and other than Christian.

    Read More
  70. @TWalsh2
    It would seem that at some point the peaceful migration will turn turn into a violent invasion. A charismatic strongman able to unite "people of color" would have an ever increasing amount of expendable bodies to use in violent conflict and I don't think the current leadership/populace of Europe would have much stomach for millions of dead black bodies littering their fields, towns, and cities. Good night Irene.

    This would be great news, then we would finally fight and defeat them.

    The whole problem right now is that Europeans are unable to conceptualize conflict that isn’t an organized campaign as a war to be fought. We are used to thinking of wars between states and it’s very bad for your reputation to be the clear aggressor in those. Every European war tends to get preceded by a long period of states ignoring the build up and hostile intent of another state with politicians swearing that they’re going to reach peace through their policies.

    But once someone actually does invade and the war is on, then all that appeasement and advocacy of coexistence goes out the window and states gear up for war. If this deluge of people actually organized itself into an invasion force and declared war on us, it would be very good news as then we’d be publically challenged into a fight and there would no longer be a way out for politicians to claim that this multicultural chaos is just a temporary thing that will pass as the migrants integrate and so on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX

    The whole problem right now is that Europeans are unable to conceptualize conflict that isn’t an organized campaign as a war to be fought. We are used to thinking of wars between states and it’s very bad for your reputation to be the clear aggressor in those.
     
    True. The word "invasion" for most people evokes images of people storming into a country by force of arms. It hasn't dawned on them yet that, in a masterful feat of semantic juggling, invasion has been repackaged as "immigration" and "asylum". The Muslims coming into Europe now are essentially no different from those who tried to take Vienna in 1683. They don't need to be armed, because we're letting them in. They don't need to raid and pillage all around them, because we're giving them welfare benefits.
  71. @SEATAF
    That's a very, very good column. It's not easily shareable, quite, because of lines like the one about Detroit. But it lands about 40 punches.

    Yeah, I did a double take on the Detroit line:

    How can Europe avoid winding up like Detroit writ large

    That requires a little unpacking, no?

    It’s confusing because most people don’t know what happened to Detroit. “Car companies no longer so successful, something like that?” So it will draw blank stares from many people.

    (The following quote might help)

    “The heaviest casualty, however, was the city. Detroit’s losses went a hell of a lot deeper than the immediate toll of lives and buildings. The riot put Detroit on the fast track to economic desolation, mugging the city and making off with incalculable value in jobs, earnings taxes, corporate taxes, retail dollars, sales taxes, mortgages, interest, property taxes, development dollars, investment dollars, tourism dollars, and plain damn money. The money was carried out in the pockets of the businesses and the white people who fled as fast as they could. The white exodus from Detroit had been prodigiously steady prior to the riot, totaling twenty-two thousand in 1966, but afterwards it was frantic.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot#Aftermath

    But the remark is also confusing because the population changes that led to what happened to Detroit were the result of internal migration within the continent. So the mask of “citizenism” slips a little. It’s one of the most racist things I’ve ever read on this blog. Not that there’s anything wrong with that?… Just that it might benefit from some care and explanation. It can’t really be used as-is.

    Read More
  72. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    But what does it need saving from?

    Europeans and their Europeanness.

    In a scorched-earth campaign to bring European values to Europe, Europeans must perish — something like that then.

    Because we know Europe, or Poland, can’t be a society where no man is judged by his race or religion when it doesn’t have the same proportion of Africans as does the planet?

    It seems to contain the suggestion that Europe was looking to wage a campaign, looking to solve a problem (like cultural, political and reproductive exhaustion). But didn’t the problem come to us (because they are more numerous and immiserated than us) and we just couldn’t say no without contradicting universalized perversions of European “values” we invented to keep the peace among and between Europeans?

    Then were we really so defenseless all this time until Africans could smartphone their way across the Mediterranean? No, e.g. Schmidt.

    So they really did initiate a universalist jihad against us, because it’s based on virtues they, the invincibles, the intellectual and moral elite, can afford to pay to prove they’re better than their neighbors.

    After all, you lower classes kind of suck so you don’t have a leg to stand on, criticizing Mohammeds.

    Read More
  73. @bossel

    The Case for Continentalism
     
    Won't read the Taki thing, but the title is interesting.
    So, Sailer now is in favour of a continental (con-?)federations? That would make interesting groupings, like the USA with Mexico & Canada in one union, or even the whole of America (a latino-dominated union?). Asia (or even Eurasia) as a union would be quite a conglomerate of different cultures. Could get funny.
    Seems unlikely that Sailer really wants that...

    So you’re not going to read it, but are going to comment/criticize anyway. Based on the title.

    Are you friends with the “I won’t read racist “The Bell Curve” because it’s racist” ninnies?

    Read More
  74. @Wilkey
    I like to compare belief in open borders to creationism. The creationist believes that God created the world and all that's in it. He believes it for no reason other than that someone told him so, and he liked the idea, so it's true, irregardless of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, and the person who tells him it isn't true isn't just wrong but evil.

    The same holds true for open borders. Someone somewhere declared that open borders were the right thing to believe, and so these people believe it, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and anyone who disagrees with it is the worst form of evil - a racist. Just don't point out to them that the first scripture in their Open Borders Bible - "The New Colossus" - was written just one year after Congress voted overwhelmingly for the Chinese Exclusion Act. It might get them to thinking it's all a myth.

    He believes it for no reason other than that someone told him so,

    Project much?

    massive amounts of evidence to the contrary

    Right, because we all know that something comes from nothing all the time! Why, just look under your pillow the morning after you placed your tooth under it and you have proof. And the millions of children all over the world visited by the tooth fairy prove your point with massive amounts of evidence, don’t they?

    Read More
  75. @Thea
    Don't Ashkenazis have 50% "Germanic" (or at least Northern European) DNA? Thank explains the affinity a bit I suppose

    Slightly OT but this is a fun page and map. Other countries call Germany by the name of the particular tribe that invaded them, or something. And “Ashkenaz” is a retconned Hebrew name for Germany, or its biblical founding father, or something. And France of course extended courtesy to naming itself after one Germanic invading tribe.

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

    Read More
  76. @Jaakko Raipala
    This would be great news, then we would finally fight and defeat them.

    The whole problem right now is that Europeans are unable to conceptualize conflict that isn't an organized campaign as a war to be fought. We are used to thinking of wars between states and it's very bad for your reputation to be the clear aggressor in those. Every European war tends to get preceded by a long period of states ignoring the build up and hostile intent of another state with politicians swearing that they're going to reach peace through their policies.

    But once someone actually does invade and the war is on, then all that appeasement and advocacy of coexistence goes out the window and states gear up for war. If this deluge of people actually organized itself into an invasion force and declared war on us, it would be very good news as then we'd be publically challenged into a fight and there would no longer be a way out for politicians to claim that this multicultural chaos is just a temporary thing that will pass as the migrants integrate and so on.

    The whole problem right now is that Europeans are unable to conceptualize conflict that isn’t an organized campaign as a war to be fought. We are used to thinking of wars between states and it’s very bad for your reputation to be the clear aggressor in those.

    True. The word “invasion” for most people evokes images of people storming into a country by force of arms. It hasn’t dawned on them yet that, in a masterful feat of semantic juggling, invasion has been repackaged as “immigration” and “asylum”. The Muslims coming into Europe now are essentially no different from those who tried to take Vienna in 1683. They don’t need to be armed, because we’re letting them in. They don’t need to raid and pillage all around them, because we’re giving them welfare benefits.

    Read More
  77. @Charles Pewitt

    It’s pretty funny that you think you can decide who is “core.” I’ll go with the first ethnicities to settle on American soil. American Indians, Spanish, and Jews. We also have to include British and Dutch folks. Everyone else has to go, and pronto! (except the Chinese can stay, I’ll fit them into a true “core” definition somehow…how about a high IQ core?)

     

    The United States is a European Christian nation-state. I won't argue with those that say the United States is British Protestant, they have a damn good case.

    That was never legally or factually the case and it’s a totally absurd claim by this late date, but you are free to say anything you want. Not only were we founded on religious liberty (which allowed Jews to be on the home team), but also political freedom.

    Just keep in mind that when you essentially try to kick people off the team or relegate them to a second-class fringe, you are encouraging them to support open borders. That’s very alt.stupid

    Read More
  78. @Fredrik
    Have you heard about a place called Ireland?

    Scotland, Man, and Wales are doubtless also bizarre, undreamt of places to the fellow. To be fair to him, if memory serves, the English were out of Brittany by then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    OT, but out of curiosity, have you ever attempted at fiction? You have a flair for words and ardent opinions, both which seem like they could find incredible life in narrative expression.
    , @Autochthon
    Thank you for your kind words. I actually am currently on my last big push before I retire from corporate slavery at forty. I'll either take a job where I can phone it in teaching for a university again and scamming the poor, dumb bastards who foolishly will waste money on a degree (I've learned there's no dissuading them, so hate the game, not the player!). With luck I shall obtain a pension with defined benefits from a public university, sticking it to both the evil government and the rabble who've foisted it upon me. Otherwise I shall go entirely Galt, as the kids say, and work security at night or do odd jobs to earn just enough for groceries, the light bill, and property taxes; maybe work the parts-counter of a motorcycle shop part-time or something. In the event, as I seem increasingly likely to remain halt forevermore now, I must distract myself mentally, being much diminished physically. (Though I myself put very little stock in their profession, a psychologist recently explained to me that not being able to run has inflicted upon me a loss of my identity, and I cannot dispute the crisis.) My goal is indeed to take up writing. I own a domain, and I'll probably begin by launching a blog soon. Fiction is much harder to write than these kinds of things, though; one wants a lot more creativity. We shall see what I can do.

    There: now I've bored you and everyone else with so much self-regarding narcissism; I must find add a smart remark about politics, culture, or biology someplace or other to redeem myself and return to our esteemed host's themes.
    , @Anon
    Or (remembering the Conquest) the Bretons had become English.
  79. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Purity spiral is a good phrase. I’ve also seen the concept described as jury amplification. Get a bunch of people together who all want to prove they are the most… whatever, and pretty soon they push themselves to as extreme a position as they can get.

    A quick google suggests that the left is trying to hijack the phrase and blame the alt-right on a purity spiral. A totally irrational deviation from the true arc of history, don’t you see.

    Read More
  80. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    On the matter of leapfrogging… it may be a legacy of Christianity.

    Its philosophical seeds may be in the Book of Job.

    Jewish religion is about the Covenant that binds a people as one to God.

    So, even though there are some special Jews like prophets and kings, their function is to serve as messengers or agents of God to the Chosen People. So, Moses receives the Law and passes it out to the people.
    Some may lead, other may follow, but they all share the generic sense of belonging. It’s not about the Personal or Existentialist.

    So, there is no special Covenant for any single Jew. All Jews equally share in the Covenant received by Abraham. And they all obey the Laws as revealed by Moses. No Jew can say he is privy to some special or higher understanding of God. Even prophets who gain more insight must share it with his people until the wisdom and revelation are equally understood.

    But then, there is the story of Job. His wisdom is existential and personal to the extent that only through his particular and unique experience could his insight of God have been attained. Instead of sharing in generic tribal Covenant, one could argue he gains a covenant within the covenant, like those Russian Dolls with more dolls inside. He was not a prophet or king or whatever. He was just a man but one who was put through one helluva a wringer. And it was this special experience that made him reconsider and reevaluate his relation to God. So, Job before the ordeal and Job after the ordeal are fundamentally different. Before the ordeal, he shared in the generic tribal covenant. After the ordeal, he was privy to an understanding that others do not have. He gained a covenant within the covenant, one that could have been accessed ONLY by his experience.

    It’s sort of like what the priests undergo in SILENCE. The main character is a Christian before he reaches Japan. A generic Christian. Devout but like so many others. But it is only through his particular ordeal that he gains a personal and deeper sense of what it means to be a Christian. And THIS state of being could not have been accessed or gained through generic dogma that is availed to all Christians. He had to undergo something special and personal.

    Anyway, Book of Job opens a path to the conceptualization that would become Christianity. Not only must Jesus, like Job, undergo horrific ordeal and be tested in His faith in God but there is a deep and profound sense of the personal God. According to Jews, God is understood and worshiped collectively and generically among Jews through the Covenant. But Jesus, like Job, struggles for a deeper and more personal meaning of God and His relation to God. For Jesus, God is more than what Jews believe through the Covenant according to the rabbis. God can be accessed on the personal level, and there is an existential sense of how some are nearer to God through particularity of experience and effort. And this kind of understanding cannot be codified into laws or customs. It’s a matter of the heart and soul. So, just as Job’s understanding of God is like a personal covenant, Jesus departs from the Jewish dogma and forges a new understanding of God based on His personal experience and struggle(like in Last Temptation of Christ). So, there is something like a covenant within a covenant or maybe covenant away from the covenant. Not just a collective tribal covenant but a personal unique covenant that forms only between God and Jesus, who comes to be known as Son of God.

    Now, here is where the paradox sets in. In a way, the way of Jesus was the most personal and particular in Jewish history. Instead of being a ‘good Jew’ and faithful member of the community, He did it His way. It was a very personal and unique search to know God.
    And yet, this most personal path to God also proved to be the most universal.
    We see this paradox in libertarianism too. It is both about extreme self-interest and universal values. Libertarians believe that the insistence on total freedom and liberty for the individual is the basis for the liberation of all individuals around the world. Thus, the libertarian ‘leapfrogs’ from self-interest to universal interests. Anything in between — tribe, nation, culture — is an hindrance.
    Likewise, Christianity is both more personal and more universal than Judaism. A Christian is freed from all those Jewish laws and customs and rituals. What matters is his personal relation to God who is open to all who are faithful and seek Him out. Also, God and Jesus have a special message for each who seek him. And this relation between God and man is less encumbered by tradition and dogma as in Judaism. And yet, if any person can directly access God, then salvation is a universal hope and promise. And since God’s heart and home are open to all, the faith transcends all nations, tribes, borders, cultures, and etc.

    So, just as Jesus leapfrogged from His personal attachment to God to the Salvation of all of mankind, today’s PC cult is about the total liberation of the self(from shackles of ‘essentialism’) and how this idea of justice should be availed to all mankind. According to Christianity, there is only the personal and the universal. Nothing in between matters. There is only God and individuals. Each individual must seek God, and God and Jesus will respond to ANY person who reaches for help. And since the world is filled with individuals, God does not play favorites among tribes and nations. Therefore, good Christians should care for All individuals who seek salvation than favor his own kind for racial, tribal, or national reasons.

    This is why Christianity was, in the end, a big mistake. There was much to learn from Jewish culture. Jews had something that was of great use to the pagans. The trick was how to move this idea from the Jews to the pagans. St. Paul played the Jewish Promethean figure by stealing the sacred secret fire from the Jews and passing it to the gentiles. But, according to the Paulian formulation, this fire had to be shared by all gentiles alike. This fire could be special on the personal level as each Christian seeks his own personal path to God. But gentiles could never have a group covenant with God, like the Jews have.

    So, the better concept would have been a kind of Covenantism where each gentile tribe or group would seek their own particular group covenant with God. That would have prevented this bad habit of leapfrogging.

    Maybe Pepe is a different kind of frog. Is Kekistan the future?

    Read More
  81. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jake
    "Instead, we now celebrate the anti-logic of leapfrogging loyalties.

    The Western liberal is noteworthy for feeling loyalty toward his inner circle, then leapfrogging over a whole bunch of folks who are kind of like him but whom he more or less despises, in order to embrace The Other."


    This is NOT a recent phenomenon. It was not birthed with Modern Socialism, and neither is it a unique sense of guilt for 2 World Wars gone wild. The English in the 18th century, for example, saw the Celts they ruled as inherently inferior savages, at the same time they were beginning the process of creating the Numinous Negro that the British Empire would spread globally. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans had hoped to exterminate all Catholics and Celts, culturally if not necessarily physically, while simultaneously cooing over Jews and granting them special status.

    And it is not merely a WASP problem. It is a Germanic thing. The Continental Germans have always seen Slavs as sub-human or at least as fit only to be serfs. The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews, and Germans of various specific 'political' stances had used it for Slavs for centuries, long before the Nazis used it for Jews as well. The Germanies produced various writers who romanticized peoples like Turks and other Mohammedans even as they invariably assumed the Slavs to be hopelessly inferior and all Romance speakers to be EVIL of the type that thought only of harming poor innocent Germans.

    What Sailer describes is inherent in Germanic culture (for those who may not know, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were Germanic tribes - WASP culture is Germanic, as surely as Yiddish is German).

    > The Nazis used the same term for Slavs (untermenschen) that they used for Jews

    Citation required. I think you’re wrong on both counts.

    Jews seem to love to tell everybody that Nazis called them “untermenschen”. Real Nazis like Goebbels knew better than that:

    …one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

    Read More
  82. @Autochthon
    Scotland, Man, and Wales are doubtless also bizarre, undreamt of places to the fellow. To be fair to him, if memory serves, the English were out of Brittany by then.

    OT, but out of curiosity, have you ever attempted at fiction? You have a flair for words and ardent opinions, both which seem like they could find incredible life in narrative expression.

    Read More
  83. @The Alarmist

    "Germanic runs the EU."
     
    I disagree. Germany is largely paying the bills and dragging the EU from one crisis to another, but it's the unelected Eurocracy who are running the EU towards the cliff.

    Indeed,
    and the Eurocracy is French/Italian/Belgian.

    Read More
  84. @Autochthon
    Scotland, Man, and Wales are doubtless also bizarre, undreamt of places to the fellow. To be fair to him, if memory serves, the English were out of Brittany by then.

    Thank you for your kind words. I actually am currently on my last big push before I retire from corporate slavery at forty. I’ll either take a job where I can phone it in teaching for a university again and scamming the poor, dumb bastards who foolishly will waste money on a degree (I’ve learned there’s no dissuading them, so hate the game, not the player!). With luck I shall obtain a pension with defined benefits from a public university, sticking it to both the evil government and the rabble who’ve foisted it upon me. Otherwise I shall go entirely Galt, as the kids say, and work security at night or do odd jobs to earn just enough for groceries, the light bill, and property taxes; maybe work the parts-counter of a motorcycle shop part-time or something. In the event, as I seem increasingly likely to remain halt forevermore now, I must distract myself mentally, being much diminished physically. (Though I myself put very little stock in their profession, a psychologist recently explained to me that not being able to run has inflicted upon me a loss of my identity, and I cannot dispute the crisis.) My goal is indeed to take up writing. I own a domain, and I’ll probably begin by launching a blog soon. Fiction is much harder to write than these kinds of things, though; one wants a lot more creativity. We shall see what I can do.

    There: now I’ve bored you and everyone else with so much self-regarding narcissism; I must find add a smart remark about politics, culture, or biology someplace or other to redeem myself and return to our esteemed host’s themes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Have you tried poetry? It requires more discipline in one sense but (unless you're Pope or Dryden) not the kind of sustained effort that novel-writing or even short-story-writing does.

    Essay-writing is extremely easy, but difficult to do well for the simple reason that practically the rest of the world is doing it also, so standing out is unlikely.
  85. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Autochthon
    Scotland, Man, and Wales are doubtless also bizarre, undreamt of places to the fellow. To be fair to him, if memory serves, the English were out of Brittany by then.

    Or (remembering the Conquest) the Bretons had become English.

    Read More
  86. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Autochthon
    Thank you for your kind words. I actually am currently on my last big push before I retire from corporate slavery at forty. I'll either take a job where I can phone it in teaching for a university again and scamming the poor, dumb bastards who foolishly will waste money on a degree (I've learned there's no dissuading them, so hate the game, not the player!). With luck I shall obtain a pension with defined benefits from a public university, sticking it to both the evil government and the rabble who've foisted it upon me. Otherwise I shall go entirely Galt, as the kids say, and work security at night or do odd jobs to earn just enough for groceries, the light bill, and property taxes; maybe work the parts-counter of a motorcycle shop part-time or something. In the event, as I seem increasingly likely to remain halt forevermore now, I must distract myself mentally, being much diminished physically. (Though I myself put very little stock in their profession, a psychologist recently explained to me that not being able to run has inflicted upon me a loss of my identity, and I cannot dispute the crisis.) My goal is indeed to take up writing. I own a domain, and I'll probably begin by launching a blog soon. Fiction is much harder to write than these kinds of things, though; one wants a lot more creativity. We shall see what I can do.

    There: now I've bored you and everyone else with so much self-regarding narcissism; I must find add a smart remark about politics, culture, or biology someplace or other to redeem myself and return to our esteemed host's themes.

    Have you tried poetry? It requires more discipline in one sense but (unless you’re Pope or Dryden) not the kind of sustained effort that novel-writing or even short-story-writing does.

    Essay-writing is extremely easy, but difficult to do well for the simple reason that practically the rest of the world is doing it also, so standing out is unlikely.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject