The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Georgia's Racial Gubernatorial Race
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A SurveyUSA poll on the upcoming gubernatorial election in Georgia asked respondents about who they planned on voting for and also about their opinions on eight policy questions.

What jumps out immediately from the results is how much wider the racial disparity is on the question of who to vote for than it is on any of the specific policy questions, even the one on guns–one of the most racially polarizing ‘hot button’ issues in the country.

While Georgia is a state in which non-Hispanic whites will be a minority by the 2020 presidential election and is currently 15% Hispanic and Asian, the survey only broke respondents down into two racial categories, non-Hispanic white and black. The 9% of registered respondents who are other than white or black are excluded here.

The following graph shows the net absolute differences between whites and blacks on the candidate they intend to vote for and on each of the eight policy questions. That is, the higher the value, the greater the racial disparity (N = 971):

Ben Shapiro wept, Lee Kuan Yew’s ghost laughed. Ideology doesn’t really seem to matter all that much. When it comes to actually determining who gets power, identity matters more than ideology does.

We see the same thing when we look at how non-white “conservatives”–who opposed abortion, opposed welfare, supported gun rights, etc–voted in the 2012 presidential election. While they described themselves as politically more closely aligned with Romney, they voted overwhelmingly for Obama anyway.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 60 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Partitioning Atlanta metro into its own state is a viable idea.

    Indeed, only decentralization and ideological sorting will stave off a cataclysm during the Crisis of the 2020s.

  2. the thing is that Georgia was a historically dem state. Sonny Perdue in 2002 was the first elected gop governor since reconstruction and the dems had both senate seats until 1981 and at least one senate seat from 1981-2004. The legislature was dem until 2002 in the senate and 2004 in the house.

    So if the democrats take over the state, it wouldn't be terribly surprising. If that were to happen though (and its possible it could happen in 15-20 years) is that there would be a "this time we mean it" attitude. The democrats never got the chance to pass all the legislation they wanted when they had full control of the state government – and being out of power for however long makes them miss being out of power.

  3. krusty –

    the dems had both senate seats until 1981

    When Herman Talmadge was defeated for reelection.

    and at least one senate seat from 1981-2004

    When Zell Miller retired.

    (Almost) needless to say, not the same Democrats.

  4. This is interesting to me. How much more socially conservative are US minorities compared to whites? Can we expect that a non-white USA will be a conservative country?

    I have seen data showing that they are more anti-gay than whites, for example. Also data showing that they are more ethnocentric.

    They are voting liberal because whitey. But what happens if there are few whites? What kind of country will it be, from socially conservative point of view?

    I made some estimates that a more non-white USA will be a dumber country, with IQ of around 93 in year 2100. But will it be a more socially conservative country, just because non-whites became the majority?

    I wonder what happens to social liberalism when there are few whites?

  5. These days I'm more scared by some of of the people who do vote for the Dems for ideological reasons. A Democratic party that existed purely as a vehicle for satisfying African-American tribal interests would probably be a more amiable institution. You could cut deals with them.

    In other words, when Lee Kuan Yew made his observation he didn't anticipate wokeness. 😛 Trannies in school bathrooms? Give me ethnic and racial interests, please!

  6. Ben Shapiro wept, Lee Kuan Yew's ghost laughed. Ideology doesn't really seem to matter all that much. When it comes to actually determining who gets power, identity matters more than ideology does.

    Identity is ideology.

  7. Identity is ideology.

    Even the host of Fash the Nation will tell you it's stupid to actually become a Nazi, beyond meming it.

  8. Actually, the conservative think tanks/PACs in their fund raising are now making immigration reduction one of the biggest focal points. How far they plan on going with actual legislation is anyone's guess (assumption: only as far as the Koch Bros will allow them to go).

    What's intriguing is the framing of immigration. Sometimes there's no real reason stated for immigration reduction other than vague talk of "security". When more detail is given, it's usually related to illegal alien crime. But cuck inc. still won't even mention cultural continuity, let alone ethnic continuity, out of concern that ascribing "alien" traits to an entire human group is racist, and America is too wonderful to fully block newcomers from entry.

    Being PC is momentarily convenient, but sadly focusing on crime, and acting up in arms about the "breaking of laws" WRT immigration, doesn't resonate very well with many Gen X-ers and most Millennials, because most of them reached adulthood during a time of declining crime. It also is a non-populist argument, since the role of business owners, judges, and politicians (of both parties) enabling immigration for economic reasons is mostly glossed over.

    Focusing on cultural and economic stability for the working and middle class, regardless of accusations of racism, would be a good approach to arguing immigration. Trump should've, and could've, taken a Reaganesque approach to his rhetoric to make the case for immigration reduction. But he instead called out individual countries and ethnic groups for giving us dangerous people. Stupid. That set back the cause of immigration reduction tremendously. Had he said that immigration reduction would give us better wages and cheaper housing, and would reassure Americans that the country was still theirs, we would've been much better off.

    Consider: Trump would've faced accusations of racism no matter what. Was it really the best idea to appeal to the base instincts of your racist Boomer uncle, and confirm what his critics claimed, instead of making a progressive argument for better social well being? Mexicans don't commit rape at any higher a rate than American blacks. Mexicans aren't imported here for the explicit reason of being street criminals; they're brought here to undercut the wages of "lazy" Americans. But Trump, since he's a Boomer, can't get it through his head that it's not the 70's or 80's anymore. We aren't facing a scourge of street criminals, we're facing a scourge of greedy elites.

  9. The time for action is now; those of us who know better than Trump how to win elections ought to run for President.

  10. "In the US, women have the same political rights as men. They can hold office, run companies, make fortunes and direct wars. In fact, four of the top five US defense businesses that build the weapons used by American imperialism to murder innocent people, including women and children all around the globe, are run by multimillionaire women."

    Women aren't good or bad; they're conformists to every trend, for better or for worse.

    "The time for action is now; those of us who know better than Trump how to win elections ought to run for President."

    Trump got elected because of his money, his charisma, and his (mostly unfulfilled) promises to re-industrialize America, push out the PC school marms, and cut immigration.

    Don't be a sucker; Trump doesn't have 1/10 the character or quality political leadership skills that many American leaders had in the 1920's-1980's. There's a reason most Gen X-ers don't bother voting. Since the 1990's, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there's been essentially no true populism, no safeguarding of the commons. The Boomers are fucking terrible at uniting people for a common and wholesome purpose. They still act like heathens at a 1970's rock concert: all talk, image, boastfulness, etc., and no ability whatsoever to inspire and unite the masses to positive action. Bernie Sanders, a Silent, probably in the long run would've been a better choice for us. As it actually was and still is, we have a caricature of vulgar Boomer yuppie sitting in the white house, who can neither rely on a political network to get more stuff done nor has he been able to convince the masses (As say, FDR did) that he's listening to them rather than the fat cats.

  11. 50, 60 and 70 year old people (and younger generations who admire them) who think of politics as a WWE throwdown might be delusional enough to think that Trump represents some kind of…..God Emperor. Fortunately younger generations, who've come of age amid great financial difficulty and emotional distress, are not as apt to sit on their barca lounger and cheer on cartoon characters. Later Gen X-ers, and esp. Millennials, want results, not boasting and posturing. Get back to us when our wages are better and our bills are smaller.

  12. " Grenell, as noted above, is a Democrat, a highly paid consultant and a journalist—and an unabashed defender of wealth and privilege. In a New York Daily News opinion piece in June 2016 (“How Hillary Clinton earns men’s scorn: Women aren’t supposed to be brazen in pursuit of wealth”), for example, Grenell took Senator Bernie Sanders to task for repeatedly challenging “Hillary Clinton to release her Goldman Sachs transcripts, stirring intrigue about three speeches for which she earned a total of $675,000. Although Sanders’ point is that Clinton is too compromised to fairly regulate Wall Street, his unstated accusation is that she’s also rich and greedy.”

    Time to throw up. Money Money Money Money….Money.

    Might as well get comfy; it's going to take A LOT to dislodge the corruption that lies at the heart of post-1990 Boomer world. Most of us know, can just feel, that something is so terribly wrong. But what the hell are we supposed to do about it?

  13. 216,

    Crisis of the 2020s, hah! Who's our Aurelian? And more importantly, who is our Diocletian? TBD, I suppose.

    Passer by,

    Good question. Latin America is pretty socially liberal, but Africa and the Middle East are not. Maybe it depends on whether or not the US is the target of the huge refugee waves from the other side of the Atlantic in the coming decades.

    IHTG,

    Ideology can be pushed back against (i.e. central Europe and Russia). Racial transformation is (almost) irreversible.

    Gabriel,

    You the Jewiest Jew!

    Identity anchored to biological realities, I mean.

    Feryl,

    Indeed. Focusing on security/crime is seductive at first because it's the least susceptible to charges of racism/supremacy. Of course it's wafer-thin armor, but it's easier to take on than the economic and especially cultural arguments are.

    snorlax,

    2015-2016 set off a march through the institutions on the alt right. A lot more is happening than a lot of people realize.

  14. "Indeed. Focusing on security/crime is seductive at first because it's the least susceptible to charges of racism/supremacy. Of course it's wafer-thin armor, but it's easier to take on than the economic and especially cultural arguments are."

    Well, calling some Mexicans rapists wasn't quite the best use of this tactic, huh?

    And Trump could've focused heavily on reforming (if not outright attacking) neo-liberalism, with little to no mention of immigration per se; nothing could've stopped him from emphasizing the issue more heavily at a later point in time.

    The result of Trump's bluntly derisive comments about immigration is that judges, reporters, and politicians can now cite his negative comments as proof of his essentially bigoted character, that renders his policies invalid. Trump's attempts to appeal to the base instincts of a fed-up public have backfired. We should be having sober discussions about reform Wall Street and the Pentagon, instead of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric between phony populists and their hardcore base, which has reduced awareness of the fact that younger generations in particular want to level the playing field, and reduce greed and elitism.

    Legions of normies are now tuning out of politics to a pretty large degree (although the Silents and Boomers still may not be tired yet of the screaming and yelling), because no matter how evident it's been for the last 20-30 years that we have serious problems that our leaders need to reach a consensus on, and resolve them, there's been a corresponding level of increasing denial. The longer we go without a widely shared agreement to scale back economic conservatism, military adventurism, and cultural experimentation, the greater the level of animosity among elites and partisans. I'd have to say that Boomers, on the whole, have shown no improvement at being able to shed certain ideological and generational biases; at best, they've seen the light on some issues, but at the same time they still find it very difficult to lessen their zeal and try and reach out to opponents, or moderate their stance to enable greater cooperation within and between the various groups that make up society. At this point, who could stand to listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh, who always says "the Democrats". It's so simplistic and childish; being a Democrat makes you evil (and Boomers love to depict their opponents as evil, as if things in life can be thought of as entirely positive or negative).

    The economic conservative/cultural liberal axis has taken over much of the world (certainly, the West) over the last 20-40 years. It is, if nothing else, the summation of Boomer ideology. Promoting personal indulgence, while shredding safety nets and social support structures. Yuck.

  15. Feryl,

    "Backfired" doesn't strike me as the right word. Ted Cruz actually took a slightly more 'holistic' approach to opposing illegal immigration than Trump did, but because he didn't (couldn't) create the firestorm that Trump did, he never could have been elected. The 'problem' with Trump, such as it is, is that he was exactly the person we needed to win the presidential election but is not the person to actually drain the swamp. I've become quite comfortable in my early assessments of Trump as a transitional figure as time has gone on.

  16. From the Evo article:

    " In the U.S., massive low-wage immigration began with the Reagan amnesty of 1986, although this outcome was emphatically denied at the time."

    Er, the amnesty included nominal language about penalizing employers who hired illegals. But once enforcement was proven to be lacking, well, here we are. Enforcement is as important as any legal document. Regulators and judges don't necessarily have to enforce anything with vigor, and a particular sort of regime or climate can feed into that. It's not really fair to call out Reagan for the long-term effects of our immigration policy; starting in the late 1970's our elites started to really drop the ball, although the late 70's and 80's were in some respects still a much better time for leadership than what we've gotten since. Reagan could've signed practically anything, and there's no guarantee that it would've been fully honored subsequently.

    Also, California in the 1970's went from being 75-80% white at the dawn of the decade, to being 60-65% white at the end of it. And due to questionable stats regarding the immigrant population, it's quite likely that California by the late 1980's was well under 60% white, even though that's not the official number. Saying that 1980's legislation is to blame for rampant immigration is ridiculous, although admittedly the number of immigrants in the 80's and future decades was higher than it was in the 70's.

    I think that Frost's ignoring generational theory is a huge mistake. Throughout Western European history, we see Boomer type generations first shaking up the system as youngsters (ala the 60's and 70's), then solidifying their grip on a highly individualistic culture (the 80's and 90's/early 2000's), then being confronted by an accumulation of major problems which they must figure out how to deal with (the late 2000's-present day). Failure to solve them well will result in history judging them to be failures who didn't live up to their big talk. As a poster points out, 1968 was a momentous year throughout the West. Why? It was the year where everyone who was 4-23 years old was a Boomer. By 1968, there were so many rowdy and restless teens and young adults that the world was beginning to shift under the feet of older generations, who found that nothing they said or did would satisfy or even shut up a group of kids who seemed astonishingly sure of their convictions and their righteousness. In the late 70's and esp. 80's, as the early Boomers aged out of street scrapes and naive radical politics, they began to apply their ferocious competitiveness to the arena of individualist and social Darwinist econ./gov. policies. They waged a holy war on the New Deal, and the mid-century spirit of modesty and cooperation. Having first shredded any notion of self-control in the late 60'sand 70's, they then set about freeing companies and corporations (and the swelling numbers of young rich people in the 1980's) from any burdensome notion of exercising restraint at the pursuit of money and cost cutting. Over the last 10 years is when the Boomers were supposed to admit that they went too far, and needed to devote themselves to repairing all the damage they did. But that's not happening so far.

  17. "Backfired" doesn't strike me as the right word. Ted Cruz actually took a slightly more 'holistic' approach to opposing illegal immigration than Trump did, but because he didn't (couldn't) create the firestorm that Trump did, he never could have been elected. The 'problem' with Trump, such as it is, is that he was exactly the person we needed to win the presidential election but is not the person to actually drain the swamp. I've become quite comfortable in my early assessments of Trump as a transitional figure as time has gone on. "

    Cruz made a glaring mistake by recycling 1990's era Christian Right rhetoric, which just grates on people's ears, esp. Millennials. Cruz also is a Gen X-er, who can't help the fact that people find Boomers to be entertaining, and to use your word, "seductive". But the problem with Boomers, one of them anyway, is that they can be so long on style that it's as if they have nothing left in the substance tank.

    As David Kaiser has noted, time and time again we see charming Boomers BS their way through everything, as if repeating or doing something enough times, and with the right "attitude", will somehow clear the path to success and perdition.

    Cruz is also a die-hard defender of the less degenerate 1980's flavor of neo-liberalism, but sheesh, is there anything worse than that politically, at the moment? You alienate Gen X-ers and Millennials who want to restore at least some aspects of the New Deal, while really alienating cultural liberals, who we've got reach out to whether we care to or not. Let's be real, here: the neo-liberal revolution, and the military adventurism of the last 40 years is repulsive in at least some aspects to everyone born in the last 40 years. Even the New Right, the Millennial Right, finds the 80's and 90's to be wanting in terms of noble and admirable leaders and movements; around these parts it's common to praise Bernie Sanders and Cesar Chavez for their "wokeness", something that anyone who subscribed to the National Review in the 80's would never in a million years do. To Reaganite Republicans, anyone who ever did pro-worker labor organizing or made sweeping attacks against capital is a bona fide communist who hates America.

  18. You the Jewiest Jew!

    Identity anchored to biological realities, I mean.

    All ideologies are rooted in reality to some degree, some more some less. This goes for the subset of ideologies we call identities. The distinction between black and white, it is true, has a strong rooting in biological reality – though it would be truer to say that the real distinction is between subsaharan blacks and everyone else.

    On the other hand, some identities would appear to have a pretty weak basis in biological reality. The distinction between 'non-hispanic white' and 'hispanic white' is pretty far towards the less end of the spectrum.

  19. I wonder what happens to social liberalism when there are few whites?

    I'm not a fortune teller, but I'd bet on anti-semitism becoming a mainstream leftist idea:

    https://forward.com/opinion/412254/stop-weaponizing-louis-farrakhan-against-black-jews/

    "No form of anti-semitism is acceptable. But not all forms of anti-semitism are alike. White anti-semites are motivated by a hatred for Jews and a desire for power. Black anti-semites are motivated by anger over gentrification, police brutality, and slavery"

    In a future majority-minority Democratic Party, black anti-semitism will be more and more excused. SWPL will also join in as Good Allies, motivating their support for anti-semitism as "criticism of Israel". Hispanics are also no great friends to Jews.

    In the eyes of blacks most Jews are the just white guys, and in many cases they're the rich white landlords, bankers, and authority figures who are "keeping them down". There's no guilt about anti-semitism in black communities, indeed many black preachers and authority figures are anti-semitic to a certain degree.

    It's bitterly ironic that for all the American leftist Jewish hysteria about Trump being a Nazi the GOP is probably going to be far more friendly to Jews than the Dems.

    The alt-right itself is mostly fine with Israel, with some people even admiring Israeli policies of building walls and focusing on defending Jewish identity. We're pissed at Jewish "intellectuals" preaching the dismantling of white countries, but we're equally pissed at non-Jewish people who do the same.

    We're probably less anti-semitic than the "diverse" and "vibrant" crowd.

    In Europe things are going to be even worse for Jews. Muslims are rabid anti-semites, while most European whites only know of Jews from some documentaries on the Holocaust.

    Israel will use the growing concerns of Jews in Europe and even the United States to get them to make aliyah. But for the Jews who will stay in Europe or the US the safe bet will be to stop preaching "diversity" and start supporting conservative, anti-immigration parties.

  20. > The 'problem' with Trump, such as it is, is that he was exactly the person we needed to win the presidential election but is not the person to actually drain the swamp. I've become quite comfortable in my early assessments of Trump as a transitional figure as time has gone on.

    I agree. Personally, I'm hoping that Kris Kobach is that man: someone who has the same or more hardline policies on immigration than Trump but has more political experience and know how to get it done. With the race against the demographic clock, we can no longer deal with a cuckservative who is desperate to bring back muh principles and neoconservatism. If a Democrat wins 2024, then it's over.

    > 2015-2016 set off a march through the institutions on the alt right. A lot more is happening than a lot of people realize.

    I agree here too. It's why it bugged me when we saw several post-mortems on the alt right. You occasionally hear of a shitlord who gets outed and they're ambitious white collar white guys who were working their way through large businesses, government, etc. We may not see the real effects of this in action for at least another decade but it's happening. The tricky part is that the current (((leadership))) of these institutions are going to hold onto their positions much more tightly than the genteel WASPs of the mid-20th century. Tricky but not impossible. I am more optimistic than ever.

  21. @ AE:

    You should check out the NY Times article that someone linked here about the leftward drift of white Democrats. Actually, you should really check out the underlying polling data it was based on, because I'll bet there are some gems there! One thing that they mentioned in the NY Times article is that huwhite Democrats are far to the left of minority ones, including being more likely than blacks themselves to blame racism for black problems!

  22. Ideology can be pushed back against

    But you do actually have to push back!

    I look at American politics 10-20 years from now and see a Democratic party dominated by the likes of Sean "Abolish ICE" McElwee. Today's demographic problems will seem paltry once that cohort assumes control. You should be terrified.

  23. @ Dealg:
    "We're probably less anti-semitic than the "diverse" and "vibrant" crowd."
    Probably true, but that crowd, unlike Spencer etc., is smart enough to avoid being taped extending "Heil" salutes.
    (Commie gov'ts also sometimes killed many Jews, but not with "flair" of the Nazis.)
    This Spencer crowd is, I'll bet, spurred largely by the conduct of all-but insufferable NY Jews.

    We'll do well to remind our friends, that NY has been quite suspected by normal Americans, as far back as Hamilton's day, and extending to Rockefeller, Morgan, etc., before Jews were let in on the action.
    Chances are high, that these NY Jews are just exacerbating a quite old NY tradition.

  24. Ananymouse,

    Jews have been an entirely urbanized population in America, and tend to regard rural America with seething contempt as the local version of Cossacks. The Jews in New York are no better or worse than the ones in Chicago, Broward County, Los Angeles, or Oakland County.

    The Irish are a milder version of this, having acquired a belief that farming damned you to poverty, settling in urban areas even while free land was being given away via the Homestead Act.

    New York in particular has never been a pro-war part of the country, unlike the South and New England. NYC was under British occupation for the entire Revolution, tacitly gave support to the South for the first half of the Civil War, and its non-white populations since 1900 have always had some suspicion that money spent on wars could be better spent on gibs. The military has never done well in the post-Vietnam period at recruiting from NYC's underclass.

    https://vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-harlem-nazis-of-the-40-s-black-admiration-for-enemy-dictators-didn-t-start-with-kim-jong-un

    The rise of the pre-collapse Alt-Right is rooted in the backlash against Jewish neo-conservative warmongering, and the subsequent dissolution of the Ron Paul movement into pandering to blacks.

  25. O/T

    More Blue Banana "full cuck"

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landtagswahl_in_Hessen_2018

    Also notable is the tick up in the FDP, as it picks up "AfD protest voters" concerned that they must cast a "useful vote", the same pattern that was observed in Bavaria.

  26. @ 216:
    "backlash against Jewish neo-conservative warmongering…."
    Largely true, if this means NY Jews.
    The rest of them had virtually no say in this.

    " its non-white populations since 1900 have always had some suspicion that money spent on wars could be better spent on gibs."
    These populations rarely called many important shots there, compared to the power of Wall St.
    But, yeah, the anti-war stuff took off there, c. 1965.

    "tend to regard rural America with *seething contempt*…."
    Probably true of NY Jews, but also of many NY Gentiles.
    (This probably owes much to NYC's great distance/ isolation from any rural areas, i.e. it being at the very east end of a huge megalopolis, which has the feel of being a *whole separate* country.)
    But, this "seething" claim is all-but-ridiculous, about non-NY Jews, save for the most rabid (mostly single female) SJWs among them.

  27. Ananymous,

    Ben Shapiro – Los Angeles
    Harry Jaffa – Los Angeles
    Leo Strauss – Chicago
    Pritzker – Chicago
    Rahm Emanuel- Chicago
    Wasserman Schultz – Broward

    I wouldn't describe NYC wrt to geographic distance in that fashion, many people in the middle class will occasionally visit the Catskills or Adirondacks. That recalls more like Long Island. The megapolis begins at Richmond/DC and ends either at Boston or Portland ME.

    The voting record of the Jewish community more than justifies the "seething contempt" remark. How else can I explain the defense of Israeli nukes but the hatred of the 2nd Amendment.

  28. Gabriel,

    Agreed. When most people think about "Hispanics", we're thinking about a suboptimal proxy for Amerindian (especially "white Hispanic", which most people don't know what to do with). I wonder if it seems odd from outside the US that inside we treat "American Indian/Native American" as a quite distinct category from "Hispanic" even though the most Hispanic of our Hispanics–the ones who are heavily Amerindian–are racially pretty similar to American Indians.

    Dealg,

    The least assimilated are the least philosemitic. American culture has done a good job of making Americans like Jews–but that's unlikely to continue to be the case.

    Jig,

    Yeah, I have it bookmarked. Those are some interesting results.

    216,

    That recalls more like Long Island

    What does?

  29. AE,

    There is no bridge crossing of Long Island Sound, so any travel to Upstate New York requires traveling through the city. So if you live in Nassau/Suffolk, the travel time to the Adirondacks is greater than if you live in the Five Boroughs.

    https://s.hdnux.com/photos/70/63/57/14891974/3/920×920.jpg

  30. the societal sliding to the far left from the Democrats and the transformation of GOP from a neocon/free trade/open border/civic nat to a nationalist cryptowhite protectionnist party (to make short : the extremisation of both parties) have a lot to do with the white fligh and the blue fligh.

    Having districts with commonly 70/80% of voters to the same party make primaries tend to delegate more and more extremist candidates.

    The path "seek for moderate centre" is over. And if leftist can't accept the constitution and choose violence, I bet the right would do the same thing on the inverse case. In clear : this is no more USA but DSA. Desunited States. I have more and more difficulties to imagine another screeplay than a civil war.

    Fortunatly, this war would be easily win by right side, because they have guns, and soldiers/cops vote for GOP.

    IMO, you should treat dem like jews treat palestinian. Deport them to Canada, this new Jordan.

    Second bet : in 2020, the share of white wich will vote GOP would increase by a LOT. Too much pundit think Dems will be invincible with the coalition of non-white and liberal white. But this divine gift (Dems going crazy as hell, more and more since 2016) will scare white democrats wich are not on universities, medias and so on.
    Asians, latinos and even black will vote a few more for trumpian GOP, I guess. Thanks God, GOP is more Kobachian than McCainist, and this POS of Paul Ryan will disappear in the trash can of History.
    No more Ike/Rokefeller/Nixon centrist rep, and no more Goldwater/Buckley/W./Cheney/Kristol reps.

    Orbanization of the world's right-wing !

    (I really apologize for this awful english-written post)

  31. AE,

    'I wonder if it seems odd from outside the US that inside we treat "American Indian/Native American" as a quite distinct category from "Hispanic" even though the most Hispanic of our Hispanics–the ones who are heavily Amerindian–are racially pretty similar to American Indians.'

    Of course, the underlying purpose of racial polling in the census is largely to figure out how many people should get the gibs.

    And in that sense, the idea of handing out gibs to poor Native pre-Americans on reservations is a whole lot less offensive to me than handing them out to Squatemalan invaders.

    I don't feel bad about how Anglo whites took the continent from the Native pre-Americans and created the American nationality, but I concede it was a harrowing process for the Natives, so seeing to it that they have a share of the gibs isn't the worst thing in the world.

    In contrast, I don't owe Squatemalans a dime, and giving them Affirmative Action, welfare, and subsidizing their reproduction at our expense basically is the worst thing ever!

  32. Sid,

    In normieland, some leftists will be along shortly to tell you that because the US removed Arbenz in '53 and backed the rather abusive dictatorships to stop communism; that the US is responsible for the despoliation caused by non-ideological drug gangs and corrupt politicians in the present day. And because Cold War-era conservatives were particularly more supportive of the dictators than liberals, they are getting their just desserts from the mestizo mob.

    If there is a limit as to how much liberals are willing to force us to pay, we haven't reached it yet. Third Worlders themselves are entirely unconvinced by our arguments, they care not one whit for our right to exercise self-determination and block their entry.

    Conservatives don't do the cause any favors when they revert to their instinct and demand shooting the caravans. Israel has a get out of jail free card with a 6 million credit limit, we don't.

  33. "Jews have been an entirely urbanized population in America, and tend to regard rural America with seething contempt as the local version of Cossacks. The Jews in New York are no better or worse than the ones in Chicago, Broward County, Los Angeles, or Oakland County."

    Touche.

    "The Irish are a milder version of this, having acquired a belief that farming damned you to poverty, settling in urban areas even while free land was being given away via the Homestead Act."

    The Irish settled the US in considerable numbers, not just in the Northeast but also the Midwest and Western US. But it's the ones in the Northeast who've assimilated the least, preferring instead to hold onto nostaliga regarding their identity as the "other" vis a vis WASPs, Jews, and blacks. Irish in the Midwest and Western US have mostly mixed with the Anglo-Teutonic- (partly) Slavic generic white American identity, although some still affect an "Irish" identity. But in the Midwest and West, you're not surrounded by Jews, Italians, and blacks, so NW European whites basically all feel like generic white people. The impression I get is that Northeastern whites are socialized to think of themselves as Irish, Jewish, Polish, WASP, etc. There's not much sense of a generic white American identity. Where I grew up in Minnesota, it's fairly common for white people to cite a specific ethnic origin, but nonetheless white people generally accept all other white people as being basically the same. I think that's because there's very little socialization about Ellis Island culture in the Midwest. Come to think of it, Midwestern whites outside of the Scots-Irish belt tend to contrast themselves to whites outside of the Midwest, esp. the ones in the South and Mid-Atlantic. In the Northeast, whites tend to contrast themselves with whites in the region and with whites outside of the region (and here you can see a lot of prejudice towards the blonde ogres of the Midwest and the Jesus freaks of the South).

    "New York in particular has never been a pro-war part of the country, unlike the South and New England. NYC was under British occupation for the entire Revolution, tacitly gave support to the South for the first half of the Civil War, and its non-white populations since 1900 have always had some suspicion that money spent on wars could be better spent on gibs. The military has never done well in the post-Vietnam period at recruiting from NYC's underclass."

    Ethnic folkways and all that. New Amsterdam was a seat for bohemians and merchants from the start, and it's never really changed. You're right that the region has always gravitated towards whatever is considered good for commerce, in a pragmatic sense. Greater warfare typically means more nationalism, both of which are not good for a stable business environment (unless your business is warfare, of course). Crises periods lead to more war, nationalism, and bigotry. During the American Revolution, our merchant class (HQ'd in NYC) wanted to have continued smooth relations with the British. Obviously, legislation and combat designed to rid us of British influence posed a risk of souring our financial relationship with Britain. In the Civil War, the merchant class understood that allowing Southerners to maintain their way of life meant that the North and South could continue to co-exist from an economic standpoint. Zeal towards changing the South, or picking on the South, would spoil the financial conditions that once prevailed.

  34. 216,

    Right, that's something the far-left believes sincerely and the center-left uses cynically.

    Of course, we all know it's a bogus argument because anti-American dictators were generally even more brutal than the pro-American ones, and left a worse track record when it came to economic development. Compare Pinochet, brutal helicopter rides and soaring economic growth alike, with the absolute disaster Chavez and Mudauro have turned out to be.

    Even more bluntly, Japan got nuked in WWII and came out great. China not only got worse-than-nuked during WWII but also wound up with another two decades of Maoism on top of that, but is still surging economically. Why those countries but not El Salvador? We know why.

    The right way to handle the caravans is to detain them, deny them entry, and put their butts back on the border, all to make it clear that coming over won't do them any good. Whether we have the backbone for even that is something we'll find out over the following two years.

  35. Agreed. When most people think about "Hispanics", we're thinking about a suboptimal proxy for Amerindian (especially "white Hispanic", which most people don't know what to do with). I wonder if it seems odd from outside the US that inside we treat "American Indian/Native American" as a quite distinct category from "Hispanic" even though the most Hispanic of our Hispanics–the ones who are heavily Amerindian–are racially pretty similar to American Indians.

    I dunno about this. North American Indians are more tall and muscular relative to Mestizos/Latin Southern Hemisphere natives. There's a phenotype difference, in both the face and the body. I've often said that one of the fascinating things about America's original ethnic make-up is that NW Europeans, West Africans, and Am. Indians are all ethnic groups with high levels of natural growth hormones, that give you thicker bones, musculature, and greater height. It's as if we were selected to be big and athletic, given that the world's other ethnic groups, for the most part, are shorter and/or more slender (obvious exception being Pacific Islanders like Samoans and Maori).

    But maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Are there genetics studies showing that North American and Central/South American natives are very closely related?

  36. Feryl,

    From what I've gathered, there's not much genetic diversity among American Indians. A lot of this has to do with the Founder Effect.

    Even so, most physical anthropologists write as you have noted: North American Indians (and the kind I'm less against issuing gibs to) are taller and more muscular than Squatamalans.

    Why? Probably because of agriculture. It only developed in fits and starts in North America, whereas Central America had thousands of years of agricultural development. Agricultural populations tend to be smaller and weaker than hunter-gatherer ones, probably in order to survive on fewer calories and make do with poor nutrition, with agricultural labor being more of an endurance activity than a strength or athletic activity.

    But I'm not an expert in these areas, so take my words with a grain of salt.

  37. "You should check out the NY Times article that someone linked here about the leftward drift of white Democrats. Actually, you should really check out the underlying polling data it was based on, because I'll bet there are some gems there! One thing that they mentioned in the NY Times article is that huwhite Democrats are far to the left of minority ones, including being more likely than blacks themselves to blame racism for black problems!"

    Yeah, I saw that too, but don't have the link saved. Early 1990's white Democrats were substantially more opposed to immigration back then.

    To me, there's been a massive, freefalling decline in good faith goals towards security and the common good since the early-mid 1990's. This also correlates to lacking communism as a common enemy, growing secularism, and rising levels of partisan idiocy and extremism. At this stage of the game, there's essentially nothing binding our disparate groups together anymore. Nothing. Club for Growth morons don't recognize reality anymore, because they want endless growth…..Of everything. Feminist ideologues don't recognize reality, because it might make an individual woman look bad, and in turn ALL women would be regarded with suspicion, according to them.

    Our elites permit colleges to regularly trash the very cultural, political, and scientific foundation of Western Civ. which is what permitted the colleges to exist in the first place, and his given us enough knowledge, stability, and security that we could, for sustained periods of time, allow weirdos, dissidents, atheists, artists, etc. to have a platform from which to bite the hand that feeds them. Of course, back in the 70's or 80's (hell, the 1870's and 1880's) most people didn't buy into the nuttiest forms of "alternative" thinking. What makes the last 20-30 years so unique is the degree to which erstwhile intelligent people actively encourage hostility towards the very people ("boring" white men) who built Western Civ. I don't think this decadence is really possible when a society is facing down a great enemy. But take that enemy out, and no new ones emerge, and we turn on each other.

  38. "Why? Probably because of agriculture. It only developed in fits and starts in North America, whereas Central America had thousands of years of agricultural development. Agricultural populations tend to be smaller and weaker than hunter-gatherer ones, probably in order to survive on fewer calories and make do with poor nutrition, with agricultural labor being more of an endurance activity than a strength or athletic activity."

    Yeah, I've heard that before. But it seems like it really does take a LONG time, with minimal interaction with/invasions by, different phenotypes. That's why NW Europeans, in spite of much greater agriculture activity than Indians and West Africans, are still quite large and strong.

    The sedentary/dull diet civilization not only physically weakened these groups, but in addition, also sucked the charisma out of them. I think that the athletic and charismatic people were gradually boiled off, being that more sedentary people frowned on the feats of physical bravery and extroversion that I associate with more athletic ethnic groups. Here we also see that social/sexual pressures matter. Europeans and Africans emphasized the importance of physique and charisma, regardless of whatever else was going on their societies (e.g., Han, Simon, and Liam in Western Europe might've done some farming, but sitting on your butt and keeping your mouth shut was going to get you any tail).

  39. @216 (10/19/18, 5:34 PM):
    I gather that your list of 6 well-known, non-NY Jews, was supposed to be relevant, to the claim about Jews' "seething contempt" for rurals.
    Insofar as their attitude toward the 2nd Amend. is a decent proxy measure for their attitude toward rurals, I see *here* no specific evidence about these 6 Jews' view of the 2nd Amend.

    While it's clear enough that Rahm and Schulz do oppose the 2nd Amend., my (initial) search for evidence about the other 4 listed Jews finds nothing about any of them opposing the 2nd Amend., and I find evidence that two of them (Pritzker and Shapiro) outright SUPPORT the 2nd Amend.
    And, knowing a certain amount about the other 2 Jews on your list, I'll rather wager that their view of the 2nd Amend. is, at worst, ambivalent, given these 2 Jews' general rep as being Buckley-type cultural conservatives.

    Moreover, one could just as easily list well-known Jews who rather obviously lack "seething contempt" for rurals.
    On the list of scholars who backed Trump in Sept. 2016 (before anyone really believed he would become President), one finds a number of (clearly) Jews who stuck their necks out for him, and his (disproportionately rural) Deplorables:
    Stephen H. Balch, David P. Goldman, David Horowitz, Michael Ledeen, Allen Mendenhall, Steve Mosher, Milton Rosenberg, Roger L. Simon….
    (See https://amgreatness.com/2016/09/28/writes-scholars-for-trump/ ).

    It seems to me, that the evidence that Jews have "seething contempt" for rurals, isn't close to being impressive, or even at all persuasive.

  40. @ Ferryl (10/20/18, 9:22 AM)
    "Feminist ideologues don't recognize reality, because it might make an individual woman look bad, and in turn ALL women would be regarded with suspicion, according to them."

    Quite so, but the Kav hearings tantrum is a wake-up call to non-feminists, as to just how paranoid feminism has become.
    These feminists are now in the process of making themselves The Enemy, that was pre-1990 the Soviets.

  41. Sid,

    Part of the problem is that conservatives invested their political capital in condemning "illegal" immigration, and the left can say "asylum isn't illegal".

    "Illegal No, Legal Si" is a flawed Bush-era paradigm, designed to assuage the fears of moderate Asian/Hispanic voters. These moderates have thrown in entirely with the left since 2008, only going "full cuck" with Baker/Haley 2020 would bring them back.

    The IQ/genetics explains much of the problems of the Third World, but there are geographic limitations. Central America doesn't have rail links with North and South America. They don't even have railroads to the neighboring countries. Trucks are less efficient than trains for moving bulk goods, and the lack of rail systems creates a dependency on coastal shipping (Europe also has this problem as their freight rail is neglected in favor of passengers, lots of truck and barge traffic as a result).

    The tendency is for coastal cities to be wealthier than the interior due to trade, stimulating rural flight and thus slums. The Chinese managed this by making slums illegal, and pouring resources into infrastructure development. Obviously this is greased along by higher IQ and an authoritarian government, but the real limiter is political will. LatAm elites are content with the status quo of getting fat off of corruption, and then setting up their family in the US or Spain.

  42. Feryl,

    I'm adjusting my amateur anthropology settings here; to what I know of the Aztec, Inca and Maya, neither developed on a system of river-based irrigation agriculture. Central America is naturally marshland, the Inca used terraces. Only the Inca had a domesticated pack animal. Ocean going ships were not developed, there is some speculation that the Polynesians and Chinese may have had Pre-Columbian contact, but there was no technology transfer.

    There's also the element of large scale warfare to gain captives for human sacrifice. That had a culling effect on the warlike men. The Spanish conquest also put its heaviest demographic impact on males, Indigenous Y is highly uncommon. The ruling class also practiced incest in some cultures, the Spanish also wiped out the priesthood class of men.

  43. @ AE:
    "American culture has done a good job of making Americans like Jews…."
    Insofar as that's true, it applies rather more to Jews' vices, than to their virtues (e.g. of Jews' strong family orientation, and studiousness).

    With so much intermarriage, are these Jewish virtues crumbling? I'm not sure.

  44. @AE

    Long term reader and college student here. Where is the best place to get racial diversity make-up on the county level year by year?

  45. aNanyMouse said…

    "These feminists are now in the process of making themselves The Enemy"

    Feminist organisations have declared themselves a direct enemy force against white people way before the Kavanaugh circus.

    Almost any western feminist organisation supports open borders and refugee intake, including the Women's March, Planned Parenthood, Femen, Pussy Riot, the Swedish feminist organisations, the finnish/danish/dutch feminist organisations, and so on.

    When one searches for immigration is a feminist issue one gets a huge number of results.

    Studies found that feminist women are the most liberal and pro-immigration types of women. Even in places like South Africa, where whites are a tiny minority, white feminists staged protests against Donald Trump.

  46. Feryl,

    Northern Europeans have traditionally been noted as bigger and stronger than Southern Europeans. Anatoly Karlin had a good article about that not too long ago.

    In general, Northern Europeans have also been noted as having higher amounts of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry than Southern Europeans, who have higher amounts of the Neolithic Middle Eastern farmers. If I had to guess, the Neolithic farmers were probably physically weaker and smaller than hunter-gatherers in Europe and Siberia, the places where Northern Europeans derived much of their ancestry.

    (Another sign: Southern Europeans are better at handling their liquor than Northern Europeans, another sign that they have higher amounts of farmer ancestry.)

    On the other hand, Southern Europeans definitely have charismatic, estroverted personalities. Other groups which have high amounts of Neolithic farmer ancestry are also noted as being gregarious and vivacious. Unlike the Central American farmers, the Neolithic farmers lost little if any of their charisma.

    West Africans had agriculture, but it was female-dominated. West African men therefore had little economic utility, but made up for it by being charming, extroverted, and athletically gifted. The various social pathologies we see in American blacks are rooted in this: the women evolved to work on their own and demand things from others, whereas the men evolved to be funny, charming, and hopelessly irresponsible.

    216,

    Agreed that the "We're not opposed to immigration, just the illegal kind!" never did much good for us and doesn't really have any potency or relevance today.

    Central American governance has traditionally been very corrupt and incompetent. I think it's important we do what we can to encourage good governance and economic policy, but white Americans have no true obligation to let Central Americans come over, drive down blue collar wages, absorb our tax dollars, and interfere in our elections. In contrast, a much more cogent case can be made that we have responsibilities to North American natives.

  47. "West Africans had agriculture, but it was female-dominated. West African men therefore had little economic utility, but made up for it by being charming, extroverted, and athletically gifted. The various social pathologies we see in American blacks are rooted in this: the women evolved to work on their own and demand things from others, whereas the men evolved to be funny, charming, and hopelessly irresponsible."

    And the women get knocked up by cad blacks, over and over again, thereby insuring that black men and women remain incorrigibly extroverted and irresponsible (although these traits will be more pronounced in men, of course)

    "Northern Europeans have traditionally been noted as bigger and stronger than Southern Europeans. Anatoly Karlin had a good article about that not too long ago.

    In general, Northern Europeans have also been noted as having higher amounts of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry than Southern Europeans, who have higher amounts of the Neolithic Middle Eastern farmers. If I had to guess, the Neolithic farmers were probably physically weaker and smaller than hunter-gatherers in Europe and Siberia, the places where Northern Europeans derived much of their ancestry."

    The meme, largely derived from the Northeast, Beverly HIlls, and urban America (e.g., Jewish America) that the Midwest, South, and interior West are full of blonde and sandy brown haired beasts is a testament to this. Mediterranean and Middle Eastern fears (or begrudging admiration) of Teutonic "barbarians" also is a legacy of the these ethnic differences.

    "On the other hand, Southern Europeans definitely have charismatic, estroverted personalities. Other groups which have high amounts of Neolithic farmer ancestry are also noted as being gregarious and vivacious. Unlike the Central American farmers, the Neolithic farmers lost little if any of their charisma."

    The Mediterranean/Middle Eastern/African zone seems to have selected for "hot" personalities (likewise for Samoan type Islanders). Why is that? All human ethnic groups have demonstrated the capacity for war, violence, nationalism, and the like. But Plains Indians, East Asians, Swedes, etc. have evolved to be less extroverted. I do think that it's quite plausible that regions far from the equator (and Africa) produce more stoic temperaments, and vice versa. So that today's ethnic groups which are more extroverted have more equatorial blood, while the more stoic ones have more polar blood. For example, nearly all modern East Asian ethnic groups have some degree of Northern DNA, due to Northern invaders displacing and/or mixing with the tropical area's natives. This "over-ruled" the more extroverted genes of the native inhabitants. Actually, since North Asians are the most stoic ethnic group of all, it doesn't take much North Asian DNA to rob a person of some of their charisma and emotion. Meanwhile, "Africans" who are 20-50% Northern white tend to still be very extroverted, because the black personality is so irrepressible . Black-Asian pairings are fairly uncommon, I'd be interested to know how the mixed race offspring of these pairings behave.

  48. "There's also the element of large scale warfare to gain captives for human sacrifice. That had a culling effect on the warlike men. The Spanish conquest also put its heaviest demographic impact on males, Indigenous Y is highly uncommon. The ruling class also practiced incest in some cultures, the Spanish also wiped out the priesthood class of men".

    Ok, what about what Anglo-Celtic whites did to the North American Indians? Did "we" fail to tame them, as the conquistadors did to the Aztecs? After all, while those areas' inhabitants have largely accepted being used as an exploited underclass by modern elites, in America and Canada the aboriginals have their own turf and often live in an idiosyncratic culture.

    Modern whites really accept the idea that white people were horrible to the natives in Anglo-America and Canada, but as you point out with the conquistadors, Latin America was quickly over-run by rampaging looters and terrorists who threw the native groups into disarray, often by wiping out their smartest and toughest leaders at an early point. Whereas Anglo-Celtic whites in Anglo-America often tried to make peace and brotherhood with some tribes of Indians, and often had a "gentleman's" code of honor WRT conflict (e.g., I won't attack or invade you unless you hurt me first). It's almost as if, contrary to PC, British whites are uniquely gifted at compassion and peace making, all things considered (and it was puritan whites, of course, who did more to preach against slavery and bigotry than just about any other ethnic group). And to this day, it's the British dominated New World countries that do the best; the French ones tend to be average; and the Spanish-Portuguese do the worst.

    In the English speaking realm, whites and (((whites))) tend to be remarkably clueless and lacking in self-awareness regarding how their own countries, on average, have actually been much more "enlightened" and compassionate about ethnic conflict than is the norm elsewhere…..And especially in Latin America, who's decadent and corrupt culture (and ethnic animosities, hypocrisies, and contradictions) routinely is overlooked, all the more glaring when the white elites of the region are treated by the Anglo establishment as being representative of the region or are treated as "clued-in" about the subject of how to run a country. Steve Sailer's long running joke about Nordic and Celtic looking Mexicans being given a forum from which to arrogantly insult America's race relations really opened my eyes, and it's because of stuff like that the mainstream media will never give Sailer a platform (he's ingeniously insightful and funny about everything that's wrong with the modern Anglo-Teutonic-sphere elite)

  49. @ Passerby:
    "Feminist organisations have declared themselves a direct enemy force against white people way before the Kavanaugh circus."

    I didn't at all mean to imply the contrary.
    Indeed, blogger Whiskey cogently argues, that feminist pushing for Open Borders was inevitable, once social restraints upon female hypergamy (for PoC alphas, vs. white/ yellow betas) were effectively weakened.

    My point was, that the Kav circus has made feminist paranoia *so* much better known, so much so, that MGTOWs now can get a *much* fairer hearing, somewhat akin to the hearing anti-Communists got before 1990.
    With this circus, the feminists have awakened a Sleeping Giant.

  50. Feryl,

    See: Madagascar

  51. Philippe,

    I'm optimistic–to the extent that it's possible when thinking about a 'hot' civil war–that you're correct. It's sometimes poo-pooed as naive because the establishment allegedly has the military, the police, etc. I'm highly skeptical that young white guys from flyover country will turn their guns against red state America. Exhibit A: The reaction of some British soldiers to seeing Tony Robinson in the street.

    Sid,

    The Old America vs Faux New America CivNat approach that Trump represented is something I became a little less guarded about during 2016 but by the end of 2017 I was back to thinking it was a seductive pipe dream. Blacks and American Indians aren't going to link arms with white Americans to stop the invasion, they're going to ally with the invaders.

    216,

    These high-profile caravans are test runs for not just what will come through from other parts of Latin America but also for what may come from Africa (unless its president-for-life Kamala Harris, at which point they won't need a layover in Latin America, they'll just come stateside directly).

    Anon Student,

    The US Census quick facts page is good (search up: US Census quick facts [state] [year]). Not sure if you'll be able to find every single year there, but I think you will be able to.

    Feryl,

    Anglos didn't invent slavery, they ended it.

    That and just about everything else that is recognized–by Anglos, it must be admitted–as moral progress follows the same pattern.

  52. AE,

    The first round of the caravan got the NG stationed on the border, and the family separation policy. The former can only be attacked on cost grounds, the latter led to screaming cat ladies and conspiracies of child trafficking.

    Without Congress changing the laws, there isn't anything we can do to barring a total shutdown of the border which would cause an instant recession and likely impeachment.

    It remains to be seen if this will deliver by Election Day, what with early voting now. The GOP Gov candidate in FL also appears to have dropped a dud in the debate, and Black Twitter had an orgasm for their DSA god. That "monkey remark" is 2006 Allen all over again.

    At a certain point, the Right has to make explicit threats to refuse to seat egregious Dems like Harris, Gillum, Abrams and anyone with DSA endorsement. Racial headcounts are turning into racial triumphalism.

  53. Feryl,

    In general, Mongoloids are more calm and stoic than other races. The process of self-domestication that accompanied agricultural hit Mongoloids especially hard, to the point that Chinese and Central American farmers tend to have very "boring," conformist personalities (though Chinese tend to be boring grinds, whereas Central Americans are more comfortable with idle time).

    In contrast, pastoralists like the Mongols and hunter-gatherers like North American Indians generally are regarded as cool and exciting, even if they're still stoic and restrained. Polynesians are part Melanesian Australoid, so that explains why they're famously hotheaded.

    AE,

    I don't necessarily disagree, but we're still at the point where huge numbers of white Republican voters want to specifically help out blacks and Native Americans. They can't get behind naked white nationalism just yet.

    Example: my dad warmed up to Trump somewhat when Trump made a visible effort to appeal to blacks.

    "Gibs for descendants of slaves and Native Americans is negotiable, but no gibs for anyone else" might not be ideal, but it's still more appetizing to a lot of white Republicans than the alternatives. And while it won't win over the majority of blacks or Natives, it still gives enough room for a Kanye West/Hodgetwins-style black MAGA conservatism to sap the black male voter turnout, which makes electoral success in certain swing districts more viable.

  54. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    @aNanyMouse,

    Even if jewish virtues aren't crumbling, jewish demographics are.

    It's why I've never understood scaremongering over bad jewish behavior. At their current rate of intermarriage and super low fertility secular jews will be out of the picture in a century or so. They give new meaning to the phrase dysgenics.

  55. @ Anon:
    In fairness to the scaremongerers, I'll bet ranch, that they consider a century or so to be far too long to wait.
    If I believed the net effect of US Jewry to be nearly as bad as they charge, I'd probably have ants in my pants about the JQ.

  56. Like I have ants in my pants about Mad Ave, Hollywood, Rad-feminism, and the Deep State.

  57. Esp. the Deep State.

  58. Sid,

    Agree. It's beats the full cuck alternative.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS