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
Losing It All (With Dignity!)
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
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

In the comments to the post on how Trump is raising awareness about the diversity visa lottery and chain migration, Pithom reacts disdainfully:

Trump’s insults of diversity visa recipients (“worst of the worst”) are very, very stupid (far, far worse than the Curiel remarks, but who’s paying attention?), and may well lead to the public becoming more pro-immigration.

For the sake of argument, let’s grant him the “may well lead to”. So what? Immigration restrictionism has been a populist issue for decades, hell probably forever. Its lack of popular support has never been an obstacle to bringing it to fruition.

The owned marionettes comprising the political class and their unholy coalition of puppet masters–the chamber of commerce, the labor unions, George Soros, the Koch brothers–are the reason restrictionism hasn’t happened.

With Cruz as president there is, optimistically, a 10% chance we’re talking about chain migration right now. With any of the other candidates, it’s a guaranteed 0%.

Meanwhile, Trump has put it into play. Seriously so, to the extent that it is now a real legislative possibility. He is the first president since Eisenhower poised to significantly reduce immigration into the US.

I don’t care if his approach is ‘divisive’ or if it causes the issue to poll modestly less favorably. Restrictionism has been consistently popular for decades and that has resulted in exactly nothing being accomplished. Instead, it’s given us nation-wrecking disasters like the Derb’s favorite statistic:

Our country has admitted more Muslims for settlement in the fifteen years since 2001 than we did in the fifteen years prior. You can’t get more insane than that.

In fairness, Pithom does note that he is glad Trump is bringing immigration up. He’s a serious thinker worthy of respect, but he’s doing what so many of the faux noble cuckservatives did during the election by making the gritty, vulgar man of action the enemy of the perfect form that never, ever goes through the formality of actually manifesting itself.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 24 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. True. Ronald Reagan, a superhero to conservatives for many (sound) reasons, was pretty worthless on immigration. For example:

    1986 IRCA: amnesty in exchange for tough border & penalties
    Rising levels of illegal immigration [led to] the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants. Aside from creating the H-2A visa for seasonal employment, IRCA failed to create new avenues for legal immigration. The combination of amnesty and inadequate avenues for legal immigration exacerbated the problem of illegal immigration.


    The IRCA Sounded pretty good – amnesty for 3 million illegals in excahange for strict border security and strict penalties on employers for hiring illegals. Hah! How'd that one work out?

    Reagan also called Latinos "natural conservatives – they just don't know it yet." Sure….

    Newt Gingrich said:

    In 1986 I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill because we were told it would solve the problem of massive illegal immigration. In his diaries, President Ronald Reagan said he was going to sign the bill because we had to regain control of our borders. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill contained three promises:
    The government would make a concerted effort to control the borders.
    An effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were hired.
    One-time amnesty would be granted for people illegally in the United States.
    All three promises were broken. The government has made no serious effort to control our borders. Employers continue knowingly to hire illegal immigrants without any real fear of punishment.


    More about Reagan:

    Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, rankled nationalist sensibilities in the neighboring nations. But Reagan was serious in his proposal. Though he traveled only once outside the North American continent during his first 57 years, he was neither insular nor isolationist. California has windows to the world in Asia, and Reagan thought of the US as a Pacific power as well as an Atlantic one. He also had a Californian’s consciousness of Mexico and an actor’s appreciation of Canadians, who are well-represented in the film community. The dream of a North American accord would drive the successful pursuit of a US-Canadian free trade agreement and a future-oriented “framework” trade agreement with Mexico.


    So Ronald Reagan, a real conservative on many issues, was essentially worthless on this issue. Trump is the first president in recent times to raise in in a serious fashion. Hope he sticks with it. (The sources for all the quotes can be found here.

  2. Jeeze, I've just about given up on worrying about political-tactical details. Should have taken Vox Day's advice the first or second or twentieth time he said to do that.

    Trump said this, Trump said that. Trump loves Bannon, Trump hates Bannon.

    I have no idea what I'm looking at…besides the results.

    And the results are mighty good.

  3. Back in the 1970's there was very widespread hand-wringing about running out of clean water, landfill space, etc. and paving North America.

    Once the Social Mood rally began in 1982 and turned into a mass-insanity mania around 1995, all such worries appeared to evaporate.

    Look at time-lapse satellite photos of Houston, TX. Immigration (legal and illegal) is paving North America and turning formerly comfortable spaces into Overcrowding Central.

    I can feel it. The desire the literally rip immigration-boosters into bloody chunks is in my bone marrow, and I'm certainly not alone. Between the Equalist Cultists who, Jim Jones style, insist we all join them in poisoning ourselves with their reality-denying religious sacraments and the Open Borders zealots, it seems that when this Rage Reservoir eventually boils over, a Rwanda-level pogrom is likely. I blame the Equalists and Open Borders clowns for destroying the Norman Rockwell painting of my youth, and for insuring my sons and grandchildren will never know the Mayberry RFD level of safety and peace we enjoyed.

    Busts only follow booms. Neighborhood by neighborhood violence updating the carnage of the English Civil War can only follow conditions that prime for it.

    Are we not yet primed?

    There are two possible paths:
    A: Interest rates rise, choking off borrowing, defunding a vast amount of economic activity now paid for exclusively by issuing IOU's and destroying a vast amount of the credit inflation that flowed these past 36 years into the Bond Ocean.
    B: Interest rates stay low, collapsing every pension fund in the country because all of them rely on 7% or more in "safe" investment yields which DON'T EXIST. (Zerohedge had a graph showing that if rates could stay at 2-3% the unfunded shortfall is half again as large as the US NATIONAL DEBT.

    Sooner or later this Long Boom, fueled by collective fantasies, will end. I sincerely look forward to the clarity of purpose that will likely accompany that time.

  4. Trump is currently under pressure from the moderates in the White House not to do anything rash and transformative on trade, so as not to disturb the booming economy he's presiding over.

    This is actually potentially a good thing for immigration restrictionists, since it means he will have to compensate by satisfying his base in that area.

  5. Agree fully with the sentiments.

    One thing I would add: immigration restriction will naturally gain popularity over time, at least among the residual white population; you can only hinder it temporarily. The consequences of immigration will become more clear with every year. Plus the white population is genetically and culturally becoming more conservative, as conservatives are the ones that breed. Hence Gen Z.

    I even have to think that Mexican-Americans will naturally develop a reluctance to admit non-Mexicans, or at least non-Hispanics. Mexico itself has tough anti-immigration restrictions. And even black South Africans are extremely hostile to immigration by other Africans.

    Plus I expect that sometime this century, things will get very, very dark in at least one Western country, and that will open a lot of eyes, just as happens to a lesser degree when Eastern Europeans observe Merkel's Germany. Sweden looks to be the prime candidate, but even a collapse/genocide in South Africa would be illustrative.

    It may be the case that restricting immigration always ends up unpopular in the short run, at least as long as the Left controls the culture. "Dreamers" have their dreams crushed today, families are torn apart, etc. etc. The consequences of immigration only accumulate in drips and drops. So you burn some popularity to achieve results. A smoother politician than Trump could achieve more results while burning less popularity, but this is the hand we were dealt.

  6. "Back in the 1970's there was very widespread hand-wringing about running out of clean water, landfill space, etc. and paving North America."

    Maybe the early 70's…..By the time of Star Wars and Saturday Night fever many of those erstwhile hippies were getting perms and doing coke. And our elites were beginning to turn their backs on the commons.

    There's a funny tendency to transpose different decades. People tend to associate a decade with the culture of the previous decade, for some reason. E.g., thinking of the 70's as an idealistic and earnest decade (uhh, no, that would be the 60's), or thinking of the 80's as a cynical and hedonistic decade (uhh, no, that would be the 70's).

    Black Death:

    Elites started punching holes in our boats back in the mid-late 70's. Trying to assign blame to a particular elite is futile, although some elites are worse than others. The GOP in the 70's and 80's was aggressively hostile towards Rust belt whites (albeit the Reagan admin did some token things to appease these people), and this manifested a desire to flood the heavily Republican Deep South and West with as many people as possible, as a take that at the Northeast and much of the Midwest, heavily Dem regions (even in the Reagan era) that appeared to be on their last legs in the later 70's and early 80's.

    Now that de-industrialization is so far advanced, many GOP'ers these days don't think much of the labor movement or the history of "white ethnic" Democrats of the factory and mining regions in the Northeast, Midwest, and Upper South. The Democrat's own betrayals of these regions, and elite Democrat disdain for the culture of the heartland, have made it possible for the GOP to do far better in these regions that they did in the 50's, or 80's or whatever. People in Detroit, Louisville, Buffalo etc. aren't stupid; 30 or 40 years ago they heard the GOP elite blasting the labor movement, which heavily figured in the politics of the Rust-belt, as communist, un-American, a drain on hard working company owners and share holders, etc. Why do you suppose Democrats did so well locally in these regions in the 70's and 80's, while the GOP was content to rely on yuppies, soldiers, cowboys and Sun-belters? Funny thing is that eventually many companies started passing over the West and South, to boot. First they claim that unions and regulations were too stiff in the Northeast, so there goes the jobs to the South and West. But given the paucity of worker protections in these areas, what rationale is there for leaving them behind, too?

  7. "Once the Social Mood rally began in 1982 and turned into a mass-insanity mania around 1995, all such worries appeared to evaporate. "

    There was a decent backlash towards yuppies from about late '87-1992. Not that it made elites any less arrogant and greedy. The 1990's is when some semi-rich people began to use adult servants (many of them immigrants) for various kinds of domestic labor, rather than doing it themselves, or having family or local kids do it. 2nd and 3rd tier elites in the 1940's-1980's did not affect to be 1st tier elites. By the mid-late 90's, even many "middle class" (whatever that means) people were becoming fixated on status objects like McMansions. By the late 90's, we'd lost what little populism we had left, and you no longer were supposed to resent "winners"; only "losers" felt sore about the activities of elites and wannabe elites.

  8. Feryl, the bond market low of 1981 (ending a typical 35 year bear market) changed everything. Bonds are intangibles, and thus they are not governed by supply/demand pricing. As prices rose, more were supplied, in what eventually became a flood.

    The social mood rally that underpinned the Great Asset Mania and the greatest credit bubble in recorded history sure seems long in the tooth.

    When it finally ends, all the fears and worries of the last bear market (1964-1974/82) will come back, raised to an exponent. Freak-outs over pollution, debt, xenophobia and race are poised to skyrocket.

  9. There's a funny tendency to transpose different decades. People tend to associate a decade with the culture of the previous decade, for some reason. E.g., thinking of the 70's as an idealistic and earnest decade (uhh, no, that would be the 60's), or thinking of the 80's as a cynical and hedonistic decade (uhh, no, that would be the 70's).

    I was there in the theater when Star Wars came out. I saw SNF three times. If you think I misplace widespread sentiment by a decade you're a moron. The 60's were Flower Power only to coastal clowns & historians. For the rest of us it was Mayberry RFD, Mr. Ed, Green Acres and Rat Patrol.

    The 70's had endless PSA's exhorting people to not litter. IIRC, the Clean Water Act was a 1970's vintage.

    Yuppies with their signature BMW's were 1984+.

  10. The 60's were Flower Power only to coastal clowns & historians. For the rest of us it was Mayberry RFD, Mr. Ed, Green Acres and Rat Patrol.

    Crime began to soar in 1967, and civil rights related unrest was already brewing before 1967.

    NYTimes query searches show that concern for crime was not a priority until the 1980's (when incarceration soared and the war on drugs began in earnest). Many Boomers often downplay how dangerous the late 60's and 70's were, presumably as part of their war on X-ers (growing up I often heard Boomers criticize "kids these days" usually in reference to horrible ghetto crime and drug waves).

    When trying to capture the culture of a decade, it usually works best to split a decade into halves. The first 4-5 years of the Sixties were like the 50's, then the zeitgeist abruptly changed into one of challenging authority, lookin' for "action", and so forth. Like you suggest, these changes hit blacks and upper class whites first, and by the early 70's were starting to filter down to blue collar whites. Which is not unlike how social climbing and status symbol focus were clearly evident among upper class whites in the late 70's and early 80's, then hit upper middle class whites in the late 80's and early 90's, then by the late 90's even lower middle class whites were wasting money on stupid over priced crap, much of which was made poorly or not even made in the US by then.

    Lower(er) class people noticed status striving increasing by the mid 80's, and were resentful of it to some degree. That's why the 80's get a bad rap. In hindsight though, the 80's and early 90's were the last period when a decent layer of Westerners weren't totally consumed by the rat race. As you get to the 2000's, criticism of striving becomes muted because we've gotten so numb to it and few people are genuinely morally upset by it anymore.

    "The 70's had endless PSA's exhorting people to not litter. IIRC, the Clean Water Act was a 1970's vintage. "

    Elites were genuinely concerned about some important issues back then. In the 60's, it was urban unrest and opposition to Vietnam that many elites wanted to fix to the satisfaction of the masses. In the 70's, it was environmental problems and lingering bitterness over racism and sexism that elites wanted to spruce up. In the 80's, it was crime and drugs.

    Starting in earnest in the 90's, elites become avowedly unresponsive to what the masses want. Barbara Jordan's commision on immigration recommended sensible limits, but elites in both parties did nothing. People were becoming fed up with diversity, affirmative action, etc., but as each year went by government and business has become more insanely pre-occupied with PC.

    The PSA thing is a good reminder of a time when elites weren't actively contemptuous toward populist ideas.

  11. "For the rest of us it was Mayberry RFD, Mr. Ed, Green Acres and Rat Patrol."

    Trad. broadcast TV is intended for an audience disproportionately middle aged and female (e.g., those who buy lots of crap). It's a poor indicator of the zeitgeist. Generationally speaking, TV got edgier in the 80's due to Boomer creators. 60's and 70's TV shows tended to gloss over the discord, and certainly the more lascivious and sleazy aspects of the late 60's and 70's. I myself find most 60's and 70's TV shows to be unwatchable outside of a handful of dramas and top shelf sitcoms (and admittedly, the late 70's were the peak period for sitcoms), but hell, had I been 15 years old in 1970 I still would not have been the target audience for most of these shows.

    Male and younger viewers often criticize bullshit like the Big Bang Theory, but we're not the main audience for this crap. This MOR stuff is supposed to be catnip for women who'll stick around and be exposed to ads. It's why male characters are often effeminate or doofuses (male sitcom actors often have a self-deprecating shtick).

  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I adopted a baby monkey after I found him on the side of the road next to his mother's lifeless body. The baby didn't know what to do and was sad and crying so I decided to take him with me and help raise him. So I decided to daily post a YouTube video of our baby monkey so everyone can see him. Here's my YouTube channel:

  13. Black Death,

    The zeitgeist was different then. Those were headier days. But I can only take the excuse-making that far. The Reagan amnesty was a disastrous own-goal, the most monumental mistake the US has made since 1965.

    Dissident Right,

    Several years ago I stopped listening to the top of the hour news updates on NPR/the local AM affiliate when I was driving. A week later and I couldn't remember any of it and none of it mattered, with the exceptions of the things I would've heard about anyway.


    Okay, expound on what is happening with crypto currencies, specifically bitcoin. Be as pithy or loquacious as you'd like. Up XX,XXX% strikes me as an obvious signal that we're entering a new state of degradation for fiat currency.

  14. the only good thing Reagan made (but a big one), was the destruction of the soviet empire, with arms race and oil price play.
    For the rest, he was an awful liberal-conservative (in french way : I mean "free-trade & civic nationalism"), and even in capitalism, he was not classic because the national budget was not balanced.

  15. Sometimes it's hard to really understand how high the stakes are with respect to demographics and immigration. I admit that I likely don't fully comprehend it myself in terms of the damage it really wreaks on society as a whole. Especially long term implications of people who are completely different from you in terms of intelligence, time preferences, etc. Do you think we can ever achieve the supposed green revolution when 40-50% of the country just wants more gibs and in fact gets angry if any kind of infrastructure project is proposed? Does anyone remember all of those "shovel ready" projects last decade that got shelved because the stimulus money got rediverted to social justice causes? How can we expect to advance or even tread water as a society when roughly half of the population just sees it as something to extract gibs and shekels from? We went from the Wright Brothers to landing on the moon in 60 years and now we can't repair our shoddy bridges. The damage wrought by demographics pervades our everyday lives and you can no longer downplay it or pretend it is something that it goes away when you move an hour away from a city to an exurb or send your kid to a private school. Like or not, we are going to have to deal with this question so let's at least try to stop thinking that it's a can that can be kicked further down the road or pretend that it's even remotely a good thing.

    Sorry for the large block of text.

  16. AE, re: cryptocurrencies, I have a poorly informed opinion because I see them through a very efficient filter. To me, they are Tulipmania^21 (I may not be exaggerating the exponent, BTW.)

    Two of my sons work in the "financial services" industry in IT. Last Monday I discussed the actual value of blockchain-based currencies with one of them, and we concluded that essentially all of the "magic" benefits of crypto are BS. A fantastic column on this was already written:

    Cryptocurrencies are the ultimate intangible, stripping every last vestige of moderation or 3rd party policing found even in off-market securities. In this, you are correct, as a "wealth medium" they one-up even fiat currencies.

    They are marketed as money that doesn't require trust, which is hilarious because in fact, I consider them the ultimate in trust; there's no FDIC, no courts, no arbitration, they are "wealth" held by each individual, NAKED and unprotected by anything at all in society (and let's not forget that we now know that essentially ALL computers have microprocessors with a screaming flaw that would allow all the encrypted "safety" of blockchain to evaporate.) Talk about a foundation of TRUST….

    I hold that under the socionomic hypothesis, we're in the greatest mania for social trust ever recorded. It's "Six Degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon" only in trust…where as much as people HATE the government, the Fed, bankers, cops, etc., in fact their every single action indicates the exact opposite, that they trust armies of people they don't know to insure that their food is wholesome, their streets are paved, their cars are reliable, their jobs are secure, their "savings" (mostly market speculation) are secure and that all those IOU's promised to them in future years, the sugarplums dancing in their heads, are as real as the phone they have in their hand.

    I don't give a SHIT what people say, what they do indicates trust on a scale I can't describe. So cryptocurrencies are just another way to create collective-mental-wealth, a fantasy of riches, in what only appears to be a new medium.

    Real wealth is tangible. Intangible wealth can rise and rise and rise, but all it represents is the POTENTIAL to chase the finite amount of arable land, plant & equipment, useful housing stock, lakefront property, etc., etc. that is REAL, tangible wealth. The metastasizing "wealth" in IOU's (bonds), stocks, cryptocurrencies, etc., is just credit inflation…nothing more or less. It is the same thing as playing Monopoly(tm) where the banker starts cutting a yellow legal pad into new $500 bills and flooding them into the game. Scarier is the real world consequences of altering people's BEHAVIOR in ways that are sticky (can't be painlessly unwound) as they increasingly act to cater to the mass-minded "wealth" emanating from the largest credit emitters (and largest of all is Uncle Sam.)

  17. I surely wish I'd have tossed $100 at Bitcoin when an investment newsletter to which I then subscribed first mentioned it. That was at $0.10/btc. But I'm not constituted to participate in something I don't understand. I can speak of mass-minded manias, but I viscerally do not understand them, just as I can speak of homosexuality but never understand why a man would want to suck another's dick or take a dick up his ass. It all is simply too irrational for me to process, despite my recognition of its existence.

    I maintain that sooner or later we will see all these fantasies evaporate, and that the greatest monetary paradox of all time will occur for a few months or even a couple years: banknotes will become the best store of wealth. As the only tangible representation of money, paper cash has suffered a complete collapse of value as credit inflation (properly understood to be the vast increase in bonds and all other intangible assets in the aggregate) raged. When the engine that inflated all that intangible "value" goes into reverse, it should be paper money that rises as all else falls. Of course, I could continue to be wrong indefinitely. This is nothing but a logical conclusion, and irrationality is the rule, not the exception.

  18. All presidents reflect the mass mind of their times, and the mass mind of the last 50 years has been that of a perpetual adolescent with a (seemingly) limitless credit card and zero sense of responsibility.

    The last 50 years are the final "rally" in a very long (centuries long) period of rising living standards and rising optimism. Even the hells of the 20th century were but brief pauses in what otherwise is an astonishing period of improving conditions. Think for but a moment what life was like for the average person in North American in the mid-1800's.

    This increase in living standards eventually produced an expectation of "better, faster, cooler is right around the next corner" in every mind. I submit that the "revolutions" of the last 50 years pale to insignificance compared to those of 1850-1950, and that the most modern "gizmos" like social media and online porn are degrading and destroying people in ways the age-old vices like gambling and prostitution couldn't imagine. We're coasting into a top, and the final leg higher is full of fluff, trivia and bought on credit.

    "We" conquered many of Nature's threats, only to substitute man-made alternatives. A population existing under considerable hardship produces hardy, capable individuals because those who are not hardy and capable do not survive and reproduce. How long will First World humanity exist without the culling of hardship before it is completely populated by individuals too weak and stupid and deluded to survive without existing in what amounts to a zoo? As that occurs, is there a tipping point where hardship, long dammed by earlier, smarter, more capable people, breaks that dam and floods back in?

    Logically, the answer must be yes. And what do we see around us, but vast numbers of people who are increasingly incapable of the most rudimentary self-help, and wildly popular assaults on the dam holding back Nature's fury. When the dam breaks, I have no doubt that what follows will be BIBLICAL, and people's interpretation will be that God's WRATH is what they're seeing.

  19. Phillipe,

    Hopefully his amnesty will also serve as a stark reminder of the perils we are facing with the DACAmensty, and why it must not be legislatively enacted. Trump recently tweeted about how there will be no DACA treatment without a wall. That is encouraging in my view.


    Thanks. I share your sentiments. I, too, retrospectively wish I'd thrown a $100 at it in 2011 when I first became aware, but I'm more interested in what it signals in terms of the unsoundness of contemporary global economic system and appreciate your remarks regarding that.

    I tend to use the aquarium metaphor, but the zoo one may be even better.

  20. AE,

    I go back and forth between hope and fear on whether Trump will deliver on immigration this year. Black and white pills, if you will.

    That said, I like how Trump has been making DACAmnesty conditional on the Wall, forcing Democrats to have to compromise their anti-Wall stance if they want to keep the Dreamers.

    If the 1986 Reagan amnesty had traded citizenship for illegals for ironclad border security, it would have been lamentable but perhaps understandable. The fact that it was such a one-sided give away leads me to agree with you: it was the biggest mistake our country had made since 1965.

    Trump is not a man of overwhelming sympathy for others, but he does seem to have a soft spot for children. I think he wants to keep the Dreamers, but he would hate to commit himself to a one sided deal the way Reagan did.

    Personally, I still hope DACAmnesty falls apart and Trump finds another way to get the Wall, and the fact Trump has been so firm on funding for the Wall is encouraging.

  21. Greedy ass elites are always scheming to pinch pennies. Even in the 1950's, we had state sanctioned Mexican labor programs (primarily to benefit red state elites, btw). What counts is whether we have a certain faction of elites willing to give us more of a break, and willing to put effort into at least moderate measures intended to preserve stability and security for the natives.

    Globalism (and back stabbing elites) really started to stick it to us in the late 80's/early 90's. That the Soviets crumbled was initially cause for celebration to many people, but in hindsight the lack of a putative enemy by circa 1990 accelerated mass migrations. With the Soviets out of commission, elites and proles alike no longer had to worry about a fifth column infiltrating our country. Moreover, the Asians and Mexicans that were welcomed by the GOP in the 70's and 80's (and beyond) were stolid and only mildly interested in politics. Had they been blowing stuff up back then, after coming to America, it would've fueled a backash towards these immigrants.

    Over the last 25 or so years, a backlash towards Arabs/Muslims/North Africans has been growing among white proles (since these people hate Western civilization), with the early 2000's being a period where whites could get away with bashing these ethnic groups. But elites failed to give us what we want (a hard limit on Muslim immigration), and have mendaciously been excusing and enabling Muslim migration and mischief all the while. The neo-cons blatantly lied to us about the politics and nature of the Muslim world, destabilizing much of the world in the process via dumb wars and coups, and have been defending "allies" who support anti-Western ideology. Meanwhile, PC only allows you to criticize certain leaders, rather than entire nations and ethnic groups. That's helped to squelch nationalist/nativist ideology and rhetoric about keeping entire ethnic groups out of the West. What kind of horrible person assumes that a Muslim is inherently dangerous?

    Note also that PC gained strength in the late 80's, when communism was collapsing. Most people hated PC back then, and we saw a big backlash towards it in the earlier 90's, among proles if not really elites. But before the late 80's, white Westerners mocking Russkies and Chinamen (in the 60's-80's) or Krauts and Japs (the 1940's) was good sport. Insisting that we treat everyone on a case by case basis, rather than by the group to which they belong, only applied to American natives back then. America was ours, and we were supposed to respect it, and those who lived in it, first. Foreigners were at the back of the line. When Communisn or Fascism threatened us, it fueled nationalism. The kind of PC globalism that elites consider de rigeur these days, in which literally everyone in the world is a consumer, a fungible unit, was simply not possible before the late 80's. If a Russian in America committed a terrorist act against us back in the 70's, it would've sparked calls to halt immigration from Russia, to intensify monitoring of Russian nationals, and possibly even mass deportation or internment. And elites would've been receptive to these ideas. But as the idea of the global marketplace has taken hold over the last 30 years, elites have become arrogantly supportive of mass and frequent migration.

  22. Just reading this Monday, Jan. 8 and today's news is that Temporary Protected Status for something like 200,000 Salvadorans (admitted to the USA after the 2001 earthquake) will end in 2019. Yes, the 2001 earthquake — 17 years ago.

  23. CJ,

    Great news. The presumption was that it, too, was permanent. Well, here's the DACA precedent.

  24. What cannot go on won't. Sustainable isn't about the weather. The Real Reason these goofs talk about trifles like trannies and fake "rights" is because they are "hey, squirrel" diversions to keep Real Criticism of TREASON and ECONOMIC COLLAPSE from ever being brought up.
    This "Recovery" is a lot like the Bogus Summers of Obama. Those stealth jobs are apparently invisible. That cheap con artist Bezos is SUPPOSEDLY THE RICHEST MAN IN HUMAN HISTORY. Doesn't actually own much but his dot com stock is Blue Sky Profits Forevah.
    I shop on Amazon. Most of the stuff is from other vendors that use it like ebay. I'd say 80-90% of the gross of this dot com is not even going to this company. If anyone realized that Amazon would be about as valuable as a shoe store maybe. But hey if you can't trust dot coms who can you trust?
    How about digital money that doesn't exist and is controlled by secret investors? Seems legit. Elon Musk just blew up another Billion Dollar Satellite. Buts he's still rich. Rich and smart do not seem to go together anymore…

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS