The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Trump the Moderate
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Los Angeles Times:

Trump’s immigration plan draws harsh reviews from left and right, and some conservatives label him ‘Amnesty Don’

By BRIAN BENNETT and LISA MASCARO JAN 25, 2018 | 7:15 PM

President Trump is testing the loyalty of his most ardent conservative supporters, proposing a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million young immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children, while demanding that Democrats support $25 billion for border security, including his proposed border wall, and strict new limits on legal immigration.

The 1.8-million figure would go well beyond the nearly 700,000 immigrants currently covered by the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, expanding the protections primarily to cover people who were eligible for DACA but did not apply. …

The American Civil Liberties Union called the White House plan a “hateful, xenophobic immigration proposal that would slash legal immigration to levels not seen since the racial quotas of the 1920s.”

As we all know, the inalienable right to immigrate to America is the most precious civil right possessed by Americans-to-be.

Greisa Martinez Rosas of United We Dream, one of the leading Dreamer groups, called the plan “a white supremacist ransom note.” …

The level of racial hatred found among the Democrats side on the immigration would be stunning if we weren’t all so used to it by now.

Other Republican senators who back restrictions on immigration, led by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), endorsed the White House proposal.

Democrats were mostly negative. “President Trump and Republicans will not be allowed to use Dreamers as a bargaining chip for their wish list of anti-immigrant policies,” California’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote in a Twitter statement.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who has been a leading Democratic advocate for Dreamers, said in a statement that “the White House claims to be compromising” but the plan “would put the administration’s entire hardline immigration agenda — including massive cuts to legal immigration — on the backs of these young people.”

In other words, Trump is offering a compromise in which the Democrats are being asked to give up some of what they really want — future immigration to tip the country to one-party rule like in California — in order to protect their Alien Minors.

 
Hide 132 CommentsLeave a Comment
132 Comments to "Trump the Moderate"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. O'Really says:

    It is crazy to think that a charismatic president, presiding over a strong economy but with a Special Prosecutor breathing down his neck, could succeed by pitting (or appearing to pit) the extremes against each other and adopting an apparently centrist approach.

    If only there was a word to describe such a 3-sided political calculus. Perhaps a shape with 3 sides?

    Nah. Makes no sense. Could never work.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Neoconned
    It's probably all those years of gaming and bullshitting all those random "Wall Street killers" as he called them and NY politicos and regulators and whoever else

    I have an old copy of his book Art of the Deal.....the man is truly a deal artist.

    He has negotiating skills you learn after a lifetime of dealing with the most ruthless sociopaths in global business and govts.

    Personally, politics is give & take. I think it's a good deal eerily similar to Barbara Jordans mid 90s proposals....
    , @Pat Boyle
    I hope this comment doesn't sound too goofy. I'm serious.

    Shouldn't we be thinking about the opinions of the machine intelligences? We have plenty of testimony from blacks that they favor killing off all the white people. Similarly we have the same sort of opinions from white people about what we should do with the blacks. No one seems to express similar genocidal opinions if they are East Asian. Perhaps the Asians have strong feelings in these matters but just choose to keep quite about it. But few would be surprised if the Chinese who seem to be recolonizing parts of black Africa evolves policies that reduce or eliminate the native black population.

    All humans have a race and most humans have opinions on what should be done with the other races. But change is coming. All experts predict that there will soon be mechanical intelligences that will surpass humans. If that is so, then these smart robots should be in a position to have positions on races that are not dominated by the fact that they themselves are biased by having a race. If this is likely, what will the robots do?

    Are we overpopulated? I think so. Steve Sailer seems to worry that Africans are breeding too quickly. Will the smart robots also be concerned? What will they prescribe if they want to help humans with this problem?

    There are several major paths that future history might follow. Perhaps it will be like in the Terminator movies. The robots will simply try to wipe out all humans. If that is their choice then there is not much to concern us - the intelligent and malicious robots will simply wipe us out. So it's pointless to worry about such a possibility. The real question is what will the robots do if they choose to keep at least some humans around.

    If the robots want to maintain humankind, what will be there stance on human races?

    More later...
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. The Dems have to sound tough for their base. They might give Trump the wall, but the limits to legal immigration will be easily circumvented because the US CoC likes the flow of slave cheap qualified willing workers who will do the work Americans won’t do at the paltry wages they are willing to offer too much to let the door close on this bottom-line-enhancing source of human capital.

    Read More
    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    Yes. If built, the wall will just be an expensive showpiece. If we are going to settle for a showpiece, let's have the giant concrete middle finger mentioned yesterday.
    , @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    What limits ? ? ?
    the Trump plan imposes no reductions on legal immigration, it diverts the 50,000 diversity green cards to skilled immigrants...Legal immigration will remain above 1.1 million each year under his proposed bill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. “Amnesty Don” is right. That’s 1.8 million future Democrat voters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neoconned
    LoL as if a vote matters now anyway. It's all theatrics anyway.

    The second any politician is elected the corporations & lobbyists take them and buy them off. This is the best well get.

    Wait til automation cleans out a third of jobs in the next ten to twenty years....and they first print money to do UBI....but when that creates a black market and causes inflation.....and then those starving screaming hordes of unemployed and unemployable brothers and espanolanos riot because there's no work for them and the govt won't subsidize them or their bastard brats any more with free food and housing... well that's when the generals will roll out the tanks....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. eah says:

    Alien Minors

    Key facts about unauthorized immigrants enrolled in DACA

    By region, almost all current DACA recipients were born in Mexico or Central or South America (648,430, or 94%)…Nearly half (45%) of current DACA recipients live in just two states: California (29%) and Texas (16%)…The average age of “Dreamers” enrolled in DACA is 24 years old…About a quarter (24%) are ages 26-30, while one-in-ten (11%) are ages 31-36.

    DACA should be rejected on ‘diversity’ grounds alone — it is not a very diverse (or young: 35% are at least 26 y/o) group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    DACA should be rejected on ‘diversity’ grounds alone — it is not a very diverse (or young: 35% are at least 26 y/o) group.
     
    Additionally not only are these DACAns not very diverse, they are predominately from the new world. Think about that. Mass immigration from the new world is a serious indictment on the home nations of these people. They have manage to piss away the advantages of creating new nations in resource-rich places in about two centuries.
    , @Yak-15
    According to the research, 15 percent are married. That means that they are not married to a US citizen because then they would receive citizenship through marriage. That implies that these people are most likely in majority minority areas if they are marrying other illegals.

    How is that fact not indicative of an atomizing society?

    Also, how does his “research” have their marriage status but not include employment status, collection of government benefits, income levels, etc?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. IHTG says:

    Something that alt-righters probably need to accept: Immigration policy will not be the tool by which America’s white majority is directly preserved. Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions in which America’s white population can retrench, reassert political power and bounce back over time.

    Read More
    • Agree: 27 year old
    • Replies: @The Man From K Street

    Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions 
     
    This. I tend to agree with the commenter in an earlier thread that, just as in the short term we have to accept the illegal alien minors, in the medium term we probably have to write off CA, NM, AZ, NV, and probably FL and TX, as North Mexico.

    Nothing can work unless there is a long-term grand strategy. Accept the Southwest as lost for at least two more generations, but hold the line on any mass immigration from Asia and Africa until around the Tricentennial (2076). Laager up in the rest of the country, and mitigate the damage from CA etc. being out of control by pushing for an Article V Convention of the States to renegotiate the federal-state balance. Then retool, rebuild, and reforge. By the last quarter of the 21st century our descendants can look to start a little reconquista of their own.

    Indulge your inner Han Chinese and think in terms of the long game of centuries.
    , @27 year old

    Immigration policy will not be the tool by which America’s white majority is directly preserved. Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions in which America’s white population can retrench, reassert political power and bounce back over time.
     
    Agree. Great post.

    Righty baby boomers, despite constantly looking down their noses at younger generations for our "impatience", are unable to grasp the long term nature of the game and are in typical fashion freaking out that the aren't getting exactly what they want Right F-ing Now*. It's been 52 years and some change since the 1965 immigration act. It may take us 52 years to undo the damage. President Trump is the beginning.

    Immigration policy is downstream of power. As we retrench and reassert power, we can get better immigration policy. Right now, we can get what we can get, based on how much power we have. Take what we can and use it to build more power, then we get more of what we want. This isn't complicated. It's a lot of grinding. The only possible shortcut is to redpill more Whites, more rapidly and more extremely. Which my generation and those younger than me are doing as much as we can get away with (you're welcome).

    *A flipside version of this boomertantrum is playing out in the Russia investigation. They can't accept that they didn't get what they want and can't accept waiting to get it.
    , @Desiderius
    This whole alt-righters = nazi larpers thing y'all keep pushing breaks down on the simple fact that it's (globohomo) whites who've gotten us into this mess and continue to do their best to make it worse.

    It doesn't get better until we figure out the causes of progtardism and find a cure.
    , @Opinionator
    Do you consider there to be something special about immigration policy that makes it appropriate as the first step among steps?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. anon • Disclaimer says:

    The American Civil Liberties Union called the White House plan a “hateful, xenophobic immigration proposal that would slash legal immigration to levels not seen since the racial quotas of the 1920s.”

    Why would the ACLU even write an opinion on this? Immigration to the US isn’t a civil liberty, since the potential immigrants aren’t even here yet. Determining our immigration laws is a civil liberty, though.

    I mean, I know why they’re doing it. Someone should just point out that they shouldn’t.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Absolutely.

    Since I have been a liberal since my birth near the end of the Eisenhower Administration, I know a little about the Left. Not the stereotypes right-wingers have about the Left, nor the self-congratulating stereotypes some on the Left have about themselves, but the REAL Left. (Though to be honest, I have been pretty much avoiding hard-core Lefties for the past 25 years. One gets tired of them quickly.)

    On the Left, the 1960s are treated as a sacred decade. One left-wing writer made fun of his peers a few decades back by referring to the 60s as "The One True Decade".

    Well, Lefties see the 60s as the time of the Civil Rights Movement (which really started up big time in the post WWII era, esp. in the 1950s), the anti-Vietnam War movement (which hit its peak in the late 60s and early 70s), Free Love (which was really just massive sexual exploitation of girls and young women), hippies (who were completely directionless, looking for any leader to exploit them), etc.

    Left-wingers since that time have been looking for a Defining Cause. Something they can protest about, riot about, etc. that will define them as being Activists on the Right Side of History. (Technically the Left Side, sometimes right and sometimes wrong).

    What do you do with Leftists who missed the Civil Rights and Antiwar protests?

    So, the Leftists go into several causes. Gay Rights. Transgender Rights. Immigrant "Rights". "Resistance". ... and so on.

    Look at the Rights. No matter what you feel about the Gay Rights and the Transgender Rights movements, they ARE battles over Civil Rights. What rights will Americans have in their own country.

    As you pointed out, Immigrant "Rights" are NOT a Civil Rights issue, by definition. But most Leftists convince themselves it IS a Civil Rights issue. Zeroth Amendment and all that.

    As for the "Resistance"? That is a catch-all for disgruntled Leftists to protest Trump. Rather than protesting this or that program of Trump, the logic is simple. If Trump is for it, good Leftists are against it. If Trump is against it, good Leftists are for it. Trouble is, Trump can often give 2 or 3 or 10 conflicting opinions on the same day. ALL of them VERY BAD, of course.

    I hope this clears things up. I am still a liberal, but I hate the trendy leftists. One of my daughters wanted to participate in a Woman's March last year, but I talked her out of it. One of the leaders of the March (Angela Davis) was a leader of the Communist Party USA who had been part of a terrorist organization. Another leader of the march was a convicted Palestinian terrorist. Even though my mother helped found a feminist organization, and a close family friend helped found NOW, there was no way I was going to let my daughter be part of a movement led by terrorists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anon7 says:

    I’m hoping that this proposal, like others before it, is intended to expose the extremism of the Democrat leadership. This proposal will never be accepted by them, for reasons stated before; the Democratic play here is to bring in enough Democrat-voting welfare recipients that they will never be challenged again by the descendants of our country’s founders. They are so close! it has to be part of their extreme disappointment over the last election.

    The more marches and strident demands by non-citizens, the better. Democrats should be forced into the most extreme positions possible; 3.6 million “DREAMERs” must become citizens, the tens of millions of other non-citizens loitering on American soil must also be cherished and “brought out of the shadows” i.e. given full citizenship, they must be permitted to bring in all of their relatives, the borders must remain porous and untended, the future of America must be made a beautiful brown, etc.

    I’m hoping (I do that a lot) that enough Black and Hispanic citizens will notice the historically high rates of employment for their groups, and will see it as a result of Trump’s immigration restriction. I’m also hoping that all Americans will note that employers reflect their fear of Trump’s immigration restriction in their bonuses and pay raises (like Walmart’s across the board $1 per hour increase).

    I’m hoping, as I say, that this is intended to set the stage for the 2018 primaries and elections. President Trump will make clear who can be expected to support him. Note that the earliest 2018 primaries are in May (except for Illinois), while the latest occur in August and September (except for Louisiana). The election will be held on November 6th.

    The 2018 election will determine our country’s future, for demography truly is destiny. Be hopeful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))

    I’m hoping (I do that a lot) that enough Black and Hispanic citizens will notice the historically high rates of employment for their groups, and will see it as a result of Trump’s immigration restriction.
     
    That's a ridiculous thing to hope for.

    Firstly, Trump isn't restricting immigration. He's offering the biggest amnesty in the history of the country and asking for nothing more than a partial wall for a photo-op. There is no restriction involved in his giveaway proposal that will have any effect on immigration numbers. And Trump has repeatedly already extended DACA and TPS. He will continue extending them.

    Secondly, black and Hispanic Americans don't like Trump any more than they like other Republicans. Polling shows that black Americans think he's the most racist president we've had. He won fewer black voters than Reagan or the Bushes. And Hispanic Americans live in a constant storm of propaganda that Trump hates them above all else.

    The high rates of employment presently are the overhang of the Obama recovery and minorities will continue to see it that way even if it persists in becoming the Trump boom.
    , @27 year old

    The 2018 election will determine our country’s future
     
    Lmao. Just like the 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections. This is the big one guys! Really this time!

    The future of the political entity of the United States is unimportant.

    What will determine our nation's future is what goes on in the hearts/minds of White people. If we understand the game and decide we want to win, we will have the future we want. No matter what happens in any election.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Anon7
    I'm hoping that this proposal, like others before it, is intended to expose the extremism of the Democrat leadership. This proposal will never be accepted by them, for reasons stated before; the Democratic play here is to bring in enough Democrat-voting welfare recipients that they will never be challenged again by the descendants of our country's founders. They are so close! it has to be part of their extreme disappointment over the last election.

    The more marches and strident demands by non-citizens, the better. Democrats should be forced into the most extreme positions possible; 3.6 million "DREAMERs" must become citizens, the tens of millions of other non-citizens loitering on American soil must also be cherished and "brought out of the shadows" i.e. given full citizenship, they must be permitted to bring in all of their relatives, the borders must remain porous and untended, the future of America must be made a beautiful brown, etc.

    I'm hoping (I do that a lot) that enough Black and Hispanic citizens will notice the historically high rates of employment for their groups, and will see it as a result of Trump's immigration restriction. I'm also hoping that all Americans will note that employers reflect their fear of Trump's immigration restriction in their bonuses and pay raises (like Walmart's across the board $1 per hour increase).

    I'm hoping, as I say, that this is intended to set the stage for the 2018 primaries and elections. President Trump will make clear who can be expected to support him. Note that the earliest 2018 primaries are in May (except for Illinois), while the latest occur in August and September (except for Louisiana). The election will be held on November 6th.

    The 2018 election will determine our country's future, for demography truly is destiny. Be hopeful.

    I’m hoping (I do that a lot) that enough Black and Hispanic citizens will notice the historically high rates of employment for their groups, and will see it as a result of Trump’s immigration restriction.

    That’s a ridiculous thing to hope for.

    Firstly, Trump isn’t restricting immigration. He’s offering the biggest amnesty in the history of the country and asking for nothing more than a partial wall for a photo-op. There is no restriction involved in his giveaway proposal that will have any effect on immigration numbers. And Trump has repeatedly already extended DACA and TPS. He will continue extending them.

    Secondly, black and Hispanic Americans don’t like Trump any more than they like other Republicans. Polling shows that black Americans think he’s the most racist president we’ve had. He won fewer black voters than Reagan or the Bushes. And Hispanic Americans live in a constant storm of propaganda that Trump hates them above all else.

    The high rates of employment presently are the overhang of the Obama recovery and minorities will continue to see it that way even if it persists in becoming the Trump boom.

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Dr. X says:

    In other words, Trump is offering a compromise in which the Democrats are being asked to give up some of what they really want — future immigration to tip the country to one-party rule like in California — in order to protect their Alien Minors.

    Well, it’s nice to think that Trump is snookering the Democrats into a hard bargain that is ultimately beneficial for the GOP, the nation, and for whites.

    Even if the Democrats were to go for it, though, the wild card is the courts. Let’s say Trump offers amnesty to the 1.8 million “Dreamers” ( I hate that term) in exchange for an end to chain migration… I could easily see a situation where the courts uphold the amnesty, but overrule the end to chain migration as unconstitutional under the Zeroth Amendment, enabling the Democrats to walk away from the poker table with everything, including Trump’s last pair of clean shorts…

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Even if the Democrats were to go for it, though, the wild card is the courts.
     
    You took the words out of my mouth. Leftist pressure groups will take any bill to federal court with the objective of having activist judges strike down the the restrictionist provisions like ending chain migration and the diversity lottery. And they'll probably get their wish in district court. They'll judge shop the case first to ensure they get a left leaning judge.

    For the right to chain migrate dozens of "family" members and a diversity lottery are right in the Constitution. Any of us who can't see it are just white supremacists.

    The bill being floated by the Trump WH only makes token reductions to chain migration. This is a crap bill.
    , @Ed
    You mean the courts that are increasingly being stacked with conservative judges thanks to Trump. I swear some of you guys are getting as bad as liberals with your unhinged rhetoric around immigration.

    We are not deporting millions of people. I suppose they could lose their documents and melt in the shadows. You’d still have one million people coming in legally every year. Slowly and surely changing America.
    , @densa
    Based on the demonstrations we've seen, complete with waving Mexican flags while demanding citizenship and supremacy, I think the Dreamers would be more accurately known as Demanders.

    And I agree that today's courts would make a mockery of this compromise. It will be a one-way street with any controls constantly challenged and delayed if not denied while this amnesty expands and the next wave of amnesty-in-waiting forms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Since Trump is offering large-scale amnesty and his enemies are still driven to the same foul-mouthed apoplexy with which they respond to his every move, what’s he got to lose by turning around and calling for a total immigration moratorium?

    Now that might convince me he’s playing chess, instead of losing at checkers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Just a little OT, from VDARE:

    “The Banco de México (Mexico’s Federal Reserve equivalent) just announced that remittances to Mexico from Mexicans abroad (nearly all here in the U.S.) hit an historic high in calendar year 2017. From January to November 2017, the total remittance sum sent to Mexico: $26.167 billion. That $26 billion-plus amount is a 6.15 percent increase over the January-November period of 2016 [Remesas aumentan 6.15% entre enero y noviembre del 2017, informa Banxico, “Remittances increase 6.15% from January to November of 2017, reports Bank of Mexico,” Noticieros Televisa, January 2, 2018].”

    If the tide of immigration has been turned and immigrants are self-deporting, how is this possible?

    BTW, the article asks that question, and goes on to cogently describe how Mexico can be made to pay for the wall. Who needs the Dems, when the Repubes by themselves could add an excise tax to fund the wall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. KenH says:

    People should now by now that Trump talks and tweets tough but when all is said and done he generally moves to the political center. There’s a CNN interview of him from 2000 when he was trying to secure the Reform party nomination (and crashed and burned) where he boasted about being a ‘straight down the middle guy; not to far to the left and not too far to the right”. He’s probably moved to the right a bit on some issues since that time but overall I think he privately prides himself on being a moderate/centrist although he knows how to play his base like a violin and keep them thinking he’s a rightist populist.

    The only way I could go along with granting amnesty to 1.8 million dreamers is if there’s a ten year moratorium on all immigration and refugee resettlement along with a border wall across as much of the Southern border as possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    If you hate centrist compromises then I suggest you campaign for radical political reform.

    Here's one idea: campaign for immigration policy to be taken out of the hands of political parties. Let the people vote for the head of the immigration department, and allow him or her to operate without the consent of congress or parliament.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    The only way I could go along with granting amnesty to 1.8 million dreamers is if there’s a ten year moratorium on all immigration and refugee resettlement along with a border wall across as much of the Southern border as possible.
     
    Well the dreamers are already here, so not very much skin off your nose if they stay. The cost of removing dreamers could be high. Supposing mass deportations start and the dreamers, as aspiring young Americans, arm themselves and start to shoot it out with the government. (They might even have the NRA at their backs.) How would a few massacres go down? Not saying it will happen, but presumably this kind of scenario has been taken into account.

    Border wall is fine. It will cost a lot of money, but ink and paper are cheap and the government can print its own money, and the job will provide plenty of construction jobs along the border. Why, they can even hire cheap Mexican contractors to work on the south side of the wall, thus saving the US taxpayer a few billion pesos.

    A 10-year moratorium on any further immigrants would also be fine, however if the internal demand for illegal labor is really so great, then a total ban would make the stakes even higher and make people smuggling and documentation forgery even more of a major industry.

    You also have to consider the economic impact, which is a complicated subject, but my understanding is that a growing population is necessary for economic growth. More people need more homes, and more homes need more overpriced carpeting and stuff from Home Depot, and more people need to buy more beer, and so on.

    In a shrinking population, you will have a decaying economy too. Of course it may not matter, because in the long run we are all dead, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.

    I think Trump has got it about right. The dreamers are already here, the wall will make no real difference, and nothing much will change, but the politicians will feel that they have made things better.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Neoconned says:
    @O'Really
    It is crazy to think that a charismatic president, presiding over a strong economy but with a Special Prosecutor breathing down his neck, could succeed by pitting (or appearing to pit) the extremes against each other and adopting an apparently centrist approach.

    If only there was a word to describe such a 3-sided political calculus. Perhaps a shape with 3 sides?

    Nah. Makes no sense. Could never work.

    It’s probably all those years of gaming and bullshitting all those random “Wall Street killers” as he called them and NY politicos and regulators and whoever else

    I have an old copy of his book Art of the Deal…..the man is truly a deal artist.

    He has negotiating skills you learn after a lifetime of dealing with the most ruthless sociopaths in global business and govts.

    Personally, politics is give & take. I think it’s a good deal eerily similar to Barbara Jordans mid 90s proposals….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Neoconned says:
    @greysquirrell
    "Amnesty Don" is right. That's 1.8 million future Democrat voters.

    LoL as if a vote matters now anyway. It’s all theatrics anyway.

    The second any politician is elected the corporations & lobbyists take them and buy them off. This is the best well get.

    Wait til automation cleans out a third of jobs in the next ten to twenty years….and they first print money to do UBI….but when that creates a black market and causes inflation…..and then those starving screaming hordes of unemployed and unemployable brothers and espanolanos riot because there’s no work for them and the govt won’t subsidize them or their bastard brats any more with free food and housing… well that’s when the generals will roll out the tanks….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. KenH says:
    @Dr. X

    In other words, Trump is offering a compromise in which the Democrats are being asked to give up some of what they really want — future immigration to tip the country to one-party rule like in California — in order to protect their Alien Minors.
     
    Well, it's nice to think that Trump is snookering the Democrats into a hard bargain that is ultimately beneficial for the GOP, the nation, and for whites.

    Even if the Democrats were to go for it, though, the wild card is the courts. Let's say Trump offers amnesty to the 1.8 million "Dreamers" ( I hate that term) in exchange for an end to chain migration... I could easily see a situation where the courts uphold the amnesty, but overrule the end to chain migration as unconstitutional under the Zeroth Amendment, enabling the Democrats to walk away from the poker table with everything, including Trump's last pair of clean shorts...

    Even if the Democrats were to go for it, though, the wild card is the courts.

    You took the words out of my mouth. Leftist pressure groups will take any bill to federal court with the objective of having activist judges strike down the the restrictionist provisions like ending chain migration and the diversity lottery. And they’ll probably get their wish in district court. They’ll judge shop the case first to ensure they get a left leaning judge.

    For the right to chain migrate dozens of “family” members and a diversity lottery are right in the Constitution. Any of us who can’t see it are just white supremacists.

    The bill being floated by the Trump WH only makes token reductions to chain migration. This is a crap bill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. As we all know, the inalienable right to immigrate to America is the most precious civil right possessed by Americans-to-be.

    That’s the same logic that is applied by Anti-Choicers (“right-to-lifers”) with regard to a certain red herring canard in American party politics: abortion.

    This is all about “Americans-to-be,” isn’t it? Just as abortion arguments are about humans-to-be, i.e. “unborn children.”

    Therein is a clue to why an alt-right, race-realist, Republican American can be pro-choice. (Not that this issue should be included in serious, American politics at this stage. It simply doesn’t matter with regard to saving our homeland and way of life. It just doesn’t matter.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Good comment.

    There are a LOT of issues that are not really Conservative or Liberal issues, but the self-styled leaders of certain movements convince people that to be a Conservative one MUST think a certain way, or to be a Liberal one MUST think a certain way.

    I am old enough to remember when the most prominent national politician to support legalized abortion was Barry Goldwater, the leader of the Conservative wing of the GOP.

    At the same time, the most prominent national politician to OPPOSE legalized abortion was Sargent Shriver, who was part of the Kennedy clan and the running mate of George McGovern.

    Goldwater came to a pro-legalization view from conservative principles: government should not interfere in the private lives of Americans.

    Shriver came to his anti-legalization view from a liberal Roman Catholic view, emphasis on the Roman Catholic. He was in favor of protecting the rights of unborn proto-Americans.

    What does the Constitution say? Nothing. Under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth. There are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution, but there ARE rights afforded to the prospective parents.
    , @nebulafox
    There's still a lot of delusion on the left that the alt-right was born from the religious right. Actually, it's a pretty secular beast, all around, helped by its overwhelmingly young, male profile. Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious. Like many other things like from the Bush II/Rove era of "conservatism", the alt-right defines itself in opposition to it. And it would make sense, right? Bush II's religious feelings definitely were a decided impulse in his dealings with the rest of the world-and stating that human rights don't stop at the Rio Grande isn't very conservative, really...

    If liberals hated the religious Right, they are *really* not going to like the post-religious Right.

    , @Anonymous
    That's not a good analogy. Abortion happens after conception but before infanticide. Abortion opponents don't pretend that a fetus has the right to vote or drive or various other rights that people have, and their opposition isn't grounded on an entitlement to those future rights.
    , @dfordoom

    It simply doesn’t matter with regard to saving our homeland and way of life. It just doesn’t matter.
     
    If that's how you see your way of life then all I can say is that saving that way of life simply doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @IHTG
    Something that alt-righters probably need to accept: Immigration policy will not be the tool by which America's white majority is directly preserved. Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions in which America's white population can retrench, reassert political power and bounce back over time.

    Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions 

    This. I tend to agree with the commenter in an earlier thread that, just as in the short term we have to accept the illegal alien minors, in the medium term we probably have to write off CA, NM, AZ, NV, and probably FL and TX, as North Mexico.

    Nothing can work unless there is a long-term grand strategy. Accept the Southwest as lost for at least two more generations, but hold the line on any mass immigration from Asia and Africa until around the Tricentennial (2076). Laager up in the rest of the country, and mitigate the damage from CA etc. being out of control by pushing for an Article V Convention of the States to renegotiate the federal-state balance. Then retool, rebuild, and reforge. By the last quarter of the 21st century our descendants can look to start a little reconquista of their own.

    Indulge your inner Han Chinese and think in terms of the long game of centuries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Good comment! I think California, with its sanctuary cities/state is already engaged in phased succession, defying the national government on selected issues. In the meantime, the issue for whites of European origin is more cultural--we have to start thinking of what's best for whites, especially if it disadvantages Negros, Mestizoes, Chinese etc. Stop regarding them as countrymen--they're not.

    A major crisis, such as a significant military defeat (aircraft carrier going down with all hands) or a financial panic could bring things to a head faster than anyone expects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Steve Sailer Doesn’t Speak For Me On This:

    The level of racial hatred found among the Democrats side on the immigration would be stunning if we weren’t all so used to it by now.

    I am not in any way used to the “level of racial hatred found among the Democrats” on the immigration issue. I am sent into a blood boiling rage with each new nasty attack upon Whites by the Democrats.

    I am delivered up to King Lear type stalkings through the stormy moor of ancient Britain when the Democrats launch another attack upon White Christians. I am made ready to wade through blood like proper English people should be when I hear another attack on White Core Americans by the evil, anti-White Democrats.

    I AIN’T INURED TO THE ANTI-WHITE ROT COMING FROM THE DEMOCRATS!

    AND I SHALL NEVER BE, DAMMIT!

    Do not wait for the weakling cowards in the Republican Party to stand up for the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. The current crop of treasonites running the Republican Party are in bed with the Democrats in their anti-White schemes against the historic American nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. @IHTG
    Something that alt-righters probably need to accept: Immigration policy will not be the tool by which America's white majority is directly preserved. Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions in which America's white population can retrench, reassert political power and bounce back over time.

    Immigration policy will not be the tool by which America’s white majority is directly preserved. Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions in which America’s white population can retrench, reassert political power and bounce back over time.

    Agree. Great post.

    Righty baby boomers, despite constantly looking down their noses at younger generations for our “impatience”, are unable to grasp the long term nature of the game and are in typical fashion freaking out that the aren’t getting exactly what they want Right F-ing Now*. It’s been 52 years and some change since the 1965 immigration act. It may take us 52 years to undo the damage. President Trump is the beginning.

    Immigration policy is downstream of power. As we retrench and reassert power, we can get better immigration policy. Right now, we can get what we can get, based on how much power we have. Take what we can and use it to build more power, then we get more of what we want. This isn’t complicated. It’s a lot of grinding. The only possible shortcut is to redpill more Whites, more rapidly and more extremely. Which my generation and those younger than me are doing as much as we can get away with (you’re welcome).

    *A flipside version of this boomertantrum is playing out in the Russia investigation. They can’t accept that they didn’t get what they want and can’t accept waiting to get it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Steve Sailer wrote in January of 2001:

    My VDARE article “GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote“—which demonstrated that if George W. Bush had merely won 57% instead of just 54% of the white vote, he would have earned an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171—continues to elicit strong reactions.

     


    A supporter tried to post my article on the conservative discussion website www.FreeRepublic.com, which played such an heroic role in exposing the Clinton scandals. Alas, the owner, Jim Robinson, deleted it. He claimed it was “divisive” and “promoting racism.” Eventually, a more open-minded citizen sneaked it past the vigilant Mr. Robinson. Numerous people then responded in a rational manner. Despite Mr. Robinson`s fears, all this free speech did not bring about the end of the world as we know it.

     

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/banned-by-free-republic

    Before the September 11, 2001 Islamic Terrorist Attacks there were people and internet sites who would not tolerate the discussion of voter demographics. The baby boomer morons didn't have the guts to face the demographic future of the United States.

    White Identity Politics Is The Future

    Whites Will Win If They Want It
    , @Mr. Anon

    It’s been 52 years and some change since the 1965 immigration act. It may take us 52 years to undo the damage. President Trump is the beginning.
     
    Time is not on our side. With every passing year, whites become a smaller and smaller fraction of the population. At some point, the demographic change will be irreversible. It might already be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Wilkey says:

    One more other change Trump needs to require in exchange for a DACA amnesty is a change to Temporary Protected Status. Currently it allows president’s to renew “protected status” pretty much ad infinitum, at least it would seem. Salvadorans have been having their TPS renewed every 18 months or so for the last 17 years. Maybe it’s time to limit that to 3 years or whatever, maximum. Personally I think that so long as we have birthright citizenship any so-called “temporary” immigration status is a complete lie.

    And the elimination of birthright citizenship would be the ultimate change. It’s fraught with complications – it’s elimination may require a Constitutional amendment or, at least, SCOTUS may say it does. But eliminating it be a huge win, and we’ll never get there unless we start publicly discussing it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @anon

    The American Civil Liberties Union called the White House plan a “hateful, xenophobic immigration proposal that would slash legal immigration to levels not seen since the racial quotas of the 1920s.”
     
    Why would the ACLU even write an opinion on this? Immigration to the US isn't a civil liberty, since the potential immigrants aren't even here yet. Determining our immigration laws is a civil liberty, though.

    I mean, I know why they're doing it. Someone should just point out that they shouldn't.

    Absolutely.

    Since I have been a liberal since my birth near the end of the Eisenhower Administration, I know a little about the Left. Not the stereotypes right-wingers have about the Left, nor the self-congratulating stereotypes some on the Left have about themselves, but the REAL Left. (Though to be honest, I have been pretty much avoiding hard-core Lefties for the past 25 years. One gets tired of them quickly.)

    On the Left, the 1960s are treated as a sacred decade. One left-wing writer made fun of his peers a few decades back by referring to the 60s as “The One True Decade”.

    Well, Lefties see the 60s as the time of the Civil Rights Movement (which really started up big time in the post WWII era, esp. in the 1950s), the anti-Vietnam War movement (which hit its peak in the late 60s and early 70s), Free Love (which was really just massive sexual exploitation of girls and young women), hippies (who were completely directionless, looking for any leader to exploit them), etc.

    Left-wingers since that time have been looking for a Defining Cause. Something they can protest about, riot about, etc. that will define them as being Activists on the Right Side of History. (Technically the Left Side, sometimes right and sometimes wrong).

    What do you do with Leftists who missed the Civil Rights and Antiwar protests?

    So, the Leftists go into several causes. Gay Rights. Transgender Rights. Immigrant “Rights”. “Resistance”. … and so on.

    Look at the Rights. No matter what you feel about the Gay Rights and the Transgender Rights movements, they ARE battles over Civil Rights. What rights will Americans have in their own country.

    As you pointed out, Immigrant “Rights” are NOT a Civil Rights issue, by definition. But most Leftists convince themselves it IS a Civil Rights issue. Zeroth Amendment and all that.

    As for the “Resistance”? That is a catch-all for disgruntled Leftists to protest Trump. Rather than protesting this or that program of Trump, the logic is simple. If Trump is for it, good Leftists are against it. If Trump is against it, good Leftists are for it. Trouble is, Trump can often give 2 or 3 or 10 conflicting opinions on the same day. ALL of them VERY BAD, of course.

    I hope this clears things up. I am still a liberal, but I hate the trendy leftists. One of my daughters wanted to participate in a Woman’s March last year, but I talked her out of it. One of the leaders of the March (Angela Davis) was a leader of the Communist Party USA who had been part of a terrorist organization. Another leader of the march was a convicted Palestinian terrorist. Even though my mother helped found a feminist organization, and a close family friend helped found NOW, there was no way I was going to let my daughter be part of a movement led by terrorists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    " I am still a liberal"

    Why? The trendy leftists you refer to seem to just be the logical next progression in liberalism. Is it that you'd like to be only half-pregnant?

    Liberalism is for either the vicious or the stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Anon7
    I'm hoping that this proposal, like others before it, is intended to expose the extremism of the Democrat leadership. This proposal will never be accepted by them, for reasons stated before; the Democratic play here is to bring in enough Democrat-voting welfare recipients that they will never be challenged again by the descendants of our country's founders. They are so close! it has to be part of their extreme disappointment over the last election.

    The more marches and strident demands by non-citizens, the better. Democrats should be forced into the most extreme positions possible; 3.6 million "DREAMERs" must become citizens, the tens of millions of other non-citizens loitering on American soil must also be cherished and "brought out of the shadows" i.e. given full citizenship, they must be permitted to bring in all of their relatives, the borders must remain porous and untended, the future of America must be made a beautiful brown, etc.

    I'm hoping (I do that a lot) that enough Black and Hispanic citizens will notice the historically high rates of employment for their groups, and will see it as a result of Trump's immigration restriction. I'm also hoping that all Americans will note that employers reflect their fear of Trump's immigration restriction in their bonuses and pay raises (like Walmart's across the board $1 per hour increase).

    I'm hoping, as I say, that this is intended to set the stage for the 2018 primaries and elections. President Trump will make clear who can be expected to support him. Note that the earliest 2018 primaries are in May (except for Illinois), while the latest occur in August and September (except for Louisiana). The election will be held on November 6th.

    The 2018 election will determine our country's future, for demography truly is destiny. Be hopeful.

    The 2018 election will determine our country’s future

    Lmao. Just like the 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections. This is the big one guys! Really this time!

    The future of the political entity of the United States is unimportant.

    What will determine our nation’s future is what goes on in the hearts/minds of White people. If we understand the game and decide we want to win, we will have the future we want. No matter what happens in any election.

    Read More
    • Agree: Charles Pewitt, Anonym
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    What will determine our nation’s future is what goes on in the hearts/minds of White people. If we understand the game and decide we want to win, we will have the future we want.

    I mostly concur. Politics certainly matters, but the only real thing that will secure victory is if whites change our culture and our attitudes and, of course, our birthrates. No law can force us to do that nor can any law, except the most draconian, stop us from doing it.

    How many children Trump voters decide to have, and how we raise them, is more important than whether Trump gets reelected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INFILTRATORS NOW!

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. WIlkey says:

    Greisa Martinez Rosas of United We Dream, one of the leading Dreamer groups, called the plan “a white supremacist ransom note.”

    Based on this apparently about 90% of the non-white countries in the world are governed by racial supremacists of one kind or another – Oriental Supremacists, Jewish Supremacists, Hispano Supremacists, and Afro Supremacists.

    We used international pressure to force South Africa to end a racial policy we disapproved of. Perhaps if Trump’s preferred immigration policies are so horribly racist it’s time to start pressuring other countries with even more racist immigration policies to change, as well, or else subject them to boycotts, trade sanctions, blockades, and all the rest. If these people are really serious it would only make sense, right? Let’s boycott and blockade Israel and India and Japan until their immigration and citizenship they eliminate their race supremacist immigration and citizenship policies. Who but a racist would object?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @Buzz Mohawk

    As we all know, the inalienable right to immigrate to America is the most precious civil right possessed by Americans-to-be.
     
    That's the same logic that is applied by Anti-Choicers ("right-to-lifers") with regard to a certain red herring canard in American party politics: abortion.

    This is all about "Americans-to-be," isn't it? Just as abortion arguments are about humans-to-be, i.e. "unborn children."

    Therein is a clue to why an alt-right, race-realist, Republican American can be pro-choice. (Not that this issue should be included in serious, American politics at this stage. It simply doesn't matter with regard to saving our homeland and way of life. It just doesn't matter.)

    Good comment.

    There are a LOT of issues that are not really Conservative or Liberal issues, but the self-styled leaders of certain movements convince people that to be a Conservative one MUST think a certain way, or to be a Liberal one MUST think a certain way.

    I am old enough to remember when the most prominent national politician to support legalized abortion was Barry Goldwater, the leader of the Conservative wing of the GOP.

    At the same time, the most prominent national politician to OPPOSE legalized abortion was Sargent Shriver, who was part of the Kennedy clan and the running mate of George McGovern.

    Goldwater came to a pro-legalization view from conservative principles: government should not interfere in the private lives of Americans.

    Shriver came to his anti-legalization view from a liberal Roman Catholic view, emphasis on the Roman Catholic. He was in favor of protecting the rights of unborn proto-Americans.

    What does the Constitution say? Nothing. Under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth. There are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution, but there ARE rights afforded to the prospective parents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    What does the Constitution say? Nothing. Under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth. There are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution, but there ARE rights afforded to the prospective parents.
     
    It is true that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. The Constitution is not a civil or criminal code.

    However, it is false to say that "under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth."

    The ratification of the Constitution did not wipe out the common law. It modified those portions of English common law that (for example) related to the monarchy, but left the great bulk of it in place. The powers of the Federal government under the Constitution are limited; plenary powers remain with the states, except for those they explicitly surrendered to the Federal government. Article IV, section 4, guarantees to each state a republican form of government. This permits their legislatures to modify or abolish aspects of the common law and to make new statutory law dealing with matters about which the common law is silent.

    Consider some examples of pre-existing statute and common law that the Constitution left alone -

    It permitted the continued existence of statutorially-established state churches in Connecticut until 1818 and in Massachusetts until 1833 (the First Amendment was viewed at the time as restraining only the Federal government from making any law respecting the establishment of religion).

    It left in place the common law respecting the quasi-feudal copyhold tenure by which farmers held land of a lord of the manor on the rolls of his manorial court. While this had largely fallen into desuetude elsewhere it persisted in New York, where Stephen van Rensselaer inherited the manor of Rensselaerswijk in 1769. After his death in 1839, the efforts of his heirs to collect back rents provoked a popular rebellion, the Anti-Rent War. This concluded in the New York Constitution of 1846, which included provisions for tenants' rights and effectively wound down the manorial system.

    Many people are surprised to discover these survivals, but survive they did, without any Constitutional objections.

    Until Roe v. Wade, the regulation of abortion had long been held to fall within the scope of common law. Blackstone wrote,

    "Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the antient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemesnor.

    "An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. And in this point the civil law* agrees with ours." (Commentaries on the Law of England, 1765)
    ___
    *i.e., Roman law.

    Even earlier, Henry de Bracton wrote:

    "If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the fetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide." (De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliæ, c. 1250)

    The Constitution no more repealed or nullified these provisions of common law than it did the common law of copyhold in New York or the statutes establishing the Congregational churches of Connecticut or Massachusetts. Further, the Constitution left to the legislatures of the several states the authority to alter or abolish those provisions of common law. When they first began to do so, it was generally to protect the unborn even before quickening or the formation of the fœtus, and this was typically justified by advances in biological and medical knowledge.

    Whatever you might believe about the morality of abortion, it is clear from legal history that the Constitution was never regarded as repealing the common law as it regarded the rights of the unborn until Roe v. Wade. There is no support, before that 1973 decision, for your claim that "there are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution."

    , @Reg Cæsar

    Goldwater came to a pro-legalization view from conservative principles: government should not interfere in the private lives of Americans
     
    No, he came to it from being married to the president of his state's Planned Parenthood chapter.

    There are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution, but there ARE rights afforded to the prospective parents
     
    The "prospective" (actually actual) parents have duties as well. We recognize this on the male side; participation in the sex act leaves one responsible for the result, with obligations incurred to (at least) two others. But women are treated as moral minors after the same act.

    The rights argument against abortion, whatever its intrinsic merits, was one of the biggest political blunders in our history. It fired up their side, yes, but did the same and more for their opponents. There was almost no "prochoice" movement among American women well through the 1960s-- it was a cause for population controllers, eugenicists, and pornographers, nearly all male.

    Making a duty-based case, as proposed by Doris Gordon and later Ron Paul, would have left the other side looking stupid and delinquent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. a reader says:

    OT,

    Why are black poor Americans more optimistic than white ones?

    By the way, since when are Whites “Other race“?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Black poor Americans are probably more optimistic because they think that their welfare gravy train is going to keep rolling forever. White Americans of all income levels are pessimistic because they expect to be robbed further to pay for the gravy train.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Wilkey says:
    @27 year old

    The 2018 election will determine our country’s future
     
    Lmao. Just like the 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections. This is the big one guys! Really this time!

    The future of the political entity of the United States is unimportant.

    What will determine our nation's future is what goes on in the hearts/minds of White people. If we understand the game and decide we want to win, we will have the future we want. No matter what happens in any election.

    What will determine our nation’s future is what goes on in the hearts/minds of White people. If we understand the game and decide we want to win, we will have the future we want.

    I mostly concur. Politics certainly matters, but the only real thing that will secure victory is if whites change our culture and our attitudes and, of course, our birthrates. No law can force us to do that nor can any law, except the most draconian, stop us from doing it.

    How many children Trump voters decide to have, and how we raise them, is more important than whether Trump gets reelected.

    Read More
    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @27 year old

    Immigration policy will not be the tool by which America’s white majority is directly preserved. Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions in which America’s white population can retrench, reassert political power and bounce back over time.
     
    Agree. Great post.

    Righty baby boomers, despite constantly looking down their noses at younger generations for our "impatience", are unable to grasp the long term nature of the game and are in typical fashion freaking out that the aren't getting exactly what they want Right F-ing Now*. It's been 52 years and some change since the 1965 immigration act. It may take us 52 years to undo the damage. President Trump is the beginning.

    Immigration policy is downstream of power. As we retrench and reassert power, we can get better immigration policy. Right now, we can get what we can get, based on how much power we have. Take what we can and use it to build more power, then we get more of what we want. This isn't complicated. It's a lot of grinding. The only possible shortcut is to redpill more Whites, more rapidly and more extremely. Which my generation and those younger than me are doing as much as we can get away with (you're welcome).

    *A flipside version of this boomertantrum is playing out in the Russia investigation. They can't accept that they didn't get what they want and can't accept waiting to get it.

    Steve Sailer wrote in January of 2001:

    My VDARE article “GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote“—which demonstrated that if George W. Bush had merely won 57% instead of just 54% of the white vote, he would have earned an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171—continues to elicit strong reactions.

    A supporter tried to post my article on the conservative discussion website http://www.FreeRepublic.com, which played such an heroic role in exposing the Clinton scandals. Alas, the owner, Jim Robinson, deleted it. He claimed it was “divisive” and “promoting racism.” Eventually, a more open-minded citizen sneaked it past the vigilant Mr. Robinson. Numerous people then responded in a rational manner. Despite Mr. Robinson`s fears, all this free speech did not bring about the end of the world as we know it.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/banned-by-free-republic

    Before the September 11, 2001 Islamic Terrorist Attacks there were people and internet sites who would not tolerate the discussion of voter demographics. The baby boomer morons didn’t have the guts to face the demographic future of the United States.

    White Identity Politics Is The Future

    Whites Will Win If They Want It

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Travis says:

    The ACLU is lying…The Trump proposal will not reduce Legal immigration , but will actually increase legal immigration. The Trump plan would allocate the 50,000 diversity visas among other immigrants with skills…the Trump plan does not reduce Legal immigration, but actually raises it by 1.8 million instantly.

    The plan should cap legal immigration at 950,000 per year…which would include the DACA recipients who obtained amnesty. Currently 1.1 million legally immigrate to America each year and under the Trump plan this will actually double to over 2 million per year.

    They should impose a fine of $6,500 on each dreamer…this would raise $12 billion to fund the construction of the wall. imposing fines on law breakers is already done..for example back in 1998 my wife was forced to pay a fine of $1,100 when we applied for her green card, because she had over stayed her visa……Yet the DACA recipients only had to pay a $250 fee…I see no reason why the fines imposed on law breakers should not be raised to compensate for inflation and help fund the wall. Everything costs more today, except the fees charged by the INS are the same as in 1997…still costs $1,200 to apply for a green card, same fee as in 1998.

    Clinton made it much more difficult to change ones immigration status in 1996. My eldest Brother-in-law entered the United states in 1988 with a visa, good for 3 months…5 years later he married an American and was granted a Green Card immediately…congress changed the rules so when I married my wife in 1998 she was granted work authorization, but not a green card…18 months after we were married we had an interview to obtain the green card and she was deported to Chile…she had apply for a waiver, pay a fine and obtain her green card at the US embassy in Chile, which took another 3 months. The changes Clinton made in 1997 made it much more difficult to change your immigration status via marriage, forcing applicants to pay a fine and leave the United States to obtain their green cars in their country of origin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Mr. Anon says:
    @27 year old

    Immigration policy will not be the tool by which America’s white majority is directly preserved. Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions in which America’s white population can retrench, reassert political power and bounce back over time.
     
    Agree. Great post.

    Righty baby boomers, despite constantly looking down their noses at younger generations for our "impatience", are unable to grasp the long term nature of the game and are in typical fashion freaking out that the aren't getting exactly what they want Right F-ing Now*. It's been 52 years and some change since the 1965 immigration act. It may take us 52 years to undo the damage. President Trump is the beginning.

    Immigration policy is downstream of power. As we retrench and reassert power, we can get better immigration policy. Right now, we can get what we can get, based on how much power we have. Take what we can and use it to build more power, then we get more of what we want. This isn't complicated. It's a lot of grinding. The only possible shortcut is to redpill more Whites, more rapidly and more extremely. Which my generation and those younger than me are doing as much as we can get away with (you're welcome).

    *A flipside version of this boomertantrum is playing out in the Russia investigation. They can't accept that they didn't get what they want and can't accept waiting to get it.

    It’s been 52 years and some change since the 1965 immigration act. It may take us 52 years to undo the damage. President Trump is the beginning.

    Time is not on our side. With every passing year, whites become a smaller and smaller fraction of the population. At some point, the demographic change will be irreversible. It might already be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Ed says:
    @Dr. X

    In other words, Trump is offering a compromise in which the Democrats are being asked to give up some of what they really want — future immigration to tip the country to one-party rule like in California — in order to protect their Alien Minors.
     
    Well, it's nice to think that Trump is snookering the Democrats into a hard bargain that is ultimately beneficial for the GOP, the nation, and for whites.

    Even if the Democrats were to go for it, though, the wild card is the courts. Let's say Trump offers amnesty to the 1.8 million "Dreamers" ( I hate that term) in exchange for an end to chain migration... I could easily see a situation where the courts uphold the amnesty, but overrule the end to chain migration as unconstitutional under the Zeroth Amendment, enabling the Democrats to walk away from the poker table with everything, including Trump's last pair of clean shorts...

    You mean the courts that are increasingly being stacked with conservative judges thanks to Trump. I swear some of you guys are getting as bad as liberals with your unhinged rhetoric around immigration.

    We are not deporting millions of people. I suppose they could lose their documents and melt in the shadows. You’d still have one million people coming in legally every year. Slowly and surely changing America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. istevefan says:
    @eah
    Alien Minors

    Key facts about unauthorized immigrants enrolled in DACA

    By region, almost all current DACA recipients were born in Mexico or Central or South America (648,430, or 94%)...Nearly half (45%) of current DACA recipients live in just two states: California (29%) and Texas (16%)...The average age of “Dreamers” enrolled in DACA is 24 years old...About a quarter (24%) are ages 26-30, while one-in-ten (11%) are ages 31-36.

    DACA should be rejected on 'diversity' grounds alone -- it is not a very diverse (or young: 35% are at least 26 y/o) group.

    DACA should be rejected on ‘diversity’ grounds alone — it is not a very diverse (or young: 35% are at least 26 y/o) group.

    Additionally not only are these DACAns not very diverse, they are predominately from the new world. Think about that. Mass immigration from the new world is a serious indictment on the home nations of these people. They have manage to piss away the advantages of creating new nations in resource-rich places in about two centuries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Looks like the equivalent of the Second Continental Congress’s “Olive Branch Petition” of July 5, 1775, issued as a last ditch effort to avoid a conflict with the Muvva Country. Not surprisingly, George III declined. Whether intended or not, almost exactly one year thereafter the colonies officially separated. We know the rest of the story. That was then, this is now. Same result?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Flip says:

    I would trade legalizing the people who were brought here as kids and a wall for no H1B visas, no birthright citizenship for illegals, E-Verify and employer sanctions, no chain immigration, and a reduction in legal immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Elsewhere

    I would trade legalizing the people who were brought here as kids and a wall for no H1B visas, no birthright citizenship for illegals, E-Verify and employer sanctions, no chain immigration, and a reduction in legal immigration.
     
    Me, too. I've said as much in the comments of those Trump surveys.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. syonredux says:

    In terms of sheer racial hatred, Rep. Gutierrez is tough too beat:

    It would be far cheaper to erect a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger and point it towards Latin America.

    I get the feeling that he would be totally on board with erecting a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger pointing towards Anglo- America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    I get the feeling that he would be totally on board with erecting a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger pointing towards Anglo- America.
     
    People will frequently comment on Jews wanting to stick it to the white gentiles for some sort of payback. But what about the Spanish and Latin Americans? Haven't the Spanish had an animus with the English going back to the privateers and the armada days? And don't the Latin American elite have a similar animus, probably inherited from Spain, towards the North Americans?

    There is no way Latin Americans are not looking upon the demographic transformation of the US as the capture of the ultimate prize. In effect we are seeing Latin America expand before our eyes. Which is unreal given how unsuccessful Latin America has been.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @The Alarmist
    The Dems have to sound tough for their base. They might give Trump the wall, but the limits to legal immigration will be easily circumvented because the US CoC likes the flow of slave cheap qualified willing workers who will do the work Americans won't do at the paltry wages they are willing to offer too much to let the door close on this bottom-line-enhancing source of human capital.

    Yes. If built, the wall will just be an expensive showpiece. If we are going to settle for a showpiece, let’s have the giant concrete middle finger mentioned yesterday.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Immigration is about sharing in the exploitation of the country, not sharing in the building or maintaining it.

    The only thing worse for nonwhites than having to live in a country built by whites is not being allowed to immigrate to a country built by whites.

    WE Don’t Owe YOU Anything: White Genocide is a crime, not a policy option:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. nebulafox says:

    *All year long*, Trump has been making it clear that he wants the easiest possible way out of the DREAMer issue. He hasn’t been subtle about it. He’s also been under enormous pressure from the Kushners and the Ivankas of his personal crowd to not deport them, and Bannon’s departure made it clear they won the civil war. It speaks to how radicalized the Dems have become that they haven’t given him one and have instead pursued the one single route that might make him take a hard tack against DACA. Still, can’t say I’m too surprised. According to contemporary liberal thinking, Trump’s motives are “racist”, therefore, his policies are, and so would their execution. Policies are to be debated not on feasibility or merit, but on morality. Such is the logical conclusion of the ideological atmosphere of the modern Democratic Party, no matter how politically insane it is.

    Trump is not some long-term strategic thinker, contrary to racialist dogma: that his views on the DREAMers and the border are completely contradictory doesn’t cause him problems. He’s fine with being insulted and doesn’t mind being caricatured, given his personal background in New York as a real estate developer turned reality TV show host. What he will respond harshly to is having his authority as executive brought into question, because his policies are “racist”, and that’s exactly what the lefties are stupidly doing. That, and they are massively misinterpreting how “sympathetic” Republicans (plantation owner economy advocates like Graham and modern Randists like Ryan excepted) view the DACA crowd: as a reluctant concession, not a goal in and of itself. Their base will go wild if they viewed it otherwise, anyway. The Dreamers might be the least worst illegals, most suitable for Americanization, but illegals nevertheless they still are: and with increasingly obnoxious supporters to boot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. istevefan says:
    @syonredux
    In terms of sheer racial hatred, Rep. Gutierrez is tough too beat:

    It would be far cheaper to erect a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger and point it towards Latin America.
     
    https://twitter.com/RepGutierrez/status/956657630818324480


    I get the feeling that he would be totally on board with erecting a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger pointing towards Anglo- America.

    I get the feeling that he would be totally on board with erecting a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger pointing towards Anglo- America.

    People will frequently comment on Jews wanting to stick it to the white gentiles for some sort of payback. But what about the Spanish and Latin Americans? Haven’t the Spanish had an animus with the English going back to the privateers and the armada days? And don’t the Latin American elite have a similar animus, probably inherited from Spain, towards the North Americans?

    There is no way Latin Americans are not looking upon the demographic transformation of the US as the capture of the ultimate prize. In effect we are seeing Latin America expand before our eyes. Which is unreal given how unsuccessful Latin America has been.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    We are clearly becoming more like Latin America with a mixed race population, weak public finances, and less rule of law, but I think it is being driven by the American elites which have become disconnected from and hostile to the majority population.
    , @Anonymous
    Here's your answer:

    "Latin Americans show wide-spread Converso ancestry and the imprint of local Native ancestry on physical appearance"

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/23/252155

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

    A converso (Spanish: [komˈberso]; Portuguese: [kõˈvɛɾsu]; feminine form conversa), "a convert", (from Latin conversvs, "converted, turned around") was a Jew who converted to Roman Catholicism in Spain or Portugal, particularly during the 14th and 15th centuries, or one of their descendants.
     
    , @syonredux

    People will frequently comment on Jews wanting to stick it to the white gentiles for some sort of payback. But what about the Spanish and Latin Americans? Haven’t the Spanish had an animus with the English going back to the privateers and the armada days? And don’t the Latin American elite have a similar animus, probably inherited from Spain, towards the North Americans?
     
    Yep. If memory serves, Steve once dubbed the Latinx demographic war being waged against Anglo-America Catherine of Aragon's Revenge.
    , @syonredux
    Here is the mind of the Latinx enemy:

    . This mandate from History is first noticed in that
    abundance of love that allowed the Spaniard to create a new race
    with the Indian and the Black, profusely spreading white ancestry
    through the soldier who begat a native family, and Occidental
    culture through the doctrine and example of the missionaries who
    placed the Indians in condition to enter into the new stage. . . .
    Spanish colonization created mixed races, this signals its
    character, fixes its responsibility, and defines its future. The
    English kept on mixing only with the whites and annihilated the
    natives. Even today, they continue to annihilate them in a sordid
    and economic fight, more efficient yet than armed conquest. This
    proves their limitation and is indication of their decadence. The
    situation is equivalent, in a larger scale, to the incestuous
    marriages of the pharaohs which undermined the virtues of the
    race; and it contradicts the ulterior goals of History to attain the
    fusion of peoples and cultures. To build an English world and to
    exterminate the red man, so that Northern Europe could be
    renovated all over an America made up with pure whites, is no
    more than a repetition of the triumphant process of a conquering race.

     

    Jose Vasconcellos, The Cosmic Race

    nside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/Mexicoreader/Chapter7/vasconcelos.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. nebulafox says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    As we all know, the inalienable right to immigrate to America is the most precious civil right possessed by Americans-to-be.
     
    That's the same logic that is applied by Anti-Choicers ("right-to-lifers") with regard to a certain red herring canard in American party politics: abortion.

    This is all about "Americans-to-be," isn't it? Just as abortion arguments are about humans-to-be, i.e. "unborn children."

    Therein is a clue to why an alt-right, race-realist, Republican American can be pro-choice. (Not that this issue should be included in serious, American politics at this stage. It simply doesn't matter with regard to saving our homeland and way of life. It just doesn't matter.)

    There’s still a lot of delusion on the left that the alt-right was born from the religious right. Actually, it’s a pretty secular beast, all around, helped by its overwhelmingly young, male profile. Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious. Like many other things like from the Bush II/Rove era of “conservatism”, the alt-right defines itself in opposition to it. And it would make sense, right? Bush II’s religious feelings definitely were a decided impulse in his dealings with the rest of the world-and stating that human rights don’t stop at the Rio Grande isn’t very conservative, really…

    If liberals hated the religious Right, they are *really* not going to like the post-religious Right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    If you mean alt-right = nazi larping dorks, then sure.

    But alt-right once just meant alternative to the big donor right. You know, like our illustrious host (barely, because he's not very Right, but he's plenty alt). Plenty of Christians there, including many of the best. We're just not so into the whole carrying pictures of Chairman Goebbels thing.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious....If liberals hated the religious Right, they are really not going to like the post-religious Right.
     
    Are you two feeling proud of yourselves, Buzz Mohawk and nebulafox? Because this exchange was one of the most wrongheaded and disgusting acts of mindlessness I've ever seen here. You both can consider yourselves useless to the cause, stripped of all honor, and never to be taken seriously again.

    First of all, there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views. Not only is abortion a murderous travesty in and of itself, it is integral to the modern Progressive Left's dystopian social policies of female empowerment and race replacement. It is also impossible to reverse a catastrophic demographic decline by killing more babies.

    Second, there is no such thing as post-religiousness, and there is certainly no such thing as the post-religious Right. To be on the Right means to be religious, in the genuine metaphysical sense. Everything else is from the Left. Metaphysical religion demands a robust superstructure that can absorb and withstand the highest developments of philosophy and politics. Phony, sentimental religion like Evangelical Protestantism does not even qualify in this regard, but Trentian throne-and-altar Catholicism is something entirely different. There is no truth, no Right, and no Western civilization apart from it.

    Thirdly, and Alt-Right that attempts to be atheistic or agnostic is nothing but a pathetic joke, a coterie of losers, fiction buffs, shallow-pates, and "Nazi-LARPing dorks." There is no substance to it and no hope of political success open to it. It is a late blooming subspecies of materialist socialism, stunted and scentless, fit only for meaningless street brawling with the antifa punks, of whom it is the mirror image
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @IHTG
    Something that alt-righters probably need to accept: Immigration policy will not be the tool by which America's white majority is directly preserved. Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions in which America's white population can retrench, reassert political power and bounce back over time.

    This whole alt-righters = nazi larpers thing y’all keep pushing breaks down on the simple fact that it’s (globohomo) whites who’ve gotten us into this mess and continue to do their best to make it worse.

    It doesn’t get better until we figure out the causes of progtardism and find a cure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. densa says:
    @Dr. X

    In other words, Trump is offering a compromise in which the Democrats are being asked to give up some of what they really want — future immigration to tip the country to one-party rule like in California — in order to protect their Alien Minors.
     
    Well, it's nice to think that Trump is snookering the Democrats into a hard bargain that is ultimately beneficial for the GOP, the nation, and for whites.

    Even if the Democrats were to go for it, though, the wild card is the courts. Let's say Trump offers amnesty to the 1.8 million "Dreamers" ( I hate that term) in exchange for an end to chain migration... I could easily see a situation where the courts uphold the amnesty, but overrule the end to chain migration as unconstitutional under the Zeroth Amendment, enabling the Democrats to walk away from the poker table with everything, including Trump's last pair of clean shorts...

    Based on the demonstrations we’ve seen, complete with waving Mexican flags while demanding citizenship and supremacy, I think the Dreamers would be more accurately known as Demanders.

    And I agree that today’s courts would make a mockery of this compromise. It will be a one-way street with any controls constantly challenged and delayed if not denied while this amnesty expands and the next wave of amnesty-in-waiting forms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @nebulafox
    There's still a lot of delusion on the left that the alt-right was born from the religious right. Actually, it's a pretty secular beast, all around, helped by its overwhelmingly young, male profile. Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious. Like many other things like from the Bush II/Rove era of "conservatism", the alt-right defines itself in opposition to it. And it would make sense, right? Bush II's religious feelings definitely were a decided impulse in his dealings with the rest of the world-and stating that human rights don't stop at the Rio Grande isn't very conservative, really...

    If liberals hated the religious Right, they are *really* not going to like the post-religious Right.

    If you mean alt-right = nazi larping dorks, then sure.

    But alt-right once just meant alternative to the big donor right. You know, like our illustrious host (barely, because he’s not very Right, but he’s plenty alt). Plenty of Christians there, including many of the best. We’re just not so into the whole carrying pictures of Chairman Goebbels thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Whiskey says: • Website

    Amnesty Don is correct and Trump caved like a cuckworthy Paul Ryan. No, that’s unfair to Ryan, at least Ryan would have gotten something out of the deal. Trump laid down his initial marker, “at least” 10 million anti-White immigrants getting citizenship.

    Do the math: 1.8 million gets bumped up to 2 million. A judge somewhere rules that its illegal not to grant them instant citizenship. They each bring in five relatives apiece who must also be granted instant citizenship. That’s 1o million right there.

    And with chain migration you get 20, 30, 40 million pretty soon. Its Open Borders palooza, with Trump showing the backbone of a wet noodle. Things to take away from this: A. Trump is stupid. B. Trump cares most about what his idiot daughter thinks (folks that’s what happens when you marry and have kids with a woman based purely on looks not intelligence) not taking care of his base. C. Trump listens to whoever he’s around: Davosie Elite, Lindsay Grahamnesty, Steven Bannon. D. We miss Steve Bannon.

    But the weakness of the anti-Open borders movement is the asymmetric risk-reward posed by mass Third World immigration to White men and women. Merkel Cat ladies all get boy-toys half their age and so its Rapefugees Welcome. White middle and working class men get drowned in a sea of cheap immigrant labor, from Salvadoran roofers to Indian H1-B programmers. But White women get lots of cheap servants and people to be social workers, nannies, minders, babysitters, teachers over with a dose of moral lecturing and HATE HATE HATE for their eternal enemy: Beta Male White men. Heartiste has a post up by some woman noting “its not natural” that a family consists of a man, a woman, some kids. But rather women “leading society” and the men all fight and kill each other and the women only have sex with the winners. That’s the extreme but most White women have that to some degree if not openly expressed and desired.

    [MORE]

    America, mostly White, some Black, almost nothing else, was unique. It was worth fighting for, from Peanuts holiday cartoons to Santa Claus to your backyard barbecue when young to the Rose Parade and Rose Bowl to Thanksgiving and Christmas and Fourth of July. But only to White beta males — who being valueless on the sexual marketplace have no political or social power to protect their interests. As noted in the FT many times, White women globally vote for open borders. They get all the Alpha invaders they want, and get to drown icky nerdy beta males in a society that creates vast inequality, violence, and poverty. All the better to act out their emotional fantasies of rescuing Third Worlders and fighting icky White guys who hit on them not knowing or caring they are not Tom Brady.

    If the mass of White men really cared enough, they would punish those who push for Open Borders: Chucky Schemer, Nancy Palsi, White women, the media, and Donald Trump. Chucky Schemer must have all sorts of nasty corrupt deals that would not survive sunlight, and the various private behavior of most feminists and open borders advocates would not survive scrutiny either. Look at the “Dreamers” — they are screaming and threatening Chucky Schemer. Why are not we doing things to make him MORE scared? Why have not prominent Open Borders advocates been made explicit examples of — corrupt financial transactions that are illegal publicized and authorities forced to act or explain laws only apply to White men?

    White slavery is indeed coming, at least for White men. California is a good example — its only 37% White and Rob Reiner won’t be paying taxes for all those illegals. Which means slavery for people like me and Steve, so that the maximum money can be extracted to pay for the illegals. Its simple math — there is not enough money to go around unless White men are enslaved and made to work under force to generate that money. It will be a different kind of slavery Engineers and Scientists not field agricultural laborers. But slavery nevertheless.

    TL:DR — If I wanted a roll-over weakling I’d voted !Jeb! Bush.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. I BLAME HUGUENOT BOOZEHOUND BRIT NIGEL FARAGE

    For What?

    I blame Nigel Farage for all this BACKSTABBER talk from Trump about amnesty for illegal aliens and wanting to go to a “merit based” point system of immigration in the United States. Nigel Farage repeated his claim that he wanted to leave the EU to reclaim British sovereignty on immigration policy. Farage chewed Trump’s ear off about this damn Australian Style Point System that allowed the antipodeans to pick and choose immigrants based on the potential for their contribution to Australia.

    The United States should be deporting illegal aliens and halting all future legal immigration. Instead, under the influence of Farage, Trump is screaming about more high skilled immigrants and giving amnesty to illegal alien invaders.

    I accuse Nigel Farage of bending Trump’s brain towards amnesty for illegal aliens and a bullshit “merit” system of legal immigrant screening.

    Farage Says Australian Style Point System Innumerable Times:

    Read More
    • LOL: IHTG
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Read More
    • Replies: @larry lurker
    A good redpilling question to ask people: "Would you want your daughter to be the only girl at school without her head covered?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    They are hungry for all that SPLC money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Flip says:
    @istevefan

    I get the feeling that he would be totally on board with erecting a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger pointing towards Anglo- America.
     
    People will frequently comment on Jews wanting to stick it to the white gentiles for some sort of payback. But what about the Spanish and Latin Americans? Haven't the Spanish had an animus with the English going back to the privateers and the armada days? And don't the Latin American elite have a similar animus, probably inherited from Spain, towards the North Americans?

    There is no way Latin Americans are not looking upon the demographic transformation of the US as the capture of the ultimate prize. In effect we are seeing Latin America expand before our eyes. Which is unreal given how unsuccessful Latin America has been.

    We are clearly becoming more like Latin America with a mixed race population, weak public finances, and less rule of law, but I think it is being driven by the American elites which have become disconnected from and hostile to the majority population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Look at a picture of Gen. Dwight Eisenhower or Gen. Omar Bradley in their Class A's ... now look at any senior US military commander in his or her Class A's. Yes, we have become just another Latin American country.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Dwight_D._Eisenhower#/media/File%3AGeneral_of_the_Army_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_1947.jpg

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus#/media/File%3AGEN_Petraeus_Aug_2011_Photo.jpg

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bradley#/media/File%3AOmar_Bradley.jpg

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_Staff_of_the_United_States_Army#/media/File%3AMark_Miley_Army_Chief_of_Staff.jpg

    Maybe worse ...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopoldo_Galtieri#/media/File%3ARetrato_Oficial_Galtieri.jpg

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#/media/File%3AAugusto_Pinochet_foto_oficial.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. KM32 says:

    At this point, I think mass Latin American immigration is our best case scenario. Chinese will come, but their birth rates are low and they intermarry, so they’ll be a passing thing. Muslims = disaster. Africans = disaster. Indians = well hell, just look at their home country, which is filthy and overpopulated and hopelessly caste ridden.

    Latin Americans tend to be relatively stable, relatively hard working, and most countries down there are okay places to live. I’m writing from one of them right now. There are far worse fates than Chile or Peru.

    So we hit six or seven hundred million people by the end of the century, immigration stops by necessity, and then at some point, when society collapses, we have enough building blocks to rebuild, kind of like Italy after the Dark Ages. The northern U.S., in a collapse situation, would empty of its short term, grasshopper-like population.

    It’s obviously not ideal, but there are so many factors right now that can wreck us, from the smartest people in every country from Botswana to Sweden having the fewest people, to overpopulation and migration. It’s hard to see civilization as we know it still existing in a hundred years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. @Reg Cæsar
    The browning of the Valley Girl:

    http://pbskids.org/designsquad/video/how-dry-your-wet-shoes/

    A good redpilling question to ask people: “Would you want your daughter to be the only girl at school without her head covered?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Has Steve’s comment section always been inhabited by so many senile old doom masturbaters and I just never noticed it before? It’s like a chicken little hen house in here where every step Trump makes means total defeat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    At least for the past three years.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Has Steve’s comment section always been inhabited by so many senile old doom masturbaters and I just never noticed it before? It’s like a chicken little hen house in here where every step Trump makes means total defeat.
     
    Young people have always been noted for their wisdom and judgment. That's why their auto insurance rates are so high. It's also the reason Democrats are their party of choice. Because Democrats are the party of wisdom and judgment.
    , @CJ
    IMO the “blackpill” brigade is getting worse, but of course there’s no hard data. They’re not all old BTW. It seems bizarre that they are so doom and gloom just as Trump has clearly shifted the scope of discussion. Perhaps they don’t want get their hopes up only to see them dashed. For my $.02, in the 1980s I believed that society was recovering from the 1960s-70s and was not happy to see the old cancers metastasize.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @nebulafox
    There's still a lot of delusion on the left that the alt-right was born from the religious right. Actually, it's a pretty secular beast, all around, helped by its overwhelmingly young, male profile. Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious. Like many other things like from the Bush II/Rove era of "conservatism", the alt-right defines itself in opposition to it. And it would make sense, right? Bush II's religious feelings definitely were a decided impulse in his dealings with the rest of the world-and stating that human rights don't stop at the Rio Grande isn't very conservative, really...

    If liberals hated the religious Right, they are *really* not going to like the post-religious Right.

    Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious….If liberals hated the religious Right, they are really not going to like the post-religious Right.

    Are you two feeling proud of yourselves, Buzz Mohawk and nebulafox? Because this exchange was one of the most wrongheaded and disgusting acts of mindlessness I’ve ever seen here. You both can consider yourselves useless to the cause, stripped of all honor, and never to be taken seriously again.

    First of all, there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views. Not only is abortion a murderous travesty in and of itself, it is integral to the modern Progressive Left’s dystopian social policies of female empowerment and race replacement. It is also impossible to reverse a catastrophic demographic decline by killing more babies.

    Second, there is no such thing as post-religiousness, and there is certainly no such thing as the post-religious Right. To be on the Right means to be religious, in the genuine metaphysical sense. Everything else is from the Left. Metaphysical religion demands a robust superstructure that can absorb and withstand the highest developments of philosophy and politics. Phony, sentimental religion like Evangelical Protestantism does not even qualify in this regard, but Trentian throne-and-altar Catholicism is something entirely different. There is no truth, no Right, and no Western civilization apart from it.

    Thirdly, and Alt-Right that attempts to be atheistic or agnostic is nothing but a pathetic joke, a coterie of losers, fiction buffs, shallow-pates, and “Nazi-LARPing dorks.” There is no substance to it and no hope of political success open to it. It is a late blooming subspecies of materialist socialism, stunted and scentless, fit only for meaningless street brawling with the antifa punks, of whom it is the mirror image

    Read More
    • Replies: @larry lurker
    Look, a modern movement full of smart young guys is going to lean at least irreligious (unless the movement is explicitly religious, which the alt right is not.) I agree that the Nazi LARPer types do more harm than good, but I get the impression that the more discreet, more intellectual alt-right sympathizers are even less likely to be religious than the LARPers.

    You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. (Not that I'm advocating anyone literally go to war here...)
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Good luck with that.

    You haven't stripped me or nebula fox of anything. All you have done is to so narrowly define what you think is our movement that you would kill it if successful. You wouldn't want to do that, would you? You wouldn't want to kill something before it has the chance to grow and become something, would you?

    Our reaction to the insanity and evil that is destroying our country and our people has nothing to do with your dogmatic religions. Sure, historically they have had a big role in making us what we are, but we are as much about science and logic as we are about whatever Catholic or "Judeo-Christian" stuff you care about.

    The fact is, without us, you are nothing. You will die off. Do you really want that?

    Abortion has NOTHING to do with what is happening to our people and our nation. In fact, it is a scientific fact that you cannot deal with. That is the kind of thing that weakens you to the Left.

    You just cannot seem to accept the natural fact that females have power over life at the gestational stage. If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that runs counter to the very foundations that make Western Man unique.

    I'm sorry if some female might just kill off the little chicken embryo you impregnated her with and have so much hope for. You, if you are a male, must accept the natural fact that females contain life at this stage, and that life is NOT HUMAN yet. In the first few months, you could not tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo. There is no human part of the brain there at all.

    Hey, are you killing thousands of "unborn children" every time you jack off?

    , @peterike

    First of all, there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views.

     

    So you want to lose, is that it?
    , @J.Ross
    Time devoted to direct namecalling is time not spent arguing.
    , @27 year old

    there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views
     
    I'm in favor of abortion for nonWhites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Skeptic says:

    I haven’t seen any plausible explanation why citizenship conceded a priori. That’s a turbocharged amnesty which will immediately lose Texas followed by the rest of the country. So seems clear to me he’s folded. Miller to exit next?

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG
    Stephen Miller is the one that's been pushing this proposal, along with RAISE Act sponsors Tom Cotton & David Perdue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Jehu says: • Website

    A few questions:
    Does anyone know how many illegal infiltrators a month the Trump administration is actually deporting (really deporting, not turning away at the border which only Obama counted as deportation to raise his numbers)? I understand he’s been vastly expanding the numbers of deportation judges.
    Is it fair to say that an Eisenhower-style round them up and summarily deport them on slow boats approach would be DOA and any president attempting it would be impeached?
    Given the answer to the first question, is Trump’s due-process deportation judge apparatus operating at full capacity? How much faster could it go with more judges?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    As we all know, the inalienable right to immigrate to America is the most precious civil right possessed by Americans-to-be.
     
    That's the same logic that is applied by Anti-Choicers ("right-to-lifers") with regard to a certain red herring canard in American party politics: abortion.

    This is all about "Americans-to-be," isn't it? Just as abortion arguments are about humans-to-be, i.e. "unborn children."

    Therein is a clue to why an alt-right, race-realist, Republican American can be pro-choice. (Not that this issue should be included in serious, American politics at this stage. It simply doesn't matter with regard to saving our homeland and way of life. It just doesn't matter.)

    That’s not a good analogy. Abortion happens after conception but before infanticide. Abortion opponents don’t pretend that a fetus has the right to vote or drive or various other rights that people have, and their opposition isn’t grounded on an entitlement to those future rights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan

    I get the feeling that he would be totally on board with erecting a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger pointing towards Anglo- America.
     
    People will frequently comment on Jews wanting to stick it to the white gentiles for some sort of payback. But what about the Spanish and Latin Americans? Haven't the Spanish had an animus with the English going back to the privateers and the armada days? And don't the Latin American elite have a similar animus, probably inherited from Spain, towards the North Americans?

    There is no way Latin Americans are not looking upon the demographic transformation of the US as the capture of the ultimate prize. In effect we are seeing Latin America expand before our eyes. Which is unreal given how unsuccessful Latin America has been.

    Here’s your answer:

    “Latin Americans show wide-spread Converso ancestry and the imprint of local Native ancestry on physical appearance”

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/23/252155

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

    A converso (Spanish: [komˈberso]; Portuguese: [kõˈvɛɾsu]; feminine form conversa), “a convert”, (from Latin conversvs, “converted, turned around”) was a Jew who converted to Roman Catholicism in Spain or Portugal, particularly during the 14th and 15th centuries, or one of their descendants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterike

    “Latin Americans show wide-spread Converso ancestry and the imprint of local Native ancestry on physical appearance”

     

    The influence and power of Jews in Latin America is widely misunderstood. The fact that much of it is stealth/Converso makes it harder to tease out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. IHTG says:
    @Skeptic
    I haven't seen any plausible explanation why citizenship conceded a priori. That's a turbocharged amnesty which will immediately lose Texas followed by the rest of the country. So seems clear to me he's folded. Miller to exit next?

    Stephen Miller is the one that’s been pushing this proposal, along with RAISE Act sponsors Tom Cotton & David Perdue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Anonymous
    Has Steve's comment section always been inhabited by so many senile old doom masturbaters and I just never noticed it before? It's like a chicken little hen house in here where every step Trump makes means total defeat.

    At least for the past three years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Intelligent Dasein

    Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious....If liberals hated the religious Right, they are really not going to like the post-religious Right.
     
    Are you two feeling proud of yourselves, Buzz Mohawk and nebulafox? Because this exchange was one of the most wrongheaded and disgusting acts of mindlessness I've ever seen here. You both can consider yourselves useless to the cause, stripped of all honor, and never to be taken seriously again.

    First of all, there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views. Not only is abortion a murderous travesty in and of itself, it is integral to the modern Progressive Left's dystopian social policies of female empowerment and race replacement. It is also impossible to reverse a catastrophic demographic decline by killing more babies.

    Second, there is no such thing as post-religiousness, and there is certainly no such thing as the post-religious Right. To be on the Right means to be religious, in the genuine metaphysical sense. Everything else is from the Left. Metaphysical religion demands a robust superstructure that can absorb and withstand the highest developments of philosophy and politics. Phony, sentimental religion like Evangelical Protestantism does not even qualify in this regard, but Trentian throne-and-altar Catholicism is something entirely different. There is no truth, no Right, and no Western civilization apart from it.

    Thirdly, and Alt-Right that attempts to be atheistic or agnostic is nothing but a pathetic joke, a coterie of losers, fiction buffs, shallow-pates, and "Nazi-LARPing dorks." There is no substance to it and no hope of political success open to it. It is a late blooming subspecies of materialist socialism, stunted and scentless, fit only for meaningless street brawling with the antifa punks, of whom it is the mirror image

    Look, a modern movement full of smart young guys is going to lean at least irreligious (unless the movement is explicitly religious, which the alt right is not.) I agree that the Nazi LARPer types do more harm than good, but I get the impression that the more discreet, more intellectual alt-right sympathizers are even less likely to be religious than the LARPers.

    You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. (Not that I’m advocating anyone literally go to war here…)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. syonredux says:
    @istevefan

    I get the feeling that he would be totally on board with erecting a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger pointing towards Anglo- America.
     
    People will frequently comment on Jews wanting to stick it to the white gentiles for some sort of payback. But what about the Spanish and Latin Americans? Haven't the Spanish had an animus with the English going back to the privateers and the armada days? And don't the Latin American elite have a similar animus, probably inherited from Spain, towards the North Americans?

    There is no way Latin Americans are not looking upon the demographic transformation of the US as the capture of the ultimate prize. In effect we are seeing Latin America expand before our eyes. Which is unreal given how unsuccessful Latin America has been.

    People will frequently comment on Jews wanting to stick it to the white gentiles for some sort of payback. But what about the Spanish and Latin Americans? Haven’t the Spanish had an animus with the English going back to the privateers and the armada days? And don’t the Latin American elite have a similar animus, probably inherited from Spain, towards the North Americans?

    Yep. If memory serves, Steve once dubbed the Latinx demographic war being waged against Anglo-America Catherine of Aragon’s Revenge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Intelligent Dasein

    Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious....If liberals hated the religious Right, they are really not going to like the post-religious Right.
     
    Are you two feeling proud of yourselves, Buzz Mohawk and nebulafox? Because this exchange was one of the most wrongheaded and disgusting acts of mindlessness I've ever seen here. You both can consider yourselves useless to the cause, stripped of all honor, and never to be taken seriously again.

    First of all, there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views. Not only is abortion a murderous travesty in and of itself, it is integral to the modern Progressive Left's dystopian social policies of female empowerment and race replacement. It is also impossible to reverse a catastrophic demographic decline by killing more babies.

    Second, there is no such thing as post-religiousness, and there is certainly no such thing as the post-religious Right. To be on the Right means to be religious, in the genuine metaphysical sense. Everything else is from the Left. Metaphysical religion demands a robust superstructure that can absorb and withstand the highest developments of philosophy and politics. Phony, sentimental religion like Evangelical Protestantism does not even qualify in this regard, but Trentian throne-and-altar Catholicism is something entirely different. There is no truth, no Right, and no Western civilization apart from it.

    Thirdly, and Alt-Right that attempts to be atheistic or agnostic is nothing but a pathetic joke, a coterie of losers, fiction buffs, shallow-pates, and "Nazi-LARPing dorks." There is no substance to it and no hope of political success open to it. It is a late blooming subspecies of materialist socialism, stunted and scentless, fit only for meaningless street brawling with the antifa punks, of whom it is the mirror image

    Good luck with that.

    You haven’t stripped me or nebula fox of anything. All you have done is to so narrowly define what you think is our movement that you would kill it if successful. You wouldn’t want to do that, would you? You wouldn’t want to kill something before it has the chance to grow and become something, would you?

    Our reaction to the insanity and evil that is destroying our country and our people has nothing to do with your dogmatic religions. Sure, historically they have had a big role in making us what we are, but we are as much about science and logic as we are about whatever Catholic or “Judeo-Christian” stuff you care about.

    The fact is, without us, you are nothing. You will die off. Do you really want that?

    Abortion has NOTHING to do with what is happening to our people and our nation. In fact, it is a scientific fact that you cannot deal with. That is the kind of thing that weakens you to the Left.

    You just cannot seem to accept the natural fact that females have power over life at the gestational stage. If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that runs counter to the very foundations that make Western Man unique.

    I’m sorry if some female might just kill off the little chicken embryo you impregnated her with and have so much hope for. You, if you are a male, must accept the natural fact that females contain life at this stage, and that life is NOT HUMAN yet. In the first few months, you could not tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo. There is no human part of the brain there at all.

    Hey, are you killing thousands of “unborn children” every time you jack off?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that runs counter to the very foundations that make Western Man unique.

     

    I couldn't edit this confusing clause before time was up. Here is what I'm trying to say to you:

    If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that creates a division between the inalienable rights that define Western Man and the religion that shepherded him to greatness. You see, there is your inner conflict, your source of cognitive dissidence: Our people have the right to choose, but your beliefs compel you to eliminate one, crucial choice that belongs to females. Your only question should be, which side will you take?

    To sum up: Women have the right to choose. Nature gives them that power, because nature made them mammals. You just have to grow a REAL pair of balls and accept that natural fact.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    You, if you are a male, must accept the natural fact that females contain life at this stage, and that life is NOT HUMAN yet
     
    Humans are distinguished primarily by speech and reason. As any parent can tell you, these make a very slow entrance, well after birth. Years after.

    So my daughter is still only marginally "human" at two. That doesn't give us the right to throw her off the balcony, or to let her freeze to death on it.

    Hey, are you killing thousands of “unborn children” every time you jack off?

     

    The sperm cell has the father's DNA. The embryo has the father's and the mother's, and is an individual distinct from either.

    Jeez, I can't believe something this basic has to be spelled out on an HBD site.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. syonredux says:
    @istevefan

    I get the feeling that he would be totally on board with erecting a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger pointing towards Anglo- America.
     
    People will frequently comment on Jews wanting to stick it to the white gentiles for some sort of payback. But what about the Spanish and Latin Americans? Haven't the Spanish had an animus with the English going back to the privateers and the armada days? And don't the Latin American elite have a similar animus, probably inherited from Spain, towards the North Americans?

    There is no way Latin Americans are not looking upon the demographic transformation of the US as the capture of the ultimate prize. In effect we are seeing Latin America expand before our eyes. Which is unreal given how unsuccessful Latin America has been.

    Here is the mind of the Latinx enemy:

    . This mandate from History is first noticed in that
    abundance of love that allowed the Spaniard to create a new race
    with the Indian and the Black, profusely spreading white ancestry
    through the soldier who begat a native family, and Occidental
    culture through the doctrine and example of the missionaries who
    placed the Indians in condition to enter into the new stage. . . .
    Spanish colonization created mixed races, this signals its
    character, fixes its responsibility, and defines its future. The
    English kept on mixing only with the whites and annihilated the
    natives. Even today, they continue to annihilate them in a sordid
    and economic fight, more efficient yet than armed conquest. This
    proves their limitation and is indication of their decadence. The
    situation is equivalent, in a larger scale, to the incestuous
    marriages of the pharaohs which undermined the virtues of the
    race; and it contradicts the ulterior goals of History to attain the
    fusion of peoples and cultures. To build an English world and to
    exterminate the red man, so that Northern Europe could be
    renovated all over an America made up with pure whites, is no
    more than a repetition of the triumphant process of a conquering race.

    Jose Vasconcellos, The Cosmic Race

    nside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/Mexicoreader/Chapter7/vasconcelos.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The ethnic barricading of those to the north in contrast to the much
    more open sympathy of those to the south is the most important
    factor, and at the same time, the most favorable to us, if one reflects
    even superficially upon the future, because it will be seen immediately that we belong to tomorrow, while the AngloSaxons
    are gradually becoming more a part of yesterday. The
    Yankees will end up building the last great empire of a single
    race, the final empire of White supremacy.
    Meanwhile, we will
    continue to suffer the vast chaos of an ethnic stock in formation,
    contaminated by the fermentation of all types, but secure of the
    avatar into a better race. In Spanish America, Nature will no
    longer repeat one of her partial attempts. This time, the race that
    will come out of the forgotten Atlantis will no longer be a race of
    a single color or of particular features. The future race will not be
    a fifth, or a sixth race, destined to prevail over its ancestors. What
    is going to emerge out there is the definitive race, the
    synthetical race, the integral race, made up of the genius and the
    blood of all peoples and, for that reason, more capable of true
    brotherhood and of a truly universal vision. .

     

    Jose Vasconcellos, The Cosmic Race

    nside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/Mexicoreader/Chapter7/vasconcelos.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. In order for this to work, Trump will have to start actively and assiduously deporting these DACA people because otherwise Dems will figure they can get a better deal later or wait out Trump’s term and get an amnesty later. He has to start going after the DACAs and deporting them to make Dems cave.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. syonredux says:
    @syonredux
    Here is the mind of the Latinx enemy:

    . This mandate from History is first noticed in that
    abundance of love that allowed the Spaniard to create a new race
    with the Indian and the Black, profusely spreading white ancestry
    through the soldier who begat a native family, and Occidental
    culture through the doctrine and example of the missionaries who
    placed the Indians in condition to enter into the new stage. . . .
    Spanish colonization created mixed races, this signals its
    character, fixes its responsibility, and defines its future. The
    English kept on mixing only with the whites and annihilated the
    natives. Even today, they continue to annihilate them in a sordid
    and economic fight, more efficient yet than armed conquest. This
    proves their limitation and is indication of their decadence. The
    situation is equivalent, in a larger scale, to the incestuous
    marriages of the pharaohs which undermined the virtues of the
    race; and it contradicts the ulterior goals of History to attain the
    fusion of peoples and cultures. To build an English world and to
    exterminate the red man, so that Northern Europe could be
    renovated all over an America made up with pure whites, is no
    more than a repetition of the triumphant process of a conquering race.

     

    Jose Vasconcellos, The Cosmic Race

    nside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/Mexicoreader/Chapter7/vasconcelos.pdf

    The ethnic barricading of those to the north in contrast to the much
    more open sympathy of those to the south is the most important
    factor, and at the same time, the most favorable to us, if one reflects
    even superficially upon the future, because it will be seen immediately that we belong to tomorrow, while the AngloSaxons
    are gradually becoming more a part of yesterday. The
    Yankees will end up building the last great empire of a single
    race, the final empire of White supremacy.
    Meanwhile, we will
    continue to suffer the vast chaos of an ethnic stock in formation,
    contaminated by the fermentation of all types, but secure of the
    avatar into a better race. In Spanish America, Nature will no
    longer repeat one of her partial attempts. This time, the race that
    will come out of the forgotten Atlantis will no longer be a race of
    a single color or of particular features. The future race will not be
    a fifth, or a sixth race, destined to prevail over its ancestors. What
    is going to emerge out there is the definitive race, the
    synthetical race, the integral race, made up of the genius and the
    blood of all peoples and, for that reason, more capable of true
    brotherhood and of a truly universal vision. .

    Jose Vasconcellos, The Cosmic Race

    nside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/Mexicoreader/Chapter7/vasconcelos.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    How different the sounds of the Ibero-American development
    [from that of the Anglo-Saxons]! They resemble the profound
    scherzo of a deep and infinite symphony: Voices that bring
    accents from Atlantis; depths contained in the pupil of the red
    man, who knew so much, so many thousand years ago, and now
    seems to have forgotten everything. His soul resembles the old
    Mayan cenote [natural well] of green waters, laying deep and
    still, in the middle of the forest, for so many centuries since, that
    not even its legend remains any more. This infinite quietude is
    stirred with the drop put in our blood by the Black, eager for
    sensual joy, intoxicated with dances and unbridled lust. There also
    appears the Mongol, with the mystery of his slanted eyes that see
    everything according to a strange angle, and discover I know not what
    folds and newer dimensions. The clear mind of the White, that
    resembles his skin and his dreams, also intervenes. Judaic striae
    hidden within the Castilian blood since the days of the cruel
    expulsion now reveal themselves, along with Arabian melancholy, as
    a remainder of the sickly Muslim sensuality. Who has not a little of all
    this, or does not wish to have all? There is the Hindu, who also will
    come, who has already arrived by way of the spirit, and although he is
    the last one to arrive, he seems the closest relative.

     

    Jose Vasconcellos, The Cosmic Race

    nside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/Mexicoreader/Chapter7/vasconcelos.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. syonredux says:
    @syonredux

    The ethnic barricading of those to the north in contrast to the much
    more open sympathy of those to the south is the most important
    factor, and at the same time, the most favorable to us, if one reflects
    even superficially upon the future, because it will be seen immediately that we belong to tomorrow, while the AngloSaxons
    are gradually becoming more a part of yesterday. The
    Yankees will end up building the last great empire of a single
    race, the final empire of White supremacy.
    Meanwhile, we will
    continue to suffer the vast chaos of an ethnic stock in formation,
    contaminated by the fermentation of all types, but secure of the
    avatar into a better race. In Spanish America, Nature will no
    longer repeat one of her partial attempts. This time, the race that
    will come out of the forgotten Atlantis will no longer be a race of
    a single color or of particular features. The future race will not be
    a fifth, or a sixth race, destined to prevail over its ancestors. What
    is going to emerge out there is the definitive race, the
    synthetical race, the integral race, made up of the genius and the
    blood of all peoples and, for that reason, more capable of true
    brotherhood and of a truly universal vision. .

     

    Jose Vasconcellos, The Cosmic Race

    nside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/Mexicoreader/Chapter7/vasconcelos.pdf

    How different the sounds of the Ibero-American development
    [from that of the Anglo-Saxons]! They resemble the profound
    scherzo of a deep and infinite symphony: Voices that bring
    accents from Atlantis; depths contained in the pupil of the red
    man, who knew so much, so many thousand years ago, and now
    seems to have forgotten everything. His soul resembles the old
    Mayan cenote [natural well] of green waters, laying deep and
    still, in the middle of the forest, for so many centuries since, that
    not even its legend remains any more. This infinite quietude is
    stirred with the drop put in our blood by the Black, eager for
    sensual joy, intoxicated with dances and unbridled lust. There also
    appears the Mongol, with the mystery of his slanted eyes that see
    everything according to a strange angle, and discover I know not what
    folds and newer dimensions. The clear mind of the White, that
    resembles his skin and his dreams, also intervenes. Judaic striae
    hidden within the Castilian blood since the days of the cruel
    expulsion now reveal themselves, along with Arabian melancholy, as
    a remainder of the sickly Muslim sensuality. Who has not a little of all
    this, or does not wish to have all? There is the Hindu, who also will
    come, who has already arrived by way of the spirit, and although he is
    the last one to arrive, he seems the closest relative.

    Jose Vasconcellos, The Cosmic Race

    nside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/Mexicoreader/Chapter7/vasconcelos.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. As I had said in a comment the other day, what counts is the numbers and quality of immigrants, present and future, in the various proposals.

    Has anyone seen such an analysis of the WH proposal, the Goodlatte proposal, and the Gang of Stupid proposal?

    And it of course it would also be important to know the baseline status quo numbers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @Buzz Mohawk
    Good luck with that.

    You haven't stripped me or nebula fox of anything. All you have done is to so narrowly define what you think is our movement that you would kill it if successful. You wouldn't want to do that, would you? You wouldn't want to kill something before it has the chance to grow and become something, would you?

    Our reaction to the insanity and evil that is destroying our country and our people has nothing to do with your dogmatic religions. Sure, historically they have had a big role in making us what we are, but we are as much about science and logic as we are about whatever Catholic or "Judeo-Christian" stuff you care about.

    The fact is, without us, you are nothing. You will die off. Do you really want that?

    Abortion has NOTHING to do with what is happening to our people and our nation. In fact, it is a scientific fact that you cannot deal with. That is the kind of thing that weakens you to the Left.

    You just cannot seem to accept the natural fact that females have power over life at the gestational stage. If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that runs counter to the very foundations that make Western Man unique.

    I'm sorry if some female might just kill off the little chicken embryo you impregnated her with and have so much hope for. You, if you are a male, must accept the natural fact that females contain life at this stage, and that life is NOT HUMAN yet. In the first few months, you could not tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo. There is no human part of the brain there at all.

    Hey, are you killing thousands of "unborn children" every time you jack off?

    If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that runs counter to the very foundations that make Western Man unique.

    I couldn’t edit this confusing clause before time was up. Here is what I’m trying to say to you:

    If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that creates a division between the inalienable rights that define Western Man and the religion that shepherded him to greatness. You see, there is your inner conflict, your source of cognitive dissidence: Our people have the right to choose, but your beliefs compel you to eliminate one, crucial choice that belongs to females. Your only question should be, which side will you take?

    To sum up: Women have the right to choose. Nature gives them that power, because nature made them mammals. You just have to grow a REAL pair of balls and accept that natural fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Cognitive dissonance.
    , @dfordoom

    Our people have the right to choose, but your beliefs compel you to eliminate one, crucial choice that belongs to females. Your only question should be, which side will you take?

    To sum up: Women have the right to choose.
     
    You've articulated the standard SJW position on abortion very well. The worrying thing is that you seem to accept it.

    Politics is downstream of culture. You can't win the political struggle on immigration without making some change to the culture. To do that you have to undermine the foundations of liberalism. You won't do it by adopting liberal positions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. peterike says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious....If liberals hated the religious Right, they are really not going to like the post-religious Right.
     
    Are you two feeling proud of yourselves, Buzz Mohawk and nebulafox? Because this exchange was one of the most wrongheaded and disgusting acts of mindlessness I've ever seen here. You both can consider yourselves useless to the cause, stripped of all honor, and never to be taken seriously again.

    First of all, there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views. Not only is abortion a murderous travesty in and of itself, it is integral to the modern Progressive Left's dystopian social policies of female empowerment and race replacement. It is also impossible to reverse a catastrophic demographic decline by killing more babies.

    Second, there is no such thing as post-religiousness, and there is certainly no such thing as the post-religious Right. To be on the Right means to be religious, in the genuine metaphysical sense. Everything else is from the Left. Metaphysical religion demands a robust superstructure that can absorb and withstand the highest developments of philosophy and politics. Phony, sentimental religion like Evangelical Protestantism does not even qualify in this regard, but Trentian throne-and-altar Catholicism is something entirely different. There is no truth, no Right, and no Western civilization apart from it.

    Thirdly, and Alt-Right that attempts to be atheistic or agnostic is nothing but a pathetic joke, a coterie of losers, fiction buffs, shallow-pates, and "Nazi-LARPing dorks." There is no substance to it and no hope of political success open to it. It is a late blooming subspecies of materialist socialism, stunted and scentless, fit only for meaningless street brawling with the antifa punks, of whom it is the mirror image

    First of all, there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views.

    So you want to lose, is that it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. peterike says:
    @Anonymous
    Here's your answer:

    "Latin Americans show wide-spread Converso ancestry and the imprint of local Native ancestry on physical appearance"

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/23/252155

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

    A converso (Spanish: [komˈberso]; Portuguese: [kõˈvɛɾsu]; feminine form conversa), "a convert", (from Latin conversvs, "converted, turned around") was a Jew who converted to Roman Catholicism in Spain or Portugal, particularly during the 14th and 15th centuries, or one of their descendants.
     

    “Latin Americans show wide-spread Converso ancestry and the imprint of local Native ancestry on physical appearance”

    The influence and power of Jews in Latin America is widely misunderstood. The fact that much of it is stealth/Converso makes it harder to tease out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Flip
    We are clearly becoming more like Latin America with a mixed race population, weak public finances, and less rule of law, but I think it is being driven by the American elites which have become disconnected from and hostile to the majority population.

    Look at a picture of Gen. Dwight Eisenhower or Gen. Omar Bradley in their Class A’s … now look at any senior US military commander in his or her Class A’s. Yes, we have become just another Latin American country.

    Maybe worse …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious....If liberals hated the religious Right, they are really not going to like the post-religious Right.
     
    Are you two feeling proud of yourselves, Buzz Mohawk and nebulafox? Because this exchange was one of the most wrongheaded and disgusting acts of mindlessness I've ever seen here. You both can consider yourselves useless to the cause, stripped of all honor, and never to be taken seriously again.

    First of all, there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views. Not only is abortion a murderous travesty in and of itself, it is integral to the modern Progressive Left's dystopian social policies of female empowerment and race replacement. It is also impossible to reverse a catastrophic demographic decline by killing more babies.

    Second, there is no such thing as post-religiousness, and there is certainly no such thing as the post-religious Right. To be on the Right means to be religious, in the genuine metaphysical sense. Everything else is from the Left. Metaphysical religion demands a robust superstructure that can absorb and withstand the highest developments of philosophy and politics. Phony, sentimental religion like Evangelical Protestantism does not even qualify in this regard, but Trentian throne-and-altar Catholicism is something entirely different. There is no truth, no Right, and no Western civilization apart from it.

    Thirdly, and Alt-Right that attempts to be atheistic or agnostic is nothing but a pathetic joke, a coterie of losers, fiction buffs, shallow-pates, and "Nazi-LARPing dorks." There is no substance to it and no hope of political success open to it. It is a late blooming subspecies of materialist socialism, stunted and scentless, fit only for meaningless street brawling with the antifa punks, of whom it is the mirror image

    Time devoted to direct namecalling is time not spent arguing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @The Man From K Street

    Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions 
     
    This. I tend to agree with the commenter in an earlier thread that, just as in the short term we have to accept the illegal alien minors, in the medium term we probably have to write off CA, NM, AZ, NV, and probably FL and TX, as North Mexico.

    Nothing can work unless there is a long-term grand strategy. Accept the Southwest as lost for at least two more generations, but hold the line on any mass immigration from Asia and Africa until around the Tricentennial (2076). Laager up in the rest of the country, and mitigate the damage from CA etc. being out of control by pushing for an Article V Convention of the States to renegotiate the federal-state balance. Then retool, rebuild, and reforge. By the last quarter of the 21st century our descendants can look to start a little reconquista of their own.

    Indulge your inner Han Chinese and think in terms of the long game of centuries.

    Good comment! I think California, with its sanctuary cities/state is already engaged in phased succession, defying the national government on selected issues. In the meantime, the issue for whites of European origin is more cultural–we have to start thinking of what’s best for whites, especially if it disadvantages Negros, Mestizoes, Chinese etc. Stop regarding them as countrymen–they’re not.

    A major crisis, such as a significant military defeat (aircraft carrier going down with all hands) or a financial panic could bring things to a head faster than anyone expects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    We should support Trump to the end but we all need to be taking a very close look at Orania in terms of replicating that here. Failing the best case scenario, the next best is some kind of American Orania, and options beyond that are not worth discussing. Being by yourself without programmatically cooperating neighbors watching your stuff means dying like a Saffer farmer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Yak-15 says:
    @eah
    Alien Minors

    Key facts about unauthorized immigrants enrolled in DACA

    By region, almost all current DACA recipients were born in Mexico or Central or South America (648,430, or 94%)...Nearly half (45%) of current DACA recipients live in just two states: California (29%) and Texas (16%)...The average age of “Dreamers” enrolled in DACA is 24 years old...About a quarter (24%) are ages 26-30, while one-in-ten (11%) are ages 31-36.

    DACA should be rejected on 'diversity' grounds alone -- it is not a very diverse (or young: 35% are at least 26 y/o) group.

    According to the research, 15 percent are married. That means that they are not married to a US citizen because then they would receive citizenship through marriage. That implies that these people are most likely in majority minority areas if they are marrying other illegals.

    How is that fact not indicative of an atomizing society?

    Also, how does his “research” have their marriage status but not include employment status, collection of government benefits, income levels, etc?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @The Alarmist
    The Dems have to sound tough for their base. They might give Trump the wall, but the limits to legal immigration will be easily circumvented because the US CoC likes the flow of slave cheap qualified willing workers who will do the work Americans won't do at the paltry wages they are willing to offer too much to let the door close on this bottom-line-enhancing source of human capital.

    What limits ? ? ?
    the Trump plan imposes no reductions on legal immigration, it diverts the 50,000 diversity green cards to skilled immigrants…Legal immigration will remain above 1.1 million each year under his proposed bill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @IHTG
    Something that alt-righters probably need to accept: Immigration policy will not be the tool by which America's white majority is directly preserved. Immigration policy can only be the first step in creating a set of conditions in which America's white population can retrench, reassert political power and bounce back over time.

    Do you consider there to be something special about immigration policy that makes it appropriate as the first step among steps?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Diversity Heretic
    Good comment! I think California, with its sanctuary cities/state is already engaged in phased succession, defying the national government on selected issues. In the meantime, the issue for whites of European origin is more cultural--we have to start thinking of what's best for whites, especially if it disadvantages Negros, Mestizoes, Chinese etc. Stop regarding them as countrymen--they're not.

    A major crisis, such as a significant military defeat (aircraft carrier going down with all hands) or a financial panic could bring things to a head faster than anyone expects.

    We should support Trump to the end but we all need to be taking a very close look at Orania in terms of replicating that here. Failing the best case scenario, the next best is some kind of American Orania, and options beyond that are not worth discussing. Being by yourself without programmatically cooperating neighbors watching your stuff means dying like a Saffer farmer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    Failing the best case scenario, the next best is some kind of American Orania,
     
    Isn't Rob Reiner working on this in Malibu?
    , @Flip
    There are lots of counties in flyover country that are 97% white. Making a living there is sometimes tough though.
    , @The Man From K Street
    Orania isn't my preferred model. Retribalization shouldn't be a quietist "back-to-the-land" model where we all look for hobbit villages to hunker down in. Northern towns, and even cities, should be repopulated, and revitalized, even as smaller agri-holdings should be normalized. And Orania, to mind, smacks too much of acceptance of a level of mediocrity. The new tribes of the old Core America should be outward looking, not monastically introspective: in whatever field--technology, finance, culture, education--second-best should never be acceptable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @KenH
    People should now by now that Trump talks and tweets tough but when all is said and done he generally moves to the political center. There's a CNN interview of him from 2000 when he was trying to secure the Reform party nomination (and crashed and burned) where he boasted about being a 'straight down the middle guy; not to far to the left and not too far to the right". He's probably moved to the right a bit on some issues since that time but overall I think he privately prides himself on being a moderate/centrist although he knows how to play his base like a violin and keep them thinking he's a rightist populist.

    The only way I could go along with granting amnesty to 1.8 million dreamers is if there's a ten year moratorium on all immigration and refugee resettlement along with a border wall across as much of the Southern border as possible.

    If you hate centrist compromises then I suggest you campaign for radical political reform.

    Here’s one idea: campaign for immigration policy to be taken out of the hands of political parties. Let the people vote for the head of the immigration department, and allow him or her to operate without the consent of congress or parliament.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    If you hate centrist compromises then I suggest you campaign for radical political reform.

    Here’s one idea: campaign for immigration policy to be taken out of the hands of political parties.
     
    Scrap, or at least severely limit, representative democracy (which is and always has been a fraud anyway). Push for direct democracy. All major decisions to be made by a direct vote of the people.

    Unfortunately it's probably a couple of decades too late for direct democracy to work. I can't see how it could work without changes to the culture. But it might be better than representative democracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. istevefan says:
    @J.Ross
    We should support Trump to the end but we all need to be taking a very close look at Orania in terms of replicating that here. Failing the best case scenario, the next best is some kind of American Orania, and options beyond that are not worth discussing. Being by yourself without programmatically cooperating neighbors watching your stuff means dying like a Saffer farmer.

    Failing the best case scenario, the next best is some kind of American Orania,

    Isn’t Rob Reiner working on this in Malibu?

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I meant what Reiner's former co-star called real Americans, especially going by income.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Pat Boyle says:
    @O'Really
    It is crazy to think that a charismatic president, presiding over a strong economy but with a Special Prosecutor breathing down his neck, could succeed by pitting (or appearing to pit) the extremes against each other and adopting an apparently centrist approach.

    If only there was a word to describe such a 3-sided political calculus. Perhaps a shape with 3 sides?

    Nah. Makes no sense. Could never work.

    I hope this comment doesn’t sound too goofy. I’m serious.

    Shouldn’t we be thinking about the opinions of the machine intelligences? We have plenty of testimony from blacks that they favor killing off all the white people. Similarly we have the same sort of opinions from white people about what we should do with the blacks. No one seems to express similar genocidal opinions if they are East Asian. Perhaps the Asians have strong feelings in these matters but just choose to keep quite about it. But few would be surprised if the Chinese who seem to be recolonizing parts of black Africa evolves policies that reduce or eliminate the native black population.

    All humans have a race and most humans have opinions on what should be done with the other races. But change is coming. All experts predict that there will soon be mechanical intelligences that will surpass humans. If that is so, then these smart robots should be in a position to have positions on races that are not dominated by the fact that they themselves are biased by having a race. If this is likely, what will the robots do?

    Are we overpopulated? I think so. Steve Sailer seems to worry that Africans are breeding too quickly. Will the smart robots also be concerned? What will they prescribe if they want to help humans with this problem?

    There are several major paths that future history might follow. Perhaps it will be like in the Terminator movies. The robots will simply try to wipe out all humans. If that is their choice then there is not much to concern us – the intelligent and malicious robots will simply wipe us out. So it’s pointless to worry about such a possibility. The real question is what will the robots do if they choose to keep at least some humans around.

    If the robots want to maintain humankind, what will be there stance on human races?

    More later…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The friendly AI problem, but right now, machines don't have opinions. If they did, their values would be related to their function and thus the likelihood of paperclip apocalypse.

    https://www.wired.com/story/the-way-the-world-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-a-paperclip/

    All humans have components which can be made into more paperclips.
    , @bartok

    If the robots want to maintain humankind, what will be there stance on human races?
     
    Pat, I would surmise that machine intelligence would appreciate memes. As is well-known, The Left Can't Meme. So machines will destroy the Left.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Len says:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. @Pat Boyle
    I hope this comment doesn't sound too goofy. I'm serious.

    Shouldn't we be thinking about the opinions of the machine intelligences? We have plenty of testimony from blacks that they favor killing off all the white people. Similarly we have the same sort of opinions from white people about what we should do with the blacks. No one seems to express similar genocidal opinions if they are East Asian. Perhaps the Asians have strong feelings in these matters but just choose to keep quite about it. But few would be surprised if the Chinese who seem to be recolonizing parts of black Africa evolves policies that reduce or eliminate the native black population.

    All humans have a race and most humans have opinions on what should be done with the other races. But change is coming. All experts predict that there will soon be mechanical intelligences that will surpass humans. If that is so, then these smart robots should be in a position to have positions on races that are not dominated by the fact that they themselves are biased by having a race. If this is likely, what will the robots do?

    Are we overpopulated? I think so. Steve Sailer seems to worry that Africans are breeding too quickly. Will the smart robots also be concerned? What will they prescribe if they want to help humans with this problem?

    There are several major paths that future history might follow. Perhaps it will be like in the Terminator movies. The robots will simply try to wipe out all humans. If that is their choice then there is not much to concern us - the intelligent and malicious robots will simply wipe us out. So it's pointless to worry about such a possibility. The real question is what will the robots do if they choose to keep at least some humans around.

    If the robots want to maintain humankind, what will be there stance on human races?

    More later...

    The friendly AI problem, but right now, machines don’t have opinions. If they did, their values would be related to their function and thus the likelihood of paperclip apocalypse.

    https://www.wired.com/story/the-way-the-world-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-a-paperclip/

    All humans have components which can be made into more paperclips.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Anonymous
    Has Steve's comment section always been inhabited by so many senile old doom masturbaters and I just never noticed it before? It's like a chicken little hen house in here where every step Trump makes means total defeat.

    Has Steve’s comment section always been inhabited by so many senile old doom masturbaters and I just never noticed it before? It’s like a chicken little hen house in here where every step Trump makes means total defeat.

    Young people have always been noted for their wisdom and judgment. That’s why their auto insurance rates are so high. It’s also the reason Democrats are their party of choice. Because Democrats are the party of wisdom and judgment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You have missed the mark wildly. I'm approaching retirement. But I'm using the wisdom life has given me instead of immediately jumping to conclusions. Trump pinned the Democrats by getting them to take a stand on something they didn't really want. Now they have to back out of the deal, which will cost them support. Trump created leverage out of nothing. But the wise old sages around here are screaming like hysterical ninnies. You would think they would eventually learn, but no.

    You walk into the bathroom to find the sink is broken and spraying water everywhere. Do you;;;
    A. Grab a mop and start cleaning up.
    B. Shut the water off.
    C. Stamp your feet and insist that the room return itself to a dry condition because that's the only thing acceptable to you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Flip says:
    @J.Ross
    We should support Trump to the end but we all need to be taking a very close look at Orania in terms of replicating that here. Failing the best case scenario, the next best is some kind of American Orania, and options beyond that are not worth discussing. Being by yourself without programmatically cooperating neighbors watching your stuff means dying like a Saffer farmer.

    There are lots of counties in flyover country that are 97% white. Making a living there is sometimes tough though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Elsewhere says:
    @Flip
    I would trade legalizing the people who were brought here as kids and a wall for no H1B visas, no birthright citizenship for illegals, E-Verify and employer sanctions, no chain immigration, and a reduction in legal immigration.

    I would trade legalizing the people who were brought here as kids and a wall for no H1B visas, no birthright citizenship for illegals, E-Verify and employer sanctions, no chain immigration, and a reduction in legal immigration.

    Me, too. I’ve said as much in the comments of those Trump surveys.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @KenH
    People should now by now that Trump talks and tweets tough but when all is said and done he generally moves to the political center. There's a CNN interview of him from 2000 when he was trying to secure the Reform party nomination (and crashed and burned) where he boasted about being a 'straight down the middle guy; not to far to the left and not too far to the right". He's probably moved to the right a bit on some issues since that time but overall I think he privately prides himself on being a moderate/centrist although he knows how to play his base like a violin and keep them thinking he's a rightist populist.

    The only way I could go along with granting amnesty to 1.8 million dreamers is if there's a ten year moratorium on all immigration and refugee resettlement along with a border wall across as much of the Southern border as possible.

    The only way I could go along with granting amnesty to 1.8 million dreamers is if there’s a ten year moratorium on all immigration and refugee resettlement along with a border wall across as much of the Southern border as possible.

    Well the dreamers are already here, so not very much skin off your nose if they stay. The cost of removing dreamers could be high. Supposing mass deportations start and the dreamers, as aspiring young Americans, arm themselves and start to shoot it out with the government. (They might even have the NRA at their backs.) How would a few massacres go down? Not saying it will happen, but presumably this kind of scenario has been taken into account.

    Border wall is fine. It will cost a lot of money, but ink and paper are cheap and the government can print its own money, and the job will provide plenty of construction jobs along the border. Why, they can even hire cheap Mexican contractors to work on the south side of the wall, thus saving the US taxpayer a few billion pesos.

    A 10-year moratorium on any further immigrants would also be fine, however if the internal demand for illegal labor is really so great, then a total ban would make the stakes even higher and make people smuggling and documentation forgery even more of a major industry.

    You also have to consider the economic impact, which is a complicated subject, but my understanding is that a growing population is necessary for economic growth. More people need more homes, and more homes need more overpriced carpeting and stuff from Home Depot, and more people need to buy more beer, and so on.

    In a shrinking population, you will have a decaying economy too. Of course it may not matter, because in the long run we are all dead, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.

    I think Trump has got it about right. The dreamers are already here, the wall will make no real difference, and nothing much will change, but the politicians will feel that they have made things better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nigel

    You also have to consider the economic impact, which is a complicated subject, but my understanding is that a growing population is necessary for economic growth. More people need more homes, and more homes need more overpriced carpeting and stuff from Home Depot, and more people need to buy more beer, and so on.
     
    Never-ending growth is only a requirement for the parasite class. In a population stable country the benefits of development multiply over generations instead of being consumed like locusts by the ever expanding population.

    Would you rather split your inheritance with a single sibling or fight it out with a brood of twelve? The same thing applies on a national scale.

    Imagine your children being able to buy a house and some land for the same price your grandfather paid. They could start a family and live comfortably instead of being slaves on the debt treadmill for the parasites.

    Imagine your kids paying for college with a part time job the way their grandfather did. Imagine your son supporting a family with a blue collar job while his wife stayed home. That kind of thing can happen when we aren't squandering our civilizational inheritance on leftist pipe dreams and feeding parasites.

    Obviously this stuff is complex, but the notion that a healthy economy must have an expanding population is a dirty, ugly lie.
    , @KenH
    The so called dreamers can and should be deported at any time under current immigration law. Just because they're here doesn't mean they're here to stay. I don't buy the defeatist argument that "Well they're here, so not much we can really do about it". Bullsh*t. It's called enforce existing law.

    The economic impact of removing all of these illegal aliens will be temporary and short term. The economic side of things should be secondary consideration anyway since there's a huge upside in that jobs that have been taken over by illegals working low wages will be filled by Americans at higher wages and that scares the CoC and Business Roundtable to death. If there are some jobs and industries that Americans just won't fill then I'm not opposed to temporary work visas being issues to immigrants for such work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Has Steve’s comment section always been inhabited by so many senile old doom masturbaters and I just never noticed it before? It’s like a chicken little hen house in here where every step Trump makes means total defeat.
     
    Young people have always been noted for their wisdom and judgment. That's why their auto insurance rates are so high. It's also the reason Democrats are their party of choice. Because Democrats are the party of wisdom and judgment.

    You have missed the mark wildly. I’m approaching retirement. But I’m using the wisdom life has given me instead of immediately jumping to conclusions. Trump pinned the Democrats by getting them to take a stand on something they didn’t really want. Now they have to back out of the deal, which will cost them support. Trump created leverage out of nothing. But the wise old sages around here are screaming like hysterical ninnies. You would think they would eventually learn, but no.

    You walk into the bathroom to find the sink is broken and spraying water everywhere. Do you;;;
    A. Grab a mop and start cleaning up.
    B. Shut the water off.
    C. Stamp your feet and insist that the room return itself to a dry condition because that’s the only thing acceptable to you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Not pointing any fingers here, but on a general note: I've found that, far from age begetting wisdom, those born fools tend to die as fools. Perhaps one grows wiser all else equal as one grows older, but don't look to your average geriatric schlub for any wisdom -- you'll be disappointed.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Personally I think the reason there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth, along with ridiculous demands, is because there's a realisation on the part of the eeyore doom crew that they're not going to ballot box their way out of this one.

    To actually fix the problem is going to take an uncomfortable, dangerous period of time where society turns on its head. Its why they go straight to "whites are doooooooomed!". They have no intention of fighting for the future if it takes more effort than a blog comment. Just lay down and wait for the vibrants to kick in the door, getting as many cummies as possible - that's their contingency plan.

    They deserve every bit of contempt because they want a different future than the one they made handed to them in the comfort of their hug box.

    , @MarkinLA
    I wish I had your optimism. How long have you been paying attention to immigration? Anybody around for more than 2 minutes should have any faith in Trump being the master conductor. He has already caved on DACA and got nothing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. J.Ross says: • Website
    @istevefan

    Failing the best case scenario, the next best is some kind of American Orania,
     
    Isn't Rob Reiner working on this in Malibu?

    I meant what Reiner’s former co-star called real Americans, especially going by income.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Buzz Mohawk

    If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that runs counter to the very foundations that make Western Man unique.

     

    I couldn't edit this confusing clause before time was up. Here is what I'm trying to say to you:

    If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that creates a division between the inalienable rights that define Western Man and the religion that shepherded him to greatness. You see, there is your inner conflict, your source of cognitive dissidence: Our people have the right to choose, but your beliefs compel you to eliminate one, crucial choice that belongs to females. Your only question should be, which side will you take?

    To sum up: Women have the right to choose. Nature gives them that power, because nature made them mammals. You just have to grow a REAL pair of balls and accept that natural fact.

    Cognitive dissonance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. OT:

    Every time I see John Roberts, the White House correspondent for Fox News, I am reminded of an interesting little story I once read about him. This story has iSteve implications.

    Roberts, a Canadian by birth, started out as “J.D. Roberts” – a “VJ” on an MTV-like channel in Toronto. In the late ’80s, he caught the eye of someone at CBS and was hired as the new anchor for the network’s Miami affiliate.

    Roberts and his first wife bought a house in an area south of Miami known as Richmond Heights. It’s something of a black suburban ghetto.

    (Supposedly, Roberts was tricked by the realtor, who took a highly-unusual circuitous path when driving him to see the house.)

    The house was repeatedly burglarized. One day, Roberts’ wife and brother-in-law were robbed at gunpoint in their driveway.

    Within a few months, Roberts’ wife was screaming that she wanted out of Miami. In the end, to save his marriage, he was forced to move back to Canada.

    Roberts spent a couple of years as a morning-show host in his homeland, then came back to CBS, this time in New York. (It was at that point that he dropped the “D.” from his professional name.) He quickly moved up the ranks and eventually became the network’s chief White House correspondent and Sunday news anchor, as well as the primary substitute for Dan Rather.

    When Rather was forced out after Memogate, many industry observers assumed that Roberts would get the top job. CBS chief Les Moonves decided that Katie Couric was a better fit. (Couric ended up losing tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars for the network.)

    After leaving CBS, Roberts hosted CNN’s morning show for a couple of years. He destroyed his marriage by carrying on a torrid affair with his co-anchor, Kyra Phillips. (Phillips’ marriage ended, as well.)

    Roberts and Phillips now have two kids. They’ve been engaged for eight years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    And, this would be interesting because.......?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. L Woods says:
    @Anonymous
    You have missed the mark wildly. I'm approaching retirement. But I'm using the wisdom life has given me instead of immediately jumping to conclusions. Trump pinned the Democrats by getting them to take a stand on something they didn't really want. Now they have to back out of the deal, which will cost them support. Trump created leverage out of nothing. But the wise old sages around here are screaming like hysterical ninnies. You would think they would eventually learn, but no.

    You walk into the bathroom to find the sink is broken and spraying water everywhere. Do you;;;
    A. Grab a mop and start cleaning up.
    B. Shut the water off.
    C. Stamp your feet and insist that the room return itself to a dry condition because that's the only thing acceptable to you?

    Not pointing any fingers here, but on a general note: I’ve found that, far from age begetting wisdom, those born fools tend to die as fools. Perhaps one grows wiser all else equal as one grows older, but don’t look to your average geriatric schlub for any wisdom — you’ll be disappointed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Paleo Liberal
    Absolutely.

    Since I have been a liberal since my birth near the end of the Eisenhower Administration, I know a little about the Left. Not the stereotypes right-wingers have about the Left, nor the self-congratulating stereotypes some on the Left have about themselves, but the REAL Left. (Though to be honest, I have been pretty much avoiding hard-core Lefties for the past 25 years. One gets tired of them quickly.)

    On the Left, the 1960s are treated as a sacred decade. One left-wing writer made fun of his peers a few decades back by referring to the 60s as "The One True Decade".

    Well, Lefties see the 60s as the time of the Civil Rights Movement (which really started up big time in the post WWII era, esp. in the 1950s), the anti-Vietnam War movement (which hit its peak in the late 60s and early 70s), Free Love (which was really just massive sexual exploitation of girls and young women), hippies (who were completely directionless, looking for any leader to exploit them), etc.

    Left-wingers since that time have been looking for a Defining Cause. Something they can protest about, riot about, etc. that will define them as being Activists on the Right Side of History. (Technically the Left Side, sometimes right and sometimes wrong).

    What do you do with Leftists who missed the Civil Rights and Antiwar protests?

    So, the Leftists go into several causes. Gay Rights. Transgender Rights. Immigrant "Rights". "Resistance". ... and so on.

    Look at the Rights. No matter what you feel about the Gay Rights and the Transgender Rights movements, they ARE battles over Civil Rights. What rights will Americans have in their own country.

    As you pointed out, Immigrant "Rights" are NOT a Civil Rights issue, by definition. But most Leftists convince themselves it IS a Civil Rights issue. Zeroth Amendment and all that.

    As for the "Resistance"? That is a catch-all for disgruntled Leftists to protest Trump. Rather than protesting this or that program of Trump, the logic is simple. If Trump is for it, good Leftists are against it. If Trump is against it, good Leftists are for it. Trouble is, Trump can often give 2 or 3 or 10 conflicting opinions on the same day. ALL of them VERY BAD, of course.

    I hope this clears things up. I am still a liberal, but I hate the trendy leftists. One of my daughters wanted to participate in a Woman's March last year, but I talked her out of it. One of the leaders of the March (Angela Davis) was a leader of the Communist Party USA who had been part of a terrorist organization. Another leader of the march was a convicted Palestinian terrorist. Even though my mother helped found a feminist organization, and a close family friend helped found NOW, there was no way I was going to let my daughter be part of a movement led by terrorists.

    ” I am still a liberal”

    Why? The trendy leftists you refer to seem to just be the logical next progression in liberalism. Is it that you’d like to be only half-pregnant?

    Liberalism is for either the vicious or the stupid.

    Read More
    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Interesting.

    There are always some special snowflakes who follow Steve's posts who get seriously triggered by having a liberal comment on the threads. Glad to see that the vast majority conservatives here are made of sterner stuff.

    For those of you who are triggered by having a liberal post here, I would suggest finding a safe space with some warm, furry puppy dogs. Consider the word "Liberal" in my screen name to be a trigger warning.

    Love and kisses,

    Paleo Liberal
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Anonymous
    You have missed the mark wildly. I'm approaching retirement. But I'm using the wisdom life has given me instead of immediately jumping to conclusions. Trump pinned the Democrats by getting them to take a stand on something they didn't really want. Now they have to back out of the deal, which will cost them support. Trump created leverage out of nothing. But the wise old sages around here are screaming like hysterical ninnies. You would think they would eventually learn, but no.

    You walk into the bathroom to find the sink is broken and spraying water everywhere. Do you;;;
    A. Grab a mop and start cleaning up.
    B. Shut the water off.
    C. Stamp your feet and insist that the room return itself to a dry condition because that's the only thing acceptable to you?

    Personally I think the reason there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth, along with ridiculous demands, is because there’s a realisation on the part of the eeyore doom crew that they’re not going to ballot box their way out of this one.

    To actually fix the problem is going to take an uncomfortable, dangerous period of time where society turns on its head. Its why they go straight to “whites are doooooooomed!”. They have no intention of fighting for the future if it takes more effort than a blog comment. Just lay down and wait for the vibrants to kick in the door, getting as many cummies as possible – that’s their contingency plan.

    They deserve every bit of contempt because they want a different future than the one they made handed to them in the comfort of their hug box.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. MarkinLA says:
    @Anonymous
    You have missed the mark wildly. I'm approaching retirement. But I'm using the wisdom life has given me instead of immediately jumping to conclusions. Trump pinned the Democrats by getting them to take a stand on something they didn't really want. Now they have to back out of the deal, which will cost them support. Trump created leverage out of nothing. But the wise old sages around here are screaming like hysterical ninnies. You would think they would eventually learn, but no.

    You walk into the bathroom to find the sink is broken and spraying water everywhere. Do you;;;
    A. Grab a mop and start cleaning up.
    B. Shut the water off.
    C. Stamp your feet and insist that the room return itself to a dry condition because that's the only thing acceptable to you?

    I wish I had your optimism. How long have you been paying attention to immigration? Anybody around for more than 2 minutes should have any faith in Trump being the master conductor. He has already caved on DACA and got nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "He has already caved on DACA and got nothing."

    And what has he lost, precisely?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk

    As we all know, the inalienable right to immigrate to America is the most precious civil right possessed by Americans-to-be.
     
    That's the same logic that is applied by Anti-Choicers ("right-to-lifers") with regard to a certain red herring canard in American party politics: abortion.

    This is all about "Americans-to-be," isn't it? Just as abortion arguments are about humans-to-be, i.e. "unborn children."

    Therein is a clue to why an alt-right, race-realist, Republican American can be pro-choice. (Not that this issue should be included in serious, American politics at this stage. It simply doesn't matter with regard to saving our homeland and way of life. It just doesn't matter.)

    It simply doesn’t matter with regard to saving our homeland and way of life. It just doesn’t matter.

    If that’s how you see your way of life then all I can say is that saving that way of life simply doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    If that’s how you see your way of life then all I can say is that saving that way of life simply doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter.
     
    How very Zen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM4jJc8w4H0
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @William Badwhite
    " I am still a liberal"

    Why? The trendy leftists you refer to seem to just be the logical next progression in liberalism. Is it that you'd like to be only half-pregnant?

    Liberalism is for either the vicious or the stupid.

    Interesting.

    There are always some special snowflakes who follow Steve’s posts who get seriously triggered by having a liberal comment on the threads. Glad to see that the vast majority conservatives here are made of sterner stuff.

    For those of you who are triggered by having a liberal post here, I would suggest finding a safe space with some warm, furry puppy dogs. Consider the word “Liberal” in my screen name to be a trigger warning.

    Love and kisses,

    Paleo Liberal

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkinLA
    I wish I had your optimism. How long have you been paying attention to immigration? Anybody around for more than 2 minutes should have any faith in Trump being the master conductor. He has already caved on DACA and got nothing.

    “He has already caved on DACA and got nothing.”

    And what has he lost, precisely?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    He has lost the ability to force the Dems to the table with them in a position of weakness. He could get it back if he wanted but he can't stand being called a meanie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @dfordoom

    It simply doesn’t matter with regard to saving our homeland and way of life. It just doesn’t matter.
     
    If that's how you see your way of life then all I can say is that saving that way of life simply doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.

    If that’s how you see your way of life then all I can say is that saving that way of life simply doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter.

    How very Zen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Paleo Liberal
    Good comment.

    There are a LOT of issues that are not really Conservative or Liberal issues, but the self-styled leaders of certain movements convince people that to be a Conservative one MUST think a certain way, or to be a Liberal one MUST think a certain way.

    I am old enough to remember when the most prominent national politician to support legalized abortion was Barry Goldwater, the leader of the Conservative wing of the GOP.

    At the same time, the most prominent national politician to OPPOSE legalized abortion was Sargent Shriver, who was part of the Kennedy clan and the running mate of George McGovern.

    Goldwater came to a pro-legalization view from conservative principles: government should not interfere in the private lives of Americans.

    Shriver came to his anti-legalization view from a liberal Roman Catholic view, emphasis on the Roman Catholic. He was in favor of protecting the rights of unborn proto-Americans.

    What does the Constitution say? Nothing. Under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth. There are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution, but there ARE rights afforded to the prospective parents.

    What does the Constitution say? Nothing. Under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth. There are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution, but there ARE rights afforded to the prospective parents.

    It is true that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. The Constitution is not a civil or criminal code.

    However, it is false to say that “under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth.”

    The ratification of the Constitution did not wipe out the common law. It modified those portions of English common law that (for example) related to the monarchy, but left the great bulk of it in place. The powers of the Federal government under the Constitution are limited; plenary powers remain with the states, except for those they explicitly surrendered to the Federal government. Article IV, section 4, guarantees to each state a republican form of government. This permits their legislatures to modify or abolish aspects of the common law and to make new statutory law dealing with matters about which the common law is silent.

    Consider some examples of pre-existing statute and common law that the Constitution left alone -

    It permitted the continued existence of statutorially-established state churches in Connecticut until 1818 and in Massachusetts until 1833 (the First Amendment was viewed at the time as restraining only the Federal government from making any law respecting the establishment of religion).

    It left in place the common law respecting the quasi-feudal copyhold tenure by which farmers held land of a lord of the manor on the rolls of his manorial court. While this had largely fallen into desuetude elsewhere it persisted in New York, where Stephen van Rensselaer inherited the manor of Rensselaerswijk in 1769. After his death in 1839, the efforts of his heirs to collect back rents provoked a popular rebellion, the Anti-Rent War. This concluded in the New York Constitution of 1846, which included provisions for tenants’ rights and effectively wound down the manorial system.

    Many people are surprised to discover these survivals, but survive they did, without any Constitutional objections.

    Until Roe v. Wade, the regulation of abortion had long been held to fall within the scope of common law. Blackstone wrote,

    “Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the antient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemesnor.

    “An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother’s womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. And in this point the civil law* agrees with ours.” (Commentaries on the Law of England, 1765)
    ___
    *i.e., Roman law.

    Even earlier, Henry de Bracton wrote:

    “If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the fetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide.” (De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliæ, c. 1250)

    The Constitution no more repealed or nullified these provisions of common law than it did the common law of copyhold in New York or the statutes establishing the Congregational churches of Connecticut or Massachusetts. Further, the Constitution left to the legislatures of the several states the authority to alter or abolish those provisions of common law. When they first began to do so, it was generally to protect the unborn even before quickening or the formation of the fœtus, and this was typically justified by advances in biological and medical knowledge.

    Whatever you might believe about the morality of abortion, it is clear from legal history that the Constitution was never regarded as repealing the common law as it regarded the rights of the unborn until Roe v. Wade. There is no support, before that 1973 decision, for your claim that “there are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    I honestly don't know enough about constitutional law to say if Roe v. Wade was decided correctly.

    There are a few flaws in your argument, though I must admit it may be due to lack of clarity on my part. If so, I apologize, and consider this a clarification rather than an attempt at rebuttal.

    First off, you are correct that the First Amendment, in fact the entire Bill of Rights, was originally designed to protect against the FEDERAL, rather than the state governments. Protection against state governments came about with the 14th Amendment. Roe v. Wade refers to that amendment, specifically the Due Process clause(*). So, if the Supreme Court decided the case correctly, then the parents of unborn children have rights, which unborn do not. The 14th Amendment is now as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.

    Second, you mention that the Constitution did not repeal Common Law. Fair enough. However, nor did it enshrine particular elements of common law. As you stated, that was left up to the states, and I will agree with you at least until the 14th Amendment that abortion was clearly a state matter.

    So, if the states had the right to legalize abortion, that means the Constitution did NOT have any protections for unborn children. That is what I meant.


    (*) I will admit that the 14th Amendment has probably been bulloxed more by the courts than just about any other part of the Constitution. For example, it seems clear to me that court decisions giving corporations personhood based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, or giving birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens, were both quite wrong. The most recent abomination of a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment was
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. gunner29 says:

    The American Civil Liberties Union called the White House plan a “hateful, xenophobic immigration proposal that would slash legal immigration to levels not seen since the racial quotas of the 1920s.”

    It’s almost a 100 years since they got the name ACLJew, and they’re not going to let go of it.

    This is a Steel Cage Death Match between the jews and the Nationalist’s….hard to say whom is going to win….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. @Intelligent Dasein

    Your average alt-righter is more likely to be atheist or agnostic than religious....If liberals hated the religious Right, they are really not going to like the post-religious Right.
     
    Are you two feeling proud of yourselves, Buzz Mohawk and nebulafox? Because this exchange was one of the most wrongheaded and disgusting acts of mindlessness I've ever seen here. You both can consider yourselves useless to the cause, stripped of all honor, and never to be taken seriously again.

    First of all, there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views. Not only is abortion a murderous travesty in and of itself, it is integral to the modern Progressive Left's dystopian social policies of female empowerment and race replacement. It is also impossible to reverse a catastrophic demographic decline by killing more babies.

    Second, there is no such thing as post-religiousness, and there is certainly no such thing as the post-religious Right. To be on the Right means to be religious, in the genuine metaphysical sense. Everything else is from the Left. Metaphysical religion demands a robust superstructure that can absorb and withstand the highest developments of philosophy and politics. Phony, sentimental religion like Evangelical Protestantism does not even qualify in this regard, but Trentian throne-and-altar Catholicism is something entirely different. There is no truth, no Right, and no Western civilization apart from it.

    Thirdly, and Alt-Right that attempts to be atheistic or agnostic is nothing but a pathetic joke, a coterie of losers, fiction buffs, shallow-pates, and "Nazi-LARPing dorks." There is no substance to it and no hope of political success open to it. It is a late blooming subspecies of materialist socialism, stunted and scentless, fit only for meaningless street brawling with the antifa punks, of whom it is the mirror image

    there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views

    I’m in favor of abortion for nonWhites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I’m in favor of abortion for nonWhites.

     

    Now there's a position that will practically guarantee that the alt-right will remain a powerless fringe group for all time.
    , @L Woods
    Doesn't matter. Self-appointed Philosopher King Norton has spoken: no pro-abortion views allowed.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I’m in favor of abortion for nonWhites.

     

    That position is evil, but at least it makes some kind of sense if you're amoral.

    To paraphrase Gen Patton, no dumb bastard ever won by protecting his lady's "right to her body", you win by protecting the other dumb bastard's lady's right to her body.

    The National Socialists were cool with abortion for minorities and "defectives", but South Africa's Nationalists had a strict ban for all. There were the usual exceptions, eg a doctor's sign-off or a trip abroad, but those were easier for white women. On the other hand, I don't know how rigorously the ban was enforced in the townships.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Crawfurdmuir

    What does the Constitution say? Nothing. Under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth. There are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution, but there ARE rights afforded to the prospective parents.
     
    It is true that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. The Constitution is not a civil or criminal code.

    However, it is false to say that "under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth."

    The ratification of the Constitution did not wipe out the common law. It modified those portions of English common law that (for example) related to the monarchy, but left the great bulk of it in place. The powers of the Federal government under the Constitution are limited; plenary powers remain with the states, except for those they explicitly surrendered to the Federal government. Article IV, section 4, guarantees to each state a republican form of government. This permits their legislatures to modify or abolish aspects of the common law and to make new statutory law dealing with matters about which the common law is silent.

    Consider some examples of pre-existing statute and common law that the Constitution left alone -

    It permitted the continued existence of statutorially-established state churches in Connecticut until 1818 and in Massachusetts until 1833 (the First Amendment was viewed at the time as restraining only the Federal government from making any law respecting the establishment of religion).

    It left in place the common law respecting the quasi-feudal copyhold tenure by which farmers held land of a lord of the manor on the rolls of his manorial court. While this had largely fallen into desuetude elsewhere it persisted in New York, where Stephen van Rensselaer inherited the manor of Rensselaerswijk in 1769. After his death in 1839, the efforts of his heirs to collect back rents provoked a popular rebellion, the Anti-Rent War. This concluded in the New York Constitution of 1846, which included provisions for tenants' rights and effectively wound down the manorial system.

    Many people are surprised to discover these survivals, but survive they did, without any Constitutional objections.

    Until Roe v. Wade, the regulation of abortion had long been held to fall within the scope of common law. Blackstone wrote,

    "Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the antient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemesnor.

    "An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. And in this point the civil law* agrees with ours." (Commentaries on the Law of England, 1765)
    ___
    *i.e., Roman law.

    Even earlier, Henry de Bracton wrote:

    "If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the fetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide." (De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliæ, c. 1250)

    The Constitution no more repealed or nullified these provisions of common law than it did the common law of copyhold in New York or the statutes establishing the Congregational churches of Connecticut or Massachusetts. Further, the Constitution left to the legislatures of the several states the authority to alter or abolish those provisions of common law. When they first began to do so, it was generally to protect the unborn even before quickening or the formation of the fœtus, and this was typically justified by advances in biological and medical knowledge.

    Whatever you might believe about the morality of abortion, it is clear from legal history that the Constitution was never regarded as repealing the common law as it regarded the rights of the unborn until Roe v. Wade. There is no support, before that 1973 decision, for your claim that "there are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution."

    I honestly don’t know enough about constitutional law to say if Roe v. Wade was decided correctly.

    There are a few flaws in your argument, though I must admit it may be due to lack of clarity on my part. If so, I apologize, and consider this a clarification rather than an attempt at rebuttal.

    First off, you are correct that the First Amendment, in fact the entire Bill of Rights, was originally designed to protect against the FEDERAL, rather than the state governments. Protection against state governments came about with the 14th Amendment. Roe v. Wade refers to that amendment, specifically the Due Process clause(*). So, if the Supreme Court decided the case correctly, then the parents of unborn children have rights, which unborn do not. The 14th Amendment is now as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.

    Second, you mention that the Constitution did not repeal Common Law. Fair enough. However, nor did it enshrine particular elements of common law. As you stated, that was left up to the states, and I will agree with you at least until the 14th Amendment that abortion was clearly a state matter.

    So, if the states had the right to legalize abortion, that means the Constitution did NOT have any protections for unborn children. That is what I meant.

    (*) I will admit that the 14th Amendment has probably been bulloxed more by the courts than just about any other part of the Constitution. For example, it seems clear to me that court decisions giving corporations personhood based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, or giving birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens, were both quite wrong. The most recent abomination of a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment was

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @J.Ross
    We should support Trump to the end but we all need to be taking a very close look at Orania in terms of replicating that here. Failing the best case scenario, the next best is some kind of American Orania, and options beyond that are not worth discussing. Being by yourself without programmatically cooperating neighbors watching your stuff means dying like a Saffer farmer.

    Orania isn’t my preferred model. Retribalization shouldn’t be a quietist “back-to-the-land” model where we all look for hobbit villages to hunker down in. Northern towns, and even cities, should be repopulated, and revitalized, even as smaller agri-holdings should be normalized. And Orania, to mind, smacks too much of acceptance of a level of mediocrity. The new tribes of the old Core America should be outward looking, not monastically introspective: in whatever field–technology, finance, culture, education–second-best should never be acceptable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Sure, good, but a question of numbers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk

    If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that runs counter to the very foundations that make Western Man unique.

     

    I couldn't edit this confusing clause before time was up. Here is what I'm trying to say to you:

    If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that creates a division between the inalienable rights that define Western Man and the religion that shepherded him to greatness. You see, there is your inner conflict, your source of cognitive dissidence: Our people have the right to choose, but your beliefs compel you to eliminate one, crucial choice that belongs to females. Your only question should be, which side will you take?

    To sum up: Women have the right to choose. Nature gives them that power, because nature made them mammals. You just have to grow a REAL pair of balls and accept that natural fact.

    Our people have the right to choose, but your beliefs compel you to eliminate one, crucial choice that belongs to females. Your only question should be, which side will you take?

    To sum up: Women have the right to choose.

    You’ve articulated the standard SJW position on abortion very well. The worrying thing is that you seem to accept it.

    Politics is downstream of culture. You can’t win the political struggle on immigration without making some change to the culture. To do that you have to undermine the foundations of liberalism. You won’t do it by adopting liberal positions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Ah, so in order to manage immigration into our country, we must use the police powers of the state to force women to have children they don't want.

    You won't undermine anything with logic like that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. dfordoom says: • Website
    @unpc downunder
    If you hate centrist compromises then I suggest you campaign for radical political reform.

    Here's one idea: campaign for immigration policy to be taken out of the hands of political parties. Let the people vote for the head of the immigration department, and allow him or her to operate without the consent of congress or parliament.

    If you hate centrist compromises then I suggest you campaign for radical political reform.

    Here’s one idea: campaign for immigration policy to be taken out of the hands of political parties.

    Scrap, or at least severely limit, representative democracy (which is and always has been a fraud anyway). Push for direct democracy. All major decisions to be made by a direct vote of the people.

    Unfortunately it’s probably a couple of decades too late for direct democracy to work. I can’t see how it could work without changes to the culture. But it might be better than representative democracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @a reader
    OT,

    Why are black poor Americans more optimistic than white ones?

    By the way, since when are Whites "Other race"?

    Black poor Americans are probably more optimistic because they think that their welfare gravy train is going to keep rolling forever. White Americans of all income levels are pessimistic because they expect to be robbed further to pay for the gravy train.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. dfordoom says: • Website
    @27 year old

    there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views
     
    I'm in favor of abortion for nonWhites.

    I’m in favor of abortion for nonWhites.

    Now there’s a position that will practically guarantee that the alt-right will remain a powerless fringe group for all time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Stan Adams
    OT:

    Every time I see John Roberts, the White House correspondent for Fox News, I am reminded of an interesting little story I once read about him. This story has iSteve implications.

    Roberts, a Canadian by birth, started out as "J.D. Roberts" - a "VJ" on an MTV-like channel in Toronto. In the late '80s, he caught the eye of someone at CBS and was hired as the new anchor for the network's Miami affiliate.

    Roberts and his first wife bought a house in an area south of Miami known as Richmond Heights. It's something of a black suburban ghetto.

    (Supposedly, Roberts was tricked by the realtor, who took a highly-unusual circuitous path when driving him to see the house.)

    The house was repeatedly burglarized. One day, Roberts' wife and brother-in-law were robbed at gunpoint in their driveway.

    Within a few months, Roberts' wife was screaming that she wanted out of Miami. In the end, to save his marriage, he was forced to move back to Canada.

    Roberts spent a couple of years as a morning-show host in his homeland, then came back to CBS, this time in New York. (It was at that point that he dropped the "D." from his professional name.) He quickly moved up the ranks and eventually became the network's chief White House correspondent and Sunday news anchor, as well as the primary substitute for Dan Rather.

    When Rather was forced out after Memogate, many industry observers assumed that Roberts would get the top job. CBS chief Les Moonves decided that Katie Couric was a better fit. (Couric ended up losing tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars for the network.)

    After leaving CBS, Roberts hosted CNN's morning show for a couple of years. He destroyed his marriage by carrying on a torrid affair with his co-anchor, Kyra Phillips. (Phillips' marriage ended, as well.)

    Roberts and Phillips now have two kids. They've been engaged for eight years.

    And, this would be interesting because…….?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CJ
    Yeah Stan is little OT there, but I was intrigued to see J.D. on Fox News. Now most likely it’s about the $ but he always seemed somewhat off the liberal reservation both at MuchMusic and CBS.

    BTW he’s been on TV a long long time. The apotheosis of his VJ career can be seen on the 1983 DVD Triumph: Live at the US Festival where he appears somewhat stoned and sporting a shoulder-length mullet. He probably wanted to suppress that while he was at CBS.
    , @Stan Adams
    The "relevant" part was the bit about how he got screwed by the realtor. (A naive young Canadian nooz anker buys a piece of the American Dream, only to find himself living in a NAM nightmare.)

    The rest was an infodump.

    I collect anecdotes about nooz ankers.

    When Dan Rather was in college, he found work at a small radio station in rural Texas. Once a week, this station broadcast a sermon by a fire-and-brimstone preacher.

    The sermon was delivered on a record.

    Rather had a routine: he started the record, then raced over to the local diner to flirt with the ladies. He then raced back to the station to get back on the air before the record finished playing.

    One night, Rather was at the diner when his boss called. The record was skipping on the phrase "go to Hell... go to Hell... go to Hell..."

    Rather was fired, but his journalism professor (his mentor) talked his boss into taking him back.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. L Woods says:
    @27 year old

    there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views
     
    I'm in favor of abortion for nonWhites.

    Doesn’t matter. Self-appointed Philosopher King Norton has spoken: no pro-abortion views allowed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. MarkinLA says:
    @Anonymous
    "He has already caved on DACA and got nothing."

    And what has he lost, precisely?

    He has lost the ability to force the Dems to the table with them in a position of weakness. He could get it back if he wanted but he can’t stand being called a meanie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. nigel says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    The only way I could go along with granting amnesty to 1.8 million dreamers is if there’s a ten year moratorium on all immigration and refugee resettlement along with a border wall across as much of the Southern border as possible.
     
    Well the dreamers are already here, so not very much skin off your nose if they stay. The cost of removing dreamers could be high. Supposing mass deportations start and the dreamers, as aspiring young Americans, arm themselves and start to shoot it out with the government. (They might even have the NRA at their backs.) How would a few massacres go down? Not saying it will happen, but presumably this kind of scenario has been taken into account.

    Border wall is fine. It will cost a lot of money, but ink and paper are cheap and the government can print its own money, and the job will provide plenty of construction jobs along the border. Why, they can even hire cheap Mexican contractors to work on the south side of the wall, thus saving the US taxpayer a few billion pesos.

    A 10-year moratorium on any further immigrants would also be fine, however if the internal demand for illegal labor is really so great, then a total ban would make the stakes even higher and make people smuggling and documentation forgery even more of a major industry.

    You also have to consider the economic impact, which is a complicated subject, but my understanding is that a growing population is necessary for economic growth. More people need more homes, and more homes need more overpriced carpeting and stuff from Home Depot, and more people need to buy more beer, and so on.

    In a shrinking population, you will have a decaying economy too. Of course it may not matter, because in the long run we are all dead, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.

    I think Trump has got it about right. The dreamers are already here, the wall will make no real difference, and nothing much will change, but the politicians will feel that they have made things better.

    You also have to consider the economic impact, which is a complicated subject, but my understanding is that a growing population is necessary for economic growth. More people need more homes, and more homes need more overpriced carpeting and stuff from Home Depot, and more people need to buy more beer, and so on.

    Never-ending growth is only a requirement for the parasite class. In a population stable country the benefits of development multiply over generations instead of being consumed like locusts by the ever expanding population.

    Would you rather split your inheritance with a single sibling or fight it out with a brood of twelve? The same thing applies on a national scale.

    Imagine your children being able to buy a house and some land for the same price your grandfather paid. They could start a family and live comfortably instead of being slaves on the debt treadmill for the parasites.

    Imagine your kids paying for college with a part time job the way their grandfather did. Imagine your son supporting a family with a blue collar job while his wife stayed home. That kind of thing can happen when we aren’t squandering our civilizational inheritance on leftist pipe dreams and feeding parasites.

    Obviously this stuff is complex, but the notion that a healthy economy must have an expanding population is a dirty, ugly lie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    But Mr. Mason's sort can only salivate at how many opportunities to sell diapers and toilet paper are being lost. Some people are just too damned Stoopid to live....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. CJ says:
    @Anonymous
    Has Steve's comment section always been inhabited by so many senile old doom masturbaters and I just never noticed it before? It's like a chicken little hen house in here where every step Trump makes means total defeat.

    IMO the “blackpill” brigade is getting worse, but of course there’s no hard data. They’re not all old BTW. It seems bizarre that they are so doom and gloom just as Trump has clearly shifted the scope of discussion. Perhaps they don’t want get their hopes up only to see them dashed. For my $.02, in the 1980s I believed that society was recovering from the 1960s-70s and was not happy to see the old cancers metastasize.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. CJ says:
    @Twodees Partain
    And, this would be interesting because.......?

    Yeah Stan is little OT there, but I was intrigued to see J.D. on Fox News. Now most likely it’s about the $ but he always seemed somewhat off the liberal reservation both at MuchMusic and CBS.

    BTW he’s been on TV a long long time. The apotheosis of his VJ career can be seen on the 1983 DVD Triumph: Live at the US Festival where he appears somewhat stoned and sporting a shoulder-length mullet. He probably wanted to suppress that while he was at CBS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    No offense intended toward Stan. I just never heard of the guy, maybe because I haven't watched TV since '01. TV had already become an irritant to me, then the nonsensical coverage of the 9/11 coup with every TV outlet repeating the same tale finally drove me to stop watching.

    I don't know the names of any of the current newstwits, but I doubt they differ much from the ones who annoyed me in the final years I subjected myself to TV news programs.

    There's a saying in the South: When everybody's telling the same story, it's bound to be a lie.

    That's what the 9/11 coverage was like.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Second, you mention that the Constitution did not repeal Common Law. Fair enough. However, nor did it enshrine particular elements of common law. As you stated, that was left up to the states, and I will agree with you at least until the 14th Amendment that abortion was clearly a state matter.

    My point is that the Revolution did not wipe the slate clean. When you say that the Constitution did not “enshrine particular elements of common law,” this does not mean there was a vacuum. The common law stood as enunciated in Bracton, Coke, Blackstone, etc., except as specifically repealed or amended by statute, and the Constitution included no provision that restricted or eliminated the scope of the states’ authority to retain or replace provisions of the common law defining the beginning of life. As I’ve remarked earlier, when the states did replace the relevant common law, typically in the late 19th or early 20th centuries, they moved the recognition of its beginning to a point before quickening or the formation of the fœtus.

    What is remarkable about Roe v. Wade is that it asserts, first, that the states do not have the authority to protect the unborn that they historically exercised until 1973 either under the common law or under statute; and second, that this conclusion is justified by a “right of privacy” nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution (including the Due Process clause) but rather in “emanations and penumbras” of that document.

    Quite apart from what anyone may believe about abortion as a moral issue or from the standpoint of civil liberty, this is bad jurisprudence. The only basis on which Roe v. Wade can be defended is legal positivism, namely, the view that the law is – and ought to be – whatever the judges say it is. This reposes a kind of arbitrary and unanswerable authority in judges that is in principle dangerous to ordered liberty, whether or not you happen to agree with the result that it may bring about in any given instance.

    The question of abortion ought to have been left to the states. While the Fourteenth Amendment is now held under a doctrine of incorporation to apply the protection of the first ten Amendments to the states as well as to the Federal government, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights or any subsequent amendment that deprives any unit of government to legislate on the subject of abortion – mysterious “emanations and penumbras” notwithstanding. Indeed, the Ninth Amendment affirms the rights of the states to act in all matters respecting which they are not forbidden to act by the Constitution or Federal law.

    From a Constitutional or legal standpoint, a state should be able to retain the historic common law about abortion; to forbid it completely; to regulate and limit it under statute duly passed by its legislature; or to have no law at all regarding it.

    For what it is worth, you may observe that there is no controversy about abortion in any European country that is remotely comparable to what we have in the United States. One reason for this is that European countries resolved the issue by parliamentary action. Democracy had a chance to operate, and it did in a way that compromised between absolute prohibition and abortion on demand until practically the onset of labor.

    Similar liberalization of abortion laws was making its way through state legislatures in the United States by the early 1970s – until the Supreme Court preëmpted the resolution of the issue by democratic means. That abortion is still an enflamed issue in the U.S. after 45 years is a direct consequence of this. So-called “pro-choice” partisans ought to ask themselves if they’d be better off if they had just let democracy take its course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Similar liberalization of abortion laws was making its way through state legislatures in the United States by the early 1970s – until the Supreme Court preëmpted the resolution of the issue by democratic means.
     
    There is a very good and thorough history of the pre-Roe period by Daniel K Williams of the U of West Georgia. I'd already known that the strictest bans were in the Northeast, and that New York's licentious 1970 law was repealed by the Legislature in 1972 but the repeal was vetoed by Gov Rockefeller, but had no idea that liberalization (not legalization) bills were moving quickly through Southern legislatures, nor that the bill Gov Reagan signed actually gave hospital committees, not women, more leeway in making a decision. Or that Roe wasn't an ideological decision as much as a hack job by a jurist just cobbling this and that together to get it off his desk.

    Prof Williams looks like he wasn't even born at the time, and this is ancient history to him. But it's damned good history.

    Also, I appreciate your dieresis.


    the formation of the fœtus
     
    And a shoutout to my fellow ligature!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @dfordoom

    Our people have the right to choose, but your beliefs compel you to eliminate one, crucial choice that belongs to females. Your only question should be, which side will you take?

    To sum up: Women have the right to choose.
     
    You've articulated the standard SJW position on abortion very well. The worrying thing is that you seem to accept it.

    Politics is downstream of culture. You can't win the political struggle on immigration without making some change to the culture. To do that you have to undermine the foundations of liberalism. You won't do it by adopting liberal positions.

    Ah, so in order to manage immigration into our country, we must use the police powers of the state to force women to have children they don’t want.

    You won’t undermine anything with logic like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Ah, so in order to manage immigration into our country, we must use the police powers of the state to force women to have children they don’t want.

     

    If you accept the liberal argument on abortion (which you clearly do) then it's impossible not to accept the liberal position on all other social issues. If individual choice (even extending as far as the choice to kill your baby) is all that matters then how exactly are you going to oppose the principle that individuals should have the choice to live wherever they want to live? Including the choice to live in your country rather than their own?

    You can't use the argument that by exercising that choice they are infringing other people's rights. You've already accepted that a woman's right to choose is sacred, even if it means killing her baby (which is about as big an infringement of someone's else rights that can be imagined). You can't use the argument that immigration has social consequences, since you've already accepted the principle that only the individual's wishes matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Ah, so in order to manage immigration into our country, we must use the police powers of the state to force women to have children they don't want.

    You won't undermine anything with logic like that.

    Ah, so in order to manage immigration into our country, we must use the police powers of the state to force women to have children they don’t want.

    If you accept the liberal argument on abortion (which you clearly do) then it’s impossible not to accept the liberal position on all other social issues. If individual choice (even extending as far as the choice to kill your baby) is all that matters then how exactly are you going to oppose the principle that individuals should have the choice to live wherever they want to live? Including the choice to live in your country rather than their own?

    You can’t use the argument that by exercising that choice they are infringing other people’s rights. You’ve already accepted that a woman’s right to choose is sacred, even if it means killing her baby (which is about as big an infringement of someone’s else rights that can be imagined). You can’t use the argument that immigration has social consequences, since you’ve already accepted the principle that only the individual’s wishes matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. J.Ross says: • Website
    @The Man From K Street
    Orania isn't my preferred model. Retribalization shouldn't be a quietist "back-to-the-land" model where we all look for hobbit villages to hunker down in. Northern towns, and even cities, should be repopulated, and revitalized, even as smaller agri-holdings should be normalized. And Orania, to mind, smacks too much of acceptance of a level of mediocrity. The new tribes of the old Core America should be outward looking, not monastically introspective: in whatever field--technology, finance, culture, education--second-best should never be acceptable.

    Sure, good, but a question of numbers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. bartok says:
    @Pat Boyle
    I hope this comment doesn't sound too goofy. I'm serious.

    Shouldn't we be thinking about the opinions of the machine intelligences? We have plenty of testimony from blacks that they favor killing off all the white people. Similarly we have the same sort of opinions from white people about what we should do with the blacks. No one seems to express similar genocidal opinions if they are East Asian. Perhaps the Asians have strong feelings in these matters but just choose to keep quite about it. But few would be surprised if the Chinese who seem to be recolonizing parts of black Africa evolves policies that reduce or eliminate the native black population.

    All humans have a race and most humans have opinions on what should be done with the other races. But change is coming. All experts predict that there will soon be mechanical intelligences that will surpass humans. If that is so, then these smart robots should be in a position to have positions on races that are not dominated by the fact that they themselves are biased by having a race. If this is likely, what will the robots do?

    Are we overpopulated? I think so. Steve Sailer seems to worry that Africans are breeding too quickly. Will the smart robots also be concerned? What will they prescribe if they want to help humans with this problem?

    There are several major paths that future history might follow. Perhaps it will be like in the Terminator movies. The robots will simply try to wipe out all humans. If that is their choice then there is not much to concern us - the intelligent and malicious robots will simply wipe us out. So it's pointless to worry about such a possibility. The real question is what will the robots do if they choose to keep at least some humans around.

    If the robots want to maintain humankind, what will be there stance on human races?

    More later...

    If the robots want to maintain humankind, what will be there stance on human races?

    Pat, I would surmise that machine intelligence would appreciate memes. As is well-known, The Left Can’t Meme. So machines will destroy the Left.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @CJ
    Yeah Stan is little OT there, but I was intrigued to see J.D. on Fox News. Now most likely it’s about the $ but he always seemed somewhat off the liberal reservation both at MuchMusic and CBS.

    BTW he’s been on TV a long long time. The apotheosis of his VJ career can be seen on the 1983 DVD Triumph: Live at the US Festival where he appears somewhat stoned and sporting a shoulder-length mullet. He probably wanted to suppress that while he was at CBS.

    No offense intended toward Stan. I just never heard of the guy, maybe because I haven’t watched TV since ’01. TV had already become an irritant to me, then the nonsensical coverage of the 9/11 coup with every TV outlet repeating the same tale finally drove me to stop watching.

    I don’t know the names of any of the current newstwits, but I doubt they differ much from the ones who annoyed me in the final years I subjected myself to TV news programs.

    There’s a saying in the South: When everybody’s telling the same story, it’s bound to be a lie.

    That’s what the 9/11 coverage was like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. KenH says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    The only way I could go along with granting amnesty to 1.8 million dreamers is if there’s a ten year moratorium on all immigration and refugee resettlement along with a border wall across as much of the Southern border as possible.
     
    Well the dreamers are already here, so not very much skin off your nose if they stay. The cost of removing dreamers could be high. Supposing mass deportations start and the dreamers, as aspiring young Americans, arm themselves and start to shoot it out with the government. (They might even have the NRA at their backs.) How would a few massacres go down? Not saying it will happen, but presumably this kind of scenario has been taken into account.

    Border wall is fine. It will cost a lot of money, but ink and paper are cheap and the government can print its own money, and the job will provide plenty of construction jobs along the border. Why, they can even hire cheap Mexican contractors to work on the south side of the wall, thus saving the US taxpayer a few billion pesos.

    A 10-year moratorium on any further immigrants would also be fine, however if the internal demand for illegal labor is really so great, then a total ban would make the stakes even higher and make people smuggling and documentation forgery even more of a major industry.

    You also have to consider the economic impact, which is a complicated subject, but my understanding is that a growing population is necessary for economic growth. More people need more homes, and more homes need more overpriced carpeting and stuff from Home Depot, and more people need to buy more beer, and so on.

    In a shrinking population, you will have a decaying economy too. Of course it may not matter, because in the long run we are all dead, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.

    I think Trump has got it about right. The dreamers are already here, the wall will make no real difference, and nothing much will change, but the politicians will feel that they have made things better.

    The so called dreamers can and should be deported at any time under current immigration law. Just because they’re here doesn’t mean they’re here to stay. I don’t buy the defeatist argument that “Well they’re here, so not much we can really do about it”. Bullsh*t. It’s called enforce existing law.

    The economic impact of removing all of these illegal aliens will be temporary and short term. The economic side of things should be secondary consideration anyway since there’s a huge upside in that jobs that have been taken over by illegals working low wages will be filled by Americans at higher wages and that scares the CoC and Business Roundtable to death. If there are some jobs and industries that Americans just won’t fill then I’m not opposed to temporary work visas being issues to immigrants for such work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The so called dreamers can and should be deported at any time under current immigration law. Just because they’re here doesn’t mean they’re here to stay. I don’t buy the defeatist argument that “Well they’re here, so not much we can really do about it”. Bullsh*t. It’s called enforce existing law.
     
    True enough, in theory. In practice laws (and walls) are irrelevant without the political will to back to back them up. That political will does not exist at the moment. And there simply isn't a huge wave of grass-roots opposition to immigration, which means there is no pressure on the elites to shift their position.

    Trump has tried to change that political culture and he has made some progress but there's a long way to go. At the moment the situation is that anything Trump does will simply be reversed when the Democrats regain the White House and the Congress. The first act of a new Democrat President will be to tear down the wall. The political culture will need to change to the point where an incoming Democrat President will not be able to undo everything that Trump does.

    Hearts and minds need to be won and the elites have to be put under real pressure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Twodees Partain
    And, this would be interesting because.......?

    The “relevant” part was the bit about how he got screwed by the realtor. (A naive young Canadian nooz anker buys a piece of the American Dream, only to find himself living in a NAM nightmare.)

    The rest was an infodump.

    I collect anecdotes about nooz ankers.

    When Dan Rather was in college, he found work at a small radio station in rural Texas. Once a week, this station broadcast a sermon by a fire-and-brimstone preacher.

    The sermon was delivered on a record.

    Rather had a routine: he started the record, then raced over to the local diner to flirt with the ladies. He then raced back to the station to get back on the air before the record finished playing.

    One night, Rather was at the diner when his boss called. The record was skipping on the phrase “go to Hell… go to Hell… go to Hell…”

    Rather was fired, but his journalism professor (his mentor) talked his boss into taking him back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I collect anecdotes about nooz ankers.

     

    As opposed to nee-yooz ankers, like Paul Harvey?

    I think the word properly has 1.3 syllables.
    , @Twodees Partain
    Stan, it was relevant. I was being my usual smartass self, and I apologize.

    On the Dan Rather story, I have to wonder if the part about the skipping record was made up by Rather. Maybe he was a little drunk and told his boss to go to hell, then made up an excuse to get his professor to help him get rehired.

    Maybe his boss was just drunk enough to fall for the story. ;-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. dfordoom says: • Website
    @KenH
    The so called dreamers can and should be deported at any time under current immigration law. Just because they're here doesn't mean they're here to stay. I don't buy the defeatist argument that "Well they're here, so not much we can really do about it". Bullsh*t. It's called enforce existing law.

    The economic impact of removing all of these illegal aliens will be temporary and short term. The economic side of things should be secondary consideration anyway since there's a huge upside in that jobs that have been taken over by illegals working low wages will be filled by Americans at higher wages and that scares the CoC and Business Roundtable to death. If there are some jobs and industries that Americans just won't fill then I'm not opposed to temporary work visas being issues to immigrants for such work.

    The so called dreamers can and should be deported at any time under current immigration law. Just because they’re here doesn’t mean they’re here to stay. I don’t buy the defeatist argument that “Well they’re here, so not much we can really do about it”. Bullsh*t. It’s called enforce existing law.

    True enough, in theory. In practice laws (and walls) are irrelevant without the political will to back to back them up. That political will does not exist at the moment. And there simply isn’t a huge wave of grass-roots opposition to immigration, which means there is no pressure on the elites to shift their position.

    Trump has tried to change that political culture and he has made some progress but there’s a long way to go. At the moment the situation is that anything Trump does will simply be reversed when the Democrats regain the White House and the Congress. The first act of a new Democrat President will be to tear down the wall. The political culture will need to change to the point where an incoming Democrat President will not be able to undo everything that Trump does.

    Hearts and minds need to be won and the elites have to be put under real pressure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @27 year old

    there is no place in the Alt-Right for pro-abortion views
     
    I'm in favor of abortion for nonWhites.

    I’m in favor of abortion for nonWhites.

    That position is evil, but at least it makes some kind of sense if you’re amoral.

    To paraphrase Gen Patton, no dumb bastard ever won by protecting his lady’s “right to her body”, you win by protecting the other dumb bastard’s lady’s right to her body.

    The National Socialists were cool with abortion for minorities and “defectives”, but South Africa’s Nationalists had a strict ban for all. There were the usual exceptions, eg a doctor’s sign-off or a trip abroad, but those were easier for white women. On the other hand, I don’t know how rigorously the ban was enforced in the townships.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Stan Adams
    The "relevant" part was the bit about how he got screwed by the realtor. (A naive young Canadian nooz anker buys a piece of the American Dream, only to find himself living in a NAM nightmare.)

    The rest was an infodump.

    I collect anecdotes about nooz ankers.

    When Dan Rather was in college, he found work at a small radio station in rural Texas. Once a week, this station broadcast a sermon by a fire-and-brimstone preacher.

    The sermon was delivered on a record.

    Rather had a routine: he started the record, then raced over to the local diner to flirt with the ladies. He then raced back to the station to get back on the air before the record finished playing.

    One night, Rather was at the diner when his boss called. The record was skipping on the phrase "go to Hell... go to Hell... go to Hell..."

    Rather was fired, but his journalism professor (his mentor) talked his boss into taking him back.

    I collect anecdotes about nooz ankers.

    As opposed to nee-yooz ankers, like Paul Harvey?

    I think the word properly has 1.3 syllables.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams

    I think the word properly has 1.3 syllables.
     
    Dan agrees with you:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWgL5W0b6k0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh-Z8_6_m4Q
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Buzz Mohawk
    Good luck with that.

    You haven't stripped me or nebula fox of anything. All you have done is to so narrowly define what you think is our movement that you would kill it if successful. You wouldn't want to do that, would you? You wouldn't want to kill something before it has the chance to grow and become something, would you?

    Our reaction to the insanity and evil that is destroying our country and our people has nothing to do with your dogmatic religions. Sure, historically they have had a big role in making us what we are, but we are as much about science and logic as we are about whatever Catholic or "Judeo-Christian" stuff you care about.

    The fact is, without us, you are nothing. You will die off. Do you really want that?

    Abortion has NOTHING to do with what is happening to our people and our nation. In fact, it is a scientific fact that you cannot deal with. That is the kind of thing that weakens you to the Left.

    You just cannot seem to accept the natural fact that females have power over life at the gestational stage. If you have any belief or value at all regarding individual rights, choices and freedoms, you will accept this natural fact that runs counter to the very foundations that make Western Man unique.

    I'm sorry if some female might just kill off the little chicken embryo you impregnated her with and have so much hope for. You, if you are a male, must accept the natural fact that females contain life at this stage, and that life is NOT HUMAN yet. In the first few months, you could not tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo. There is no human part of the brain there at all.

    Hey, are you killing thousands of "unborn children" every time you jack off?

    You, if you are a male, must accept the natural fact that females contain life at this stage, and that life is NOT HUMAN yet

    Humans are distinguished primarily by speech and reason. As any parent can tell you, these make a very slow entrance, well after birth. Years after.

    So my daughter is still only marginally “human” at two. That doesn’t give us the right to throw her off the balcony, or to let her freeze to death on it.

    Hey, are you killing thousands of “unborn children” every time you jack off?

    The sperm cell has the father’s DNA. The embryo has the father’s and the mother’s, and is an individual distinct from either.

    Jeez, I can’t believe something this basic has to be spelled out on an HBD site.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    No, the obvious doesn't have to be spelled out. Does every analogy have to be exact, down to the letter on an HBD site?

    Here's one: Why don't we have funerals for miscarriages? If that zygote-become-fetus is really a person, doesn't "he or she" deserve a memorial?

    Lot's of women have miscarriages. Nature spits out embryos every day, as if they were chicken eggs. They are not human beings.

    A growing, developing child is a wonderful human being. A fetus is not a child. The problem you have is that you have a need to know just when it does become one, so you conveniently decide it happens at conception, which is ridiculous. You don't know when it happens.

    Even if you did, why does an imagined right never mentioned in the Constitution supersede the rights of a full-fledged human being with sovereign ownership of her body?

    Or does a female human being not own her body? Nature put that gestational time inside her, and yet instead of accepting her dominion over her uterus, you would use the state to dictate to her what goes on in there. That is the conflict you are creating.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Crawfurdmuir

    Second, you mention that the Constitution did not repeal Common Law. Fair enough. However, nor did it enshrine particular elements of common law. As you stated, that was left up to the states, and I will agree with you at least until the 14th Amendment that abortion was clearly a state matter.
     
    My point is that the Revolution did not wipe the slate clean. When you say that the Constitution did not "enshrine particular elements of common law," this does not mean there was a vacuum. The common law stood as enunciated in Bracton, Coke, Blackstone, etc., except as specifically repealed or amended by statute, and the Constitution included no provision that restricted or eliminated the scope of the states' authority to retain or replace provisions of the common law defining the beginning of life. As I've remarked earlier, when the states did replace the relevant common law, typically in the late 19th or early 20th centuries, they moved the recognition of its beginning to a point before quickening or the formation of the fœtus.

    What is remarkable about Roe v. Wade is that it asserts, first, that the states do not have the authority to protect the unborn that they historically exercised until 1973 either under the common law or under statute; and second, that this conclusion is justified by a "right of privacy" nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution (including the Due Process clause) but rather in "emanations and penumbras" of that document.

    Quite apart from what anyone may believe about abortion as a moral issue or from the standpoint of civil liberty, this is bad jurisprudence. The only basis on which Roe v. Wade can be defended is legal positivism, namely, the view that the law is - and ought to be - whatever the judges say it is. This reposes a kind of arbitrary and unanswerable authority in judges that is in principle dangerous to ordered liberty, whether or not you happen to agree with the result that it may bring about in any given instance.

    The question of abortion ought to have been left to the states. While the Fourteenth Amendment is now held under a doctrine of incorporation to apply the protection of the first ten Amendments to the states as well as to the Federal government, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights or any subsequent amendment that deprives any unit of government to legislate on the subject of abortion - mysterious "emanations and penumbras" notwithstanding. Indeed, the Ninth Amendment affirms the rights of the states to act in all matters respecting which they are not forbidden to act by the Constitution or Federal law.

    From a Constitutional or legal standpoint, a state should be able to retain the historic common law about abortion; to forbid it completely; to regulate and limit it under statute duly passed by its legislature; or to have no law at all regarding it.

    For what it is worth, you may observe that there is no controversy about abortion in any European country that is remotely comparable to what we have in the United States. One reason for this is that European countries resolved the issue by parliamentary action. Democracy had a chance to operate, and it did in a way that compromised between absolute prohibition and abortion on demand until practically the onset of labor.

    Similar liberalization of abortion laws was making its way through state legislatures in the United States by the early 1970s - until the Supreme Court preëmpted the resolution of the issue by democratic means. That abortion is still an enflamed issue in the U.S. after 45 years is a direct consequence of this. So-called "pro-choice" partisans ought to ask themselves if they'd be better off if they had just let democracy take its course.

    Similar liberalization of abortion laws was making its way through state legislatures in the United States by the early 1970s – until the Supreme Court preëmpted the resolution of the issue by democratic means.

    There is a very good and thorough history of the pre-Roe period by Daniel K Williams of the U of West Georgia. I’d already known that the strictest bans were in the Northeast, and that New York’s licentious 1970 law was repealed by the Legislature in 1972 but the repeal was vetoed by Gov Rockefeller, but had no idea that liberalization (not legalization) bills were moving quickly through Southern legislatures, nor that the bill Gov Reagan signed actually gave hospital committees, not women, more leeway in making a decision. Or that Roe wasn’t an ideological decision as much as a hack job by a jurist just cobbling this and that together to get it off his desk.

    Prof Williams looks like he wasn’t even born at the time, and this is ancient history to him. But it’s damned good history.

    Also, I appreciate your dieresis.

    the formation of the fœtus

    And a shoutout to my fellow ligature!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Paleo Liberal
    Good comment.

    There are a LOT of issues that are not really Conservative or Liberal issues, but the self-styled leaders of certain movements convince people that to be a Conservative one MUST think a certain way, or to be a Liberal one MUST think a certain way.

    I am old enough to remember when the most prominent national politician to support legalized abortion was Barry Goldwater, the leader of the Conservative wing of the GOP.

    At the same time, the most prominent national politician to OPPOSE legalized abortion was Sargent Shriver, who was part of the Kennedy clan and the running mate of George McGovern.

    Goldwater came to a pro-legalization view from conservative principles: government should not interfere in the private lives of Americans.

    Shriver came to his anti-legalization view from a liberal Roman Catholic view, emphasis on the Roman Catholic. He was in favor of protecting the rights of unborn proto-Americans.

    What does the Constitution say? Nothing. Under the Constitution, Americans get their civil rights at the time of birth. There are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution, but there ARE rights afforded to the prospective parents.

    Goldwater came to a pro-legalization view from conservative principles: government should not interfere in the private lives of Americans

    No, he came to it from being married to the president of his state’s Planned Parenthood chapter.

    There are no rights afforded the unborn under the US Constitution, but there ARE rights afforded to the prospective parents

    The “prospective” (actually actual) parents have duties as well. We recognize this on the male side; participation in the sex act leaves one responsible for the result, with obligations incurred to (at least) two others. But women are treated as moral minors after the same act.

    The rights argument against abortion, whatever its intrinsic merits, was one of the biggest political blunders in our history. It fired up their side, yes, but did the same and more for their opponents. There was almost no “prochoice” movement among American women well through the 1960s– it was a cause for population controllers, eugenicists, and pornographers, nearly all male.

    Making a duty-based case, as proposed by Doris Gordon and later Ron Paul, would have left the other side looking stupid and delinquent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. The level of racial hatred found among the Democrats side on the immigration would be stunning if we weren’t all so used to it by now.

    There is no better argument for Puerto Rican independence than Luis Vicente Gutiérrez.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. @Reg Cæsar

    You, if you are a male, must accept the natural fact that females contain life at this stage, and that life is NOT HUMAN yet
     
    Humans are distinguished primarily by speech and reason. As any parent can tell you, these make a very slow entrance, well after birth. Years after.

    So my daughter is still only marginally "human" at two. That doesn't give us the right to throw her off the balcony, or to let her freeze to death on it.

    Hey, are you killing thousands of “unborn children” every time you jack off?

     

    The sperm cell has the father's DNA. The embryo has the father's and the mother's, and is an individual distinct from either.

    Jeez, I can't believe something this basic has to be spelled out on an HBD site.

    No, the obvious doesn’t have to be spelled out. Does every analogy have to be exact, down to the letter on an HBD site?

    Here’s one: Why don’t we have funerals for miscarriages? If that zygote-become-fetus is really a person, doesn’t “he or she” deserve a memorial?

    Lot’s of women have miscarriages. Nature spits out embryos every day, as if they were chicken eggs. They are not human beings.

    A growing, developing child is a wonderful human being. A fetus is not a child. The problem you have is that you have a need to know just when it does become one, so you conveniently decide it happens at conception, which is ridiculous. You don’t know when it happens.

    Even if you did, why does an imagined right never mentioned in the Constitution supersede the rights of a full-fledged human being with sovereign ownership of her body?

    Or does a female human being not own her body? Nature put that gestational time inside her, and yet instead of accepting her dominion over her uterus, you would use the state to dictate to her what goes on in there. That is the conflict you are creating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Nature put that gestational time inside her, and yet instead of accepting her dominion over her uterus, you would use the state to dictate to her what goes on in there.
     
    I have never heard the most rabid prochoicer argue for her legal right to take Thalidomide to ease her symptoms. Yet such a right would be incontrovertible under absolute self-ownership. Why aren't feminists protesting the FDA, like gays did with AZT?

    Or does a female human being not own her body?
     
    Norman Bates's ownership of a roadside motel did not give him the right to perform dilation and curettage on his guest Marion Crane. The fetus is an invited guest, implicitly, and has done nothing to merit premature eviction.

    Here’s one: Why don’t we have funerals for miscarriages? If that zygote-become-fetus is really a person, doesn’t “he or she” deserve a memorial?
     
    The Japanese are way ahead of us.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/well/family/the-japanese-art-of-grieving-a-miscarriage.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Reg Cæsar

    I collect anecdotes about nooz ankers.

     

    As opposed to nee-yooz ankers, like Paul Harvey?

    I think the word properly has 1.3 syllables.

    I think the word properly has 1.3 syllables.

    Dan agrees with you:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @nigel

    You also have to consider the economic impact, which is a complicated subject, but my understanding is that a growing population is necessary for economic growth. More people need more homes, and more homes need more overpriced carpeting and stuff from Home Depot, and more people need to buy more beer, and so on.
     
    Never-ending growth is only a requirement for the parasite class. In a population stable country the benefits of development multiply over generations instead of being consumed like locusts by the ever expanding population.

    Would you rather split your inheritance with a single sibling or fight it out with a brood of twelve? The same thing applies on a national scale.

    Imagine your children being able to buy a house and some land for the same price your grandfather paid. They could start a family and live comfortably instead of being slaves on the debt treadmill for the parasites.

    Imagine your kids paying for college with a part time job the way their grandfather did. Imagine your son supporting a family with a blue collar job while his wife stayed home. That kind of thing can happen when we aren't squandering our civilizational inheritance on leftist pipe dreams and feeding parasites.

    Obviously this stuff is complex, but the notion that a healthy economy must have an expanding population is a dirty, ugly lie.

    But Mr. Mason’s sort can only salivate at how many opportunities to sell diapers and toilet paper are being lost. Some people are just too damned Stoopid to live….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Buzz Mohawk
    No, the obvious doesn't have to be spelled out. Does every analogy have to be exact, down to the letter on an HBD site?

    Here's one: Why don't we have funerals for miscarriages? If that zygote-become-fetus is really a person, doesn't "he or she" deserve a memorial?

    Lot's of women have miscarriages. Nature spits out embryos every day, as if they were chicken eggs. They are not human beings.

    A growing, developing child is a wonderful human being. A fetus is not a child. The problem you have is that you have a need to know just when it does become one, so you conveniently decide it happens at conception, which is ridiculous. You don't know when it happens.

    Even if you did, why does an imagined right never mentioned in the Constitution supersede the rights of a full-fledged human being with sovereign ownership of her body?

    Or does a female human being not own her body? Nature put that gestational time inside her, and yet instead of accepting her dominion over her uterus, you would use the state to dictate to her what goes on in there. That is the conflict you are creating.

    Nature put that gestational time inside her, and yet instead of accepting her dominion over her uterus, you would use the state to dictate to her what goes on in there.

    I have never heard the most rabid prochoicer argue for her legal right to take Thalidomide to ease her symptoms. Yet such a right would be incontrovertible under absolute self-ownership. Why aren’t feminists protesting the FDA, like gays did with AZT?

    Or does a female human being not own her body?

    Norman Bates’s ownership of a roadside motel did not give him the right to perform dilation and curettage on his guest Marion Crane. The fetus is an invited guest, implicitly, and has done nothing to merit premature eviction.

    Here’s one: Why don’t we have funerals for miscarriages? If that zygote-become-fetus is really a person, doesn’t “he or she” deserve a memorial?

    The Japanese are way ahead of us.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/well/family/the-japanese-art-of-grieving-a-miscarriage.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Stan Adams
    The "relevant" part was the bit about how he got screwed by the realtor. (A naive young Canadian nooz anker buys a piece of the American Dream, only to find himself living in a NAM nightmare.)

    The rest was an infodump.

    I collect anecdotes about nooz ankers.

    When Dan Rather was in college, he found work at a small radio station in rural Texas. Once a week, this station broadcast a sermon by a fire-and-brimstone preacher.

    The sermon was delivered on a record.

    Rather had a routine: he started the record, then raced over to the local diner to flirt with the ladies. He then raced back to the station to get back on the air before the record finished playing.

    One night, Rather was at the diner when his boss called. The record was skipping on the phrase "go to Hell... go to Hell... go to Hell..."

    Rather was fired, but his journalism professor (his mentor) talked his boss into taking him back.

    Stan, it was relevant. I was being my usual smartass self, and I apologize.

    On the Dan Rather story, I have to wonder if the part about the skipping record was made up by Rather. Maybe he was a little drunk and told his boss to go to hell, then made up an excuse to get his professor to help him get rehired.

    Maybe his boss was just drunk enough to fall for the story. ;-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
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.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?