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
There be Reelection
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From YouGov:

“Not sure” responses are excluded, so the residual for each demographic category is the percentage opposed to covering illegal aliens.

Even with wording slanted as favorably towards providing ‘free’ healthcare for illegals–nothing about the healthcare being paid for by American citizens, and euphemistically referring to illegal aliens as undocumented immigrants–the position every single Democrat presidential candidate supports is an electoral loser.

Most non-whites oppose it. Many surely realize, at least when actual benefits are under consideration, that the pie is only so big. A piece on an illegal’s plate is a piece not on theirs. Blexit this!

As I’ve griped about previously, having full cross-tabs would be optimal. Still, it’s fairly easy to deduce from the data that is available that white liberals are by far the biggest proponents of free healthcare for illegal aliens.

The dismal level of support among white independents aged 45 and older–the key demographic in determining whether or not Trump wins a second term–reveals what a huge opportunity this is for the campaign. Every ad not depicting the squad’s tacit support for domestic terrorism would do well to show this:

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Election 2020, Immigration, Polling 
Hide 195 CommentsLeave a Comment
195 Comments to "There be Reelection"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Voters increasingly make their decisions based not on policies advocated by the candidate, but rather by the candidate’s identity. The demographic changes make Trump’s reelection in 2020 unlikely and the prospects of a Republican candidate winning in 2024 are virtually nil.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @albionrevisited
    I think that depends on how the Trump movement continues to appeal to Hispanics. Trumps was able to win in 2016 because of his increased support among Hispanics, not his greater support among whites. I think you underestimate how popular someone with a national populist program could be to non-whites. I'm not trying to go all Jack Kemp here, but a Republican could easily win in 2020 and 2024 if Republicans take up issues like student debt reform and single payer healthcare.
    , @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    So how did blacks vote alongside WASP Republicans for a while?

    And why do still millions of whites hate Trump? Granted, it's in their best interest to love him, but even in some whiter places they do not (ie Vermont).
    Race is not the only factor unifying a nation, it is the first one (concentric circles theory, agreed) but realistically it is not the only one. Geography did not solidly separate the races, nor unified them (compare Medi vs North Sea vs Eastern/steppe whites).

    The US obviously needs an immigration moratorium, but a united America-wide white ethnostate is as utopian as the brotherhood of man. Natives, some blacks, some Asians, and some Hispanics do have the much requested "blood and soil ties" to this land for longer than the much touted 1965 start date of the deluge. Obviously that does not mean any more should come, specially not from even less Westernized places. Just have the moratorium so that the white majority should be allowed to grow* back to prominence; 80% at least, so blacks and Hispanics go under 10% and adapt easier to white-led society. Otherwise allow enough separation and states rights; so if anyone wants to live in a hierarchical multiracial structure or a corporate monoracial within their state, or outright leave en blocs, they can.

    Then again, I'm pretty sure you guys would miss the gulf of Mexico, and try to "negotiate" for it. If only the North Sea's industriousness and the Medi's faith could have stayed together and not fought for 500 years, maybe the castizos ruling Latin America would cut you some slack... but no, the Anglosphere funded freemasons and liberals all over the Catholic world; which true, had tons of (rapidly spent) Peruvian gold from Manila to Vienna, but little of the open lebensraum that North Americans had. Nor did we have the ancestral thrift and grit of Inner Hajnals; but on the other hand, our lazy/convoluted/whatever institutions were stable enough to keep the crazies off the Mediterranean (again, Lepanto). Until the evil axis of Luther-Descartes-Rousseau-Hegel-Marx-AynRand taught deracionalist individualism to Germanics, that old Faustian soul deal, which then spread theoughout the world in the name of freer trade and bourgeois consumerism... which enabled those ancient (((financiers))), hitherto subdued by Rome**, now free to use their powers...

    But at any rate, whatever faults our white-led order had, it's gone with the wind... thus you end with white Argentine Che Guevara siding with the browns against "Yankees", and ultra WASP Hemingway siding with the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War... while all forget Eamon de Valera signing a respectful neutrality with the Third Reich... in fact Latin America was friendly to Germans until FDR made the "Good" Neighbor Polic(e)y an obligatory dogma for the Latin elites... no wonder all wanna move to Miami and flee responsibility...

    Yes, we can patch up, but it will be hard... WASPs abandoned their brethren in South Africa and Rhodesia, could us based Outer Hajnals have any hope? Or are we consigned to cherish memories of Franco til death?

    ---

    *(I know it's tricky WASPs, but the popes have advice... or idk, buy the CRISPR machine from the Chinese? lol...)

    **true, Rome turned into imperialist and then internationalist shit too; but again, how else would whites (and based offcolor friends) unite across languages and lands and genetic pools? No other races are completely united either; Rome, IF kept in check, could serve at least as an occasional unifier, like in medieval times... BUT without messing around with vernacular literature and cultures in general so much, as that kind of backfired...
    , @Audacious Epigone
    If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they'd dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.

    I don't disagree with the main thrust of your post, though.
    , @anon.i.mous
    Francis Parker Yockey spelled this out three quarters of a century ago. Needless to say, next-to-no-one listened.
  2. Lot says:

    Wow, I can hardly believe the RNC made a video that darn good. More please.

    Just posted this earlier today. Happy to see the GOP establishment is getting the message.

    “Hate to say it so often here but: there is no single better political issue for the GOP than crime. Not even mass migration.

    Crime is the issue the GOP used to win big in high crime 1994 and hold the mayorship of 10% Republican NYC for 20 straight years.

    My advice to any republican running in a competitive election: hit on BLM, Soros, and “anti-police liberals who want to abolish ICE, put cops in jail for split-second mistakes made under pressure, and free criminals everywhere under the Soros-funded “de-incarceration movement.”

    The more the election is about crime, the better the GOP does.”

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Realist

    Happy to see the GOP establishment is getting the message.
     
    Not even close.
    , @SFG
    Crime isn't that high yet.

    Sure, a repeat of the 60s would deliver 70s crime rates and help the Republicans, but it takes a few years to kick in.
  3. Lot says:

    Related to the post and my prior comment, “Health care for illegals” polls badly, but healthcare overall is the best issue for the Dems. Best tactic for the GOP to not bring it up at all. Subconsciously, healthcare-insecure independents hear Biden say cover illegals, they may disagree with that particular policy, but it underscores Dems want free universal coverage and the GOP doesn’t.

    If it is brought up:

    “Dems want free health care for illegals while working Americans pay more and more each year. Those migrant caravans, I didn’t see any doctors jumping the border. More people without even an 8th grade education, not even able to read and write in Spanish much less English. Many with rare diseases and no vaccinations. The Democrat open borders means higher taxes and longer waits for heathcare for Americans.”

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    “Health care for illegals” polls badly, but healthcare overall is the best issue for the Dems. Best tactic for the GOP to not bring it up at all.
     
    I wonder if it could be possible for Trump or the GOP to come up with a health care plan that: (a) actually made sense; (b) wasn't a complete fiscal debacle, and (c) could at least establish their bona fides on the issue enough to steal the Dems' thunder.

    It's not like our current healthcare system is so great or somehow embodies important conservative or nationalist principles. In fact, it's an inefficient, bastardized combination of centrally-planned socialism and privatized price-gouging. The worst of all worlds, really.

    As a political reality, however, the right is probably too divided on the issue and has probably dug itself in too deep about the evils Obamacare to ever come up with anything coherent to propose. It's a pity, because you're right, it's the biggest winning issue for the Dems among middle class swing voters. If they didn't totally own the bread and butter healthcare issue they really would be written off as the kook party of Free Stuff for Foreigners.
  4. So am I reading the table correctly? A majority of those aged 18-29 is in favour of free healthcare for illegals?

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.
     
    They age.
    , @notanon

    A majority of those aged 18-29 is in favour of free healthcare for illegals?
     
    the younger the segment the less white

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.
     
    straw man

    the argument is
    - becoming a minority will make gen Z whites more tribal than previous generations
    - there may be an exception in affluent all-white areas where SJW indoctrination in the schools goes unchallenged by reality.

    it's not a question of hope it's a prediction of increased conflict.
  5. To paraphrase the old saying, it’s not important who votes, or even in what numbers; what is important is who counts the votes.

    The Dems learned from 2016 that they have to work in all 50 states, and they learned in 2018 that getting out the vote really means stretching out the vote until they “find” all the votes they need. The fact that the Administration has not seriously policed the aftermath of the last two elections is a good indicator that there is a non-trivial chance that President Trump is toast.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's something I need to dig into more deeply. In the 2018 mid-terms, the early results showed Republicans retaining control of the House, and then as the night dragged on, hours after polls closed, more and more too-close-to-calls went blue. Virtually every single one of them IIRC.
  6. It’s again going to come down to a handful of Rust Belt states.

    President Trump should relentlessly hammer home the idea that the Democrats are for open borders and entitlements for illegal aliens. In other words, they want Americans to pay for goodies for everyone in the world.

    Picking fights with “the Squad” and having the Establishment side with the latter might actually be a pretty smart thing to do, given how disliked it is in Middle America.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Agree, but here’s why crime is also really important: much of the rustier parts of the rust belt have few immigrants. That doesn’t mean they favor mass migration, but it doesn’t impact them in any direct way they can see and feel. Example: Flint is 3.9% hispanic and 0.5% asian. Oakland County MI has 1.25 million, second largest in MI and the key GOP county. It is 5.6% asian and 3.5% hispanic. And the hispanics are often 3rd generation types who don’t speak spanish.

    The more prosperous parts of the Midwest are getting deluged, especially the ag belt and random towns targeted as refugee dumping grounds. But other areas immigrants are small enough in number that they are welcomed and quickly integrated into community life.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Agree. As unpopular as Trump is, he's more popular than Omar or AOC are.
  7. @dfordoom
    So am I reading the table correctly? A majority of those aged 18-29 is in favour of free healthcare for illegals?

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.

    They age.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.
     
    They age.
     
    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.

    But no generations in human history have ever been as thoroughly and effectively indoctrinated as the Millennials and Zoomers. The Boomers may have done crazy stuff and believed crazy stuff but they were able to return to some kind of sanity when they got older because they weren't thoroughly brainwashed when young. They were exposed to liberal propaganda, but it was nothing like the relentless brainwashing that recent generations have experienced.

    Boomers were accustomed to the idea that not everybody thought the same. They might not have liked it but they could deal with it.

    In some ways it's an interesting (if cruel) experiment. If you subject people to relentless indoctrination from birth and that indoctrination continues without a break throughout their schooling and throughout college and then continues when they enter the workforce, is it possible for them ever to overcome that brainwashing? We don't know the answer to that question.
  8. @Twinkie

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.
     
    They age.

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.

    They age.

    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.

    But no generations in human history have ever been as thoroughly and effectively indoctrinated as the Millennials and Zoomers. The Boomers may have done crazy stuff and believed crazy stuff but they were able to return to some kind of sanity when they got older because they weren’t thoroughly brainwashed when young. They were exposed to liberal propaganda, but it was nothing like the relentless brainwashing that recent generations have experienced.

    Boomers were accustomed to the idea that not everybody thought the same. They might not have liked it but they could deal with it.

    In some ways it’s an interesting (if cruel) experiment. If you subject people to relentless indoctrination from birth and that indoctrination continues without a break throughout their schooling and throughout college and then continues when they enter the workforce, is it possible for them ever to overcome that brainwashing? We don’t know the answer to that question.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren't liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.
    , @iffen
    But no generations in human history have ever been as thoroughly and effectively indoctrinated as the Millennials and Zoomers.

    I know that you are familiar with this:


    “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

    ― Karl Marx, The German Ideology / Theses on Feuerbach / Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy
     

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the "dissidents" do not seem to be able to get their act together.

    , @Feryl

    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.
     
    What good did it do? America has been objectively declining on almost every conceivable measure (mental health, industrial capacity, immigrant vetting, obesity levels etc.) since the mid-late 70's, coinciding with the turn toward "get the damn gubmint out of everything" ideology being embraced by young adults and middle-aged people. AKA, do whatever you feel like regardless of the long-term consequences. Your average Milllennial would kill to get the mid-20th century back; why don't you ask people born after 1975 how they feel about the American family being destroyed, and the middle class being gutted? Younger generations have no memory of anything every working. The Reaganites pushed drug use down moderately, but never even tried to reverse the disastrous changes to divorce laws made in the 70's. The Reaganites never even argued that society should encourage responsible pet ownership; dog bite fatalities surged in the 1980's. The Reaganites looked the other way as we got much fatter in the 80's. The Reaganites pushed for de-industrialization in order to get back at the dastardly unions who kept FDR in power for ages.

    Millennials like the pop culture of the 80's, but don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that the 1980's were, socially and politically, even 1/10 as wholesome as the 1930's-1950's. Or even the 60's, for that matter (the average American was fitter, happier, better employed, and more stable in the 60's than he was in the 80's). And Saint Ronnie, in his 2nd term, allowed immigration to reach it's highest levels since the mid-1920's; furthermore, we were now letting in lots of non-whites, whereas in the Ellis Island days it was mostly European immigrants that we got. The Reaganites never wanted order or stability; if they did, they would've kept common sense regulation (on financial markets, and certainly on immigration) intact. The Reaganite fantasy is a mirage seen by partisans wandering the wastelands of self-delusion. BTW, how was "de-regulation" supposed to not apply to the borders? You tell everybody that the government is stupid and good for nothing, and naturally, people will figure that applies to the government's ability to control who enters our turf. So why even try to stop anyone from entering*? The libertarian wing, since the mid-70's, never shuts it gulldarn mouth for 5 seconds to stop the juvenile bashing of authority, when we'd be better to acknowledge that we are better off entrusting the government (and any sort of authority or collective body, up to and including the church and the local community) to protect us and restrain Man's base impulses, rather than letting society descend into a anarchic free for all. Which is exactly what's happened over the last 45 years.

    *Conservative leaning small businesses, who covet cheap labor, were the first to heavily lobby for open borders in the 70's and 80's (even though the public face of immigration de-regulation was often sentimental do-gooder liberals), after having the common decency to be quiet and let society be demographically stabilized from the 1920's-1960's. As usual though, the Reaganites pretend that small(er) business owners are an oppressed minority, rather than the treasonous rats who helped turn America into a dystopia by 1990).
  9. @dfordoom


    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.
     
    They age.
     
    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.

    But no generations in human history have ever been as thoroughly and effectively indoctrinated as the Millennials and Zoomers. The Boomers may have done crazy stuff and believed crazy stuff but they were able to return to some kind of sanity when they got older because they weren't thoroughly brainwashed when young. They were exposed to liberal propaganda, but it was nothing like the relentless brainwashing that recent generations have experienced.

    Boomers were accustomed to the idea that not everybody thought the same. They might not have liked it but they could deal with it.

    In some ways it's an interesting (if cruel) experiment. If you subject people to relentless indoctrination from birth and that indoctrination continues without a break throughout their schooling and throughout college and then continues when they enter the workforce, is it possible for them ever to overcome that brainwashing? We don't know the answer to that question.

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.
     
    Late Boomers (born 1955-64) were less liberal than either early Boomers or the Silent Generation. That was partly fuelled by the disgust that we late Boomers felt for dirty stinking hippies. We were also more sceptical about the whole peace and love thing. We were too young for the Summer of Love or Woodstock. We regarded the Beatles with contempt and cringed when we heard Imagine.

    For early Boomers youth culture was Easy Rider, acid rock and the hippie thing. For late Boomers youth culture had started to fragment. There were different youth subcultures. We were left-leaning when young but with an edge of scepticism. Late Boomers were inclined to admire Thatcher or Reagan, partly because it was a style thing. Thatcher and Reagan had more style than their more overtly liberal opponents. They weren't as creepy and clammy. And there was a very satisfying shock value in announcing one's admiration for Thatcher.

    I think there's a large overlap in attitudes between the late Boomers and the early Gen Xers. Both were inclined to drift towards the right to a much greater extent than the Early Boomers.
    , @Twinkie

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.
     
    We grew up on Alex P. Keaton who cried as a child when told that his father’s work was a non-profit. I think that was the last time a TV Republican was a lovable main character, not some Haven Monahan-type rapist.

    I came to Reagan’s “It’s morning again in America” as a young teenager and absolutely fell in love with it and his sunny, Western Republicanism. I’m still nostalgic for those days... even though my politics and family culture have become decidedly more Southern conservative.
  10. @Jay Fink
    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren't liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.

    Late Boomers (born 1955-64) were less liberal than either early Boomers or the Silent Generation. That was partly fuelled by the disgust that we late Boomers felt for dirty stinking hippies. We were also more sceptical about the whole peace and love thing. We were too young for the Summer of Love or Woodstock. We regarded the Beatles with contempt and cringed when we heard Imagine.

    For early Boomers youth culture was Easy Rider, acid rock and the hippie thing. For late Boomers youth culture had started to fragment. There were different youth subcultures. We were left-leaning when young but with an edge of scepticism. Late Boomers were inclined to admire Thatcher or Reagan, partly because it was a style thing. Thatcher and Reagan had more style than their more overtly liberal opponents. They weren’t as creepy and clammy. And there was a very satisfying shock value in announcing one’s admiration for Thatcher.

    I think there’s a large overlap in attitudes between the late Boomers and the early Gen Xers. Both were inclined to drift towards the right to a much greater extent than the Early Boomers.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Please, enough of these generational generalizations.

    I’m in your “Late Boomer” tranche. Most of the people my age have always had their heads well down in the sand or up their a**e*, too.
    , @Mark G.
    Late Boomers and early Gen Xers, like you say, are distinct from early Boomers. The early Boomers first memories were the quiet fifties. They were ready for some excitement by the time they became teenagers. The late Boomers first memories were late sixties urban rioting, King and Kennedy getting shot, Charles Manson, Altamont and numerous early Boomer musical icons like Hendrix, Jones, Morrison and Joplin dying of drug overdoses. Eisenhower had kept the FDR style New Deal liberalism in place and the early Boomers grew up under that but the late Boomers grew up under a more radical LBJ Great Society style liberalism which had much more in the way of negative effects and the late Boomers could see that. Steve Sailer on this site is a late Boomer and a lot of late Boomers like me have at least a tinge of Sailerite conservatism.
    , @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Yeah, the deluge came afterwards. Late Gen Xers full of 80s consumerism and Live Aid and Iran Contra scandal saw the Wall fall and thought it was time to "save the children"... and voted Bush 1 and then Clinton...

    That the Boomers started becoming nice super spoiling grandparents did not help...
    , @Feryl

    Late Boomers (born 1955-64) were less liberal than either early Boomers or the Silent Generation. That was partly fuelled by the disgust that we late Boomers felt for dirty stinking hippies.
     
    Your generation did more drugs than other generations. Sorry. Some people dabbled with pot and mushrooms in the late 60's, but a lot of teens and young adults were doing serious levels of drugs (including stuff like cocaine) in the late 70's and early 80's, and alcohol abuse was really awful by 1980, among teenagers and college kids. Strauss and Howe say that the earlier you were born in the Baby Boom, the healthier and more successful you tend to be. This is likely because people who went to high school in the mid-late 70's were absolutely beaten to a pulp by that era's notoriously excessive "party" culture. A lot of the late Boomers I see look like zombie apocalypse extras, having a 75 year old person's wrinkles at age 55 (and have become the fattest middle-aged generation ever), and this seems to be very common with them, unlike other generations.

    If you're suggesting that brain-dead "party" culture is cooler when not practiced by politically active liberals, well, uh, whatever. The youth culture of the late 70's (and to a certain degree, even the 80's) was often harrowingly dangerous and often borderline nihilistic, which is backed up by stats and anecdotes related to violence, car crashes, drug abuse, teen runaways, family infighting, and so forth.
  11. @Lot
    Wow, I can hardly believe the RNC made a video that darn good. More please.

    Just posted this earlier today. Happy to see the GOP establishment is getting the message.

    “Hate to say it so often here but: there is no single better political issue for the GOP than crime. Not even mass migration.

    Crime is the issue the GOP used to win big in high crime 1994 and hold the mayorship of 10% Republican NYC for 20 straight years.

    My advice to any republican running in a competitive election: hit on BLM, Soros, and “anti-police liberals who want to abolish ICE, put cops in jail for split-second mistakes made under pressure, and free criminals everywhere under the Soros-funded “de-incarceration movement.”

    The more the election is about crime, the better the GOP does.”

    Happy to see the GOP establishment is getting the message.

    Not even close.

  12. @dfordoom
    So am I reading the table correctly? A majority of those aged 18-29 is in favour of free healthcare for illegals?

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.

    A majority of those aged 18-29 is in favour of free healthcare for illegals?

    the younger the segment the less white

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.

    straw man

    the argument is
    – becoming a minority will make gen Z whites more tribal than previous generations
    – there may be an exception in affluent all-white areas where SJW indoctrination in the schools goes unchallenged by reality.

    it’s not a question of hope it’s a prediction of increased conflict.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    the argument is
    – becoming a minority will make gen Z whites more tribal than previous generations
     
    I'm not entirely convinced by that argument. If you look at South Africa for example, where whites are now very much a threatened minority, are South African whites becoming more tribal? Or are they just becoming more passive and more defeatist and hoping that that will protect them?
    , @Rosie

    it’s not a question of hope it’s a prediction of increased conflict.
     
    I actually saw that 51.9% figure as rather white-pilling. As you said, the younger generation is less White, so it's reasonable to suppose that a solid majority of the Whites in that group oppose, perhaps >60%, and this despite the massive brainwashing attempts!
  13. @dfordoom


    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.
     
    They age.
     
    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.

    But no generations in human history have ever been as thoroughly and effectively indoctrinated as the Millennials and Zoomers. The Boomers may have done crazy stuff and believed crazy stuff but they were able to return to some kind of sanity when they got older because they weren't thoroughly brainwashed when young. They were exposed to liberal propaganda, but it was nothing like the relentless brainwashing that recent generations have experienced.

    Boomers were accustomed to the idea that not everybody thought the same. They might not have liked it but they could deal with it.

    In some ways it's an interesting (if cruel) experiment. If you subject people to relentless indoctrination from birth and that indoctrination continues without a break throughout their schooling and throughout college and then continues when they enter the workforce, is it possible for them ever to overcome that brainwashing? We don't know the answer to that question.

    But no generations in human history have ever been as thoroughly and effectively indoctrinated as the Millennials and Zoomers.

    I know that you are familiar with this:

    “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

    ― Karl Marx, The German Ideology / Theses on Feuerbach / Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the “dissidents” do not seem to be able to get their act together.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the “dissidents” do not seem to be able to get their act together.
     
    You've raised an incredibly important point. If you look at dissident political ideologies in the early to mid 20th century they had an extraordinary ability to inspire zeal and confidence, and discipline. The Bolsheviks seemed destined to remain a tiny insignificant failed revolutionary clique. Even after the February 1917 Revolution they were still insignificant. But they had zeal and confidence and discipline and they won.

    Look at the Chinese communists. They suffered catastrophes in the late 20s and early 30s that stagger the imagination. In 1934, to avoid annihilation by Chiang Kai-shek, 80,000 communists set off on the Long March. 10,000 survived. And immediately began planning for their eventual victory.

    Mussolini built the Italian Fascists from nothing at the end of WW1 to rulers of the country in 1922. They won by sheer bravado and outrageous self-confidence.

    Today there's no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.
    , @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Thanks to that Enlightenment of yours people stopped looking at tradition, blood and soil, in the first place. Now the world belongs to the press printers. Meanwhile the priestly Salamanca school had already determined in the 16th century that races were different. But then came the "I think therefore I am" people. Deracinated bourgeois, as always. Much easily manipulated by the (((financiers))), too. From then they infiltrated everything. Elites stopped worshipping the organic nation, instead worshipping the bureaucrat state, (((gold))), and themselves as elites.
    May Robespierre burn in Hell.
  14. anonymous[205] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.
     
    Late Boomers (born 1955-64) were less liberal than either early Boomers or the Silent Generation. That was partly fuelled by the disgust that we late Boomers felt for dirty stinking hippies. We were also more sceptical about the whole peace and love thing. We were too young for the Summer of Love or Woodstock. We regarded the Beatles with contempt and cringed when we heard Imagine.

    For early Boomers youth culture was Easy Rider, acid rock and the hippie thing. For late Boomers youth culture had started to fragment. There were different youth subcultures. We were left-leaning when young but with an edge of scepticism. Late Boomers were inclined to admire Thatcher or Reagan, partly because it was a style thing. Thatcher and Reagan had more style than their more overtly liberal opponents. They weren't as creepy and clammy. And there was a very satisfying shock value in announcing one's admiration for Thatcher.

    I think there's a large overlap in attitudes between the late Boomers and the early Gen Xers. Both were inclined to drift towards the right to a much greater extent than the Early Boomers.

    Please, enough of these generational generalizations.

    I’m in your “Late Boomer” tranche. Most of the people my age have always had their heads well down in the sand or up their a**e*, too.

  15. Mass illegal immigration, free health care for illegals, busing, reparations. If Trump can’t get re-elected with this kind of ammo, then he’s the lucky dunce the left thinks he is.

    All the left has to do to be competitive with Trump is not be crazy…and they are currently choosing crazy. Obviously the nominee will try to position theyself as more moderate in the general election and major news outlets will break their backs trying to support that narrative, but with the current state of the Democrats there will be a lot of footage available to put the lie to that.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    "theyself"

    Is that really the preferred pronoun now? I honestly have no idea.
  16. @notanon

    A majority of those aged 18-29 is in favour of free healthcare for illegals?
     
    the younger the segment the less white

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.
     
    straw man

    the argument is
    - becoming a minority will make gen Z whites more tribal than previous generations
    - there may be an exception in affluent all-white areas where SJW indoctrination in the schools goes unchallenged by reality.

    it's not a question of hope it's a prediction of increased conflict.

    the argument is
    – becoming a minority will make gen Z whites more tribal than previous generations

    I’m not entirely convinced by that argument. If you look at South Africa for example, where whites are now very much a threatened minority, are South African whites becoming more tribal? Or are they just becoming more passive and more defeatist and hoping that that will protect them?

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Ask the Indians how that went.
    Inner Hajnal whites, as portrayed in the Tolkien tales, are too busy, digging for gold or power-struggling.
    No time to care of themselves.
  17. @iffen
    But no generations in human history have ever been as thoroughly and effectively indoctrinated as the Millennials and Zoomers.

    I know that you are familiar with this:


    “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

    ― Karl Marx, The German Ideology / Theses on Feuerbach / Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy
     

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the "dissidents" do not seem to be able to get their act together.

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the “dissidents” do not seem to be able to get their act together.

    You’ve raised an incredibly important point. If you look at dissident political ideologies in the early to mid 20th century they had an extraordinary ability to inspire zeal and confidence, and discipline. The Bolsheviks seemed destined to remain a tiny insignificant failed revolutionary clique. Even after the February 1917 Revolution they were still insignificant. But they had zeal and confidence and discipline and they won.

    Look at the Chinese communists. They suffered catastrophes in the late 20s and early 30s that stagger the imagination. In 1934, to avoid annihilation by Chiang Kai-shek, 80,000 communists set off on the Long March. 10,000 survived. And immediately began planning for their eventual victory.

    Mussolini built the Italian Fascists from nothing at the end of WW1 to rulers of the country in 1922. They won by sheer bravado and outrageous self-confidence.

    Today there’s no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Today there’s no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.

    I can't argue with your many good points.

    But perhaps we should consider that what worked in the past will not work now. Let's not try and fight the last war. We need our own Aqaba. Even so, it has to be some sort of cooperative effort.

    , @albionrevisited
    It's largely the product of economic and political stability. In the cases you mentioned, like the Bolshevik coup, the older orders had been overthrown (in the case of Russia) or discredited (in the case of Italy) and the vacuum was filled with revolutionaries. People always want to compare the time we live in to the interwar period, which is a little silly, since that was such exceptional time in human history.
    , @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Mao was able to take the peasants because Chiang was a Westernizer, and between a left and right Westernizer, the peasants chose the one closer to them. Furthermore, the 19th century had left traditional Chinese culture in need of either updating or canning. Mao chose to can it, thus the bloodshed for decades after the Revolution had brought the supposed peasant utopia. If it was not for the Shanghai educated class and Deng's compromise, we would still look at most of them as endearing peasants.

    Mussolini likewise won because the mass of disgruntled WW1 veterans and patriotic low class Italians was with him and not the (((internationalists))). And unlike Mao, il Duce chose to update the Italian tradition, but like him, he wanted to stay close to the masses. Problem was, Italy only exists since a century and a half ago, and the heritage of the Roman Republic is quite removed and non-ideal (no one wants to rebuild the pagan temples); its politics therefore are as full of intrigue and regionalism as they were in the times of the Borgias, or the Claudii of Roman times. Fascists were brave when attaining power and successful when ruling for some years, but eventually showed the same vices too (not to mention, they would have been more useful to the Axis if Italy had remained neutral). A more sober Catholic unity suits Italy better, even in democracy, as Salvini is showing.

    The spark will happen with blood. Tons of Russians complained about the Czar before the 20th century, but he was also the anointed defender of the Orthodox faith and Father of all Russians. What changed this was the 1905 massacre of protesters plus the loss of the war with Japan, taking away internal and external confidence. The Chinese revolutionaries likewise made much noise of the elitists' massacres, framing theirs as "peasant-led". 4d chess, lol.

    Thus, I think maybe the next Democrat regime will... accelerate things.
    , @Lot
    “Today there’s no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.”

    Sure, life in America is just pretty good overall. Revolutions also require talented leaders. The meritocracy sucks up potential leaders in the USA and gives them good jobs.

    Our elite is just as large and corrupt, but they leave enough scraps to keep the rest of the population content.
  18. @dfordoom

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the “dissidents” do not seem to be able to get their act together.
     
    You've raised an incredibly important point. If you look at dissident political ideologies in the early to mid 20th century they had an extraordinary ability to inspire zeal and confidence, and discipline. The Bolsheviks seemed destined to remain a tiny insignificant failed revolutionary clique. Even after the February 1917 Revolution they were still insignificant. But they had zeal and confidence and discipline and they won.

    Look at the Chinese communists. They suffered catastrophes in the late 20s and early 30s that stagger the imagination. In 1934, to avoid annihilation by Chiang Kai-shek, 80,000 communists set off on the Long March. 10,000 survived. And immediately began planning for their eventual victory.

    Mussolini built the Italian Fascists from nothing at the end of WW1 to rulers of the country in 1922. They won by sheer bravado and outrageous self-confidence.

    Today there's no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.

    Today there’s no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.

    I can’t argue with your many good points.

    But perhaps we should consider that what worked in the past will not work now. Let’s not try and fight the last war. We need our own Aqaba. Even so, it has to be some sort of cooperative effort.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But perhaps we should consider that what worked in the past will not work now. Let’s not try and fight the last war. We need our own Aqaba. Even so, it has to be some sort of cooperative effort.
     
    Yeah, you can learn from history that in general terms certain things seem to work and certain things don't seem to work but you then have to apply those general lessons to different situations. And you can't be sure which lessons from the past will prove useful in the future and which won't.

    You can look at what Mao did. He learnt from the history of the Russian Revolution and the lessons of that Revolution produced nothing but disaster in China. So he invented a whole new approach based on using the peasants rather than the proletariat as the engine of revolution. So you need to be flexible and you need to be prepared to abandon methods that produce failures.

    But it's hard to see how success can ever be achieved without leadership and discipline and organisation.

    I have no idea why all these things are lacking today. Maybe life in the modern West is just too easy. Maybe we've become too self-indulgent and too lazy. Or too cowardly. Maybe it's the nature of the modern dissident movements - maybe they just don't capture people's imaginations the way Marxism once did. Or maybe right-wing ideologies just don't produce good revolutionaries (of course we could argue from now until Doomsday as to whether fascism was left-wing or right-wing and whether it was revolutionary or counter-revolutionary).
  19. @Diversity Heretic
    Voters increasingly make their decisions based not on policies advocated by the candidate, but rather by the candidate's identity. The demographic changes make Trump's reelection in 2020 unlikely and the prospects of a Republican candidate winning in 2024 are virtually nil.

    I think that depends on how the Trump movement continues to appeal to Hispanics. Trumps was able to win in 2016 because of his increased support among Hispanics, not his greater support among whites. I think you underestimate how popular someone with a national populist program could be to non-whites. I’m not trying to go all Jack Kemp here, but a Republican could easily win in 2020 and 2024 if Republicans take up issues like student debt reform and single payer healthcare.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I think you underestimate how popular someone with a national populist program could be to non-whites. I’m not trying to go all Jack Kemp here, but a Republican could easily win in 2020 and 2024 if Republicans take up issues like student debt reform and single payer healthcare.
     
    If their donors would allow it, they'd have already done it.
    , @Mark G.
    The problem with the Republicans supporting things like student debt reform and single payer healthcare is that to pay for it they have to go where the money is and that means going to the white middle class. The top twenty percent of income earners already pay ninety percent of all income taxes. The bottom fifty percent pay almost nothing and already receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. Since there are only so many rich white people, you will eventually run out of rich white people to tax. You will then have to increase taxes on the white middle class and then these programs will end up being income transfers from whites to nonwhites. You aren't going to be able to put a fence around these government benefit programs and put a sign on the fence saying "white people only" so you are better off not supporting them at all.
  20. @dfordoom

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the “dissidents” do not seem to be able to get their act together.
     
    You've raised an incredibly important point. If you look at dissident political ideologies in the early to mid 20th century they had an extraordinary ability to inspire zeal and confidence, and discipline. The Bolsheviks seemed destined to remain a tiny insignificant failed revolutionary clique. Even after the February 1917 Revolution they were still insignificant. But they had zeal and confidence and discipline and they won.

    Look at the Chinese communists. They suffered catastrophes in the late 20s and early 30s that stagger the imagination. In 1934, to avoid annihilation by Chiang Kai-shek, 80,000 communists set off on the Long March. 10,000 survived. And immediately began planning for their eventual victory.

    Mussolini built the Italian Fascists from nothing at the end of WW1 to rulers of the country in 1922. They won by sheer bravado and outrageous self-confidence.

    Today there's no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.

    It’s largely the product of economic and political stability. In the cases you mentioned, like the Bolshevik coup, the older orders had been overthrown (in the case of Russia) or discredited (in the case of Italy) and the vacuum was filled with revolutionaries. People always want to compare the time we live in to the interwar period, which is a little silly, since that was such exceptional time in human history.

  21. @iffen
    Today there’s no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.

    I can't argue with your many good points.

    But perhaps we should consider that what worked in the past will not work now. Let's not try and fight the last war. We need our own Aqaba. Even so, it has to be some sort of cooperative effort.

    But perhaps we should consider that what worked in the past will not work now. Let’s not try and fight the last war. We need our own Aqaba. Even so, it has to be some sort of cooperative effort.

    Yeah, you can learn from history that in general terms certain things seem to work and certain things don’t seem to work but you then have to apply those general lessons to different situations. And you can’t be sure which lessons from the past will prove useful in the future and which won’t.

    You can look at what Mao did. He learnt from the history of the Russian Revolution and the lessons of that Revolution produced nothing but disaster in China. So he invented a whole new approach based on using the peasants rather than the proletariat as the engine of revolution. So you need to be flexible and you need to be prepared to abandon methods that produce failures.

    But it’s hard to see how success can ever be achieved without leadership and discipline and organisation.

    I have no idea why all these things are lacking today. Maybe life in the modern West is just too easy. Maybe we’ve become too self-indulgent and too lazy. Or too cowardly. Maybe it’s the nature of the modern dissident movements – maybe they just don’t capture people’s imaginations the way Marxism once did. Or maybe right-wing ideologies just don’t produce good revolutionaries (of course we could argue from now until Doomsday as to whether fascism was left-wing or right-wing and whether it was revolutionary or counter-revolutionary).

    • Replies: @iffen
    But it’s hard to see how success can ever be achieved without leadership and discipline and organisation.

    Duh.

    So you need to be flexible and you need to be prepared to abandon methods that produce failures.


    All of these examples that we are looking at do not apply to our situation.

    We cannot create a milieu that we want. It just is. We need to find what works in this milieu.

    Hitler rose to power by betting on and seizing power within the right group. There were literally hundreds of similiar anti-Semitic and whatever groups. The same applies to the Bolsheviks.

    We have to operate in this specific milieu.
  22. @notanon

    A majority of those aged 18-29 is in favour of free healthcare for illegals?
     
    the younger the segment the less white

    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.
     
    straw man

    the argument is
    - becoming a minority will make gen Z whites more tribal than previous generations
    - there may be an exception in affluent all-white areas where SJW indoctrination in the schools goes unchallenged by reality.

    it's not a question of hope it's a prediction of increased conflict.

    it’s not a question of hope it’s a prediction of increased conflict.

    I actually saw that 51.9% figure as rather white-pilling. As you said, the younger generation is less White, so it’s reasonable to suppose that a solid majority of the Whites in that group oppose, perhaps >60%, and this despite the massive brainwashing attempts!

  23. @dfordoom

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.
     
    Late Boomers (born 1955-64) were less liberal than either early Boomers or the Silent Generation. That was partly fuelled by the disgust that we late Boomers felt for dirty stinking hippies. We were also more sceptical about the whole peace and love thing. We were too young for the Summer of Love or Woodstock. We regarded the Beatles with contempt and cringed when we heard Imagine.

    For early Boomers youth culture was Easy Rider, acid rock and the hippie thing. For late Boomers youth culture had started to fragment. There were different youth subcultures. We were left-leaning when young but with an edge of scepticism. Late Boomers were inclined to admire Thatcher or Reagan, partly because it was a style thing. Thatcher and Reagan had more style than their more overtly liberal opponents. They weren't as creepy and clammy. And there was a very satisfying shock value in announcing one's admiration for Thatcher.

    I think there's a large overlap in attitudes between the late Boomers and the early Gen Xers. Both were inclined to drift towards the right to a much greater extent than the Early Boomers.

    Late Boomers and early Gen Xers, like you say, are distinct from early Boomers. The early Boomers first memories were the quiet fifties. They were ready for some excitement by the time they became teenagers. The late Boomers first memories were late sixties urban rioting, King and Kennedy getting shot, Charles Manson, Altamont and numerous early Boomer musical icons like Hendrix, Jones, Morrison and Joplin dying of drug overdoses. Eisenhower had kept the FDR style New Deal liberalism in place and the early Boomers grew up under that but the late Boomers grew up under a more radical LBJ Great Society style liberalism which had much more in the way of negative effects and the late Boomers could see that. Steve Sailer on this site is a late Boomer and a lot of late Boomers like me have at least a tinge of Sailerite conservatism.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Partsian loyalty can be hardened by whatever is in or out of fashion when you are circa 18 years old. So early Boomers are idealists informed by the "true" 60's (e.g., 1963-1967, before The Tet Offensive, Altamont, and Charlie Manson). Late Boomers are cynics informed by Watergate, the "iconic" series of criminals produced by the 1970's (many of whom were serial killers, though some like D.B. Cooper weren't), New York being told "to drop dead", and so froth. A lot of X-ers, including early X-ers, have just never been very interested in picking a side in the "culture war" between GIs, Silents, early Boomers, and Late Boomers. Remember that the 80's, and to some extent the 90's, were decades where teenagers often felt pressure to not have a strong opinion on politics or culture. Hey, shit happens, some of it good, some bad, some not quite either. Life goes on.
  24. The majority of Democrats voted against impeachment. The so called left now looks even stupider and uglier. What does Nadler do now? Does he still want to grill St. Mueller? Major scandals are on the horizon for Obama Admin Officials. Trump’s chances for re-election look good.

    But. In my very humble opinion the economic reset has begun. Election day could look nothing like today.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Trump’s chances for re-election look good.
     
    Very unfortunate IMO. There are never any consequences for using and abusing White voters.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Emphatically agree.

    It is weird that while things seem to change in many ways they basically stay the same--the 2020 election could very well come down to GDP figures. If the economy is officially in recession, Trump's toast. If he can keep air in the bubble for another 15 months, he gets a second term.
  25. @WorkingClass
    The majority of Democrats voted against impeachment. The so called left now looks even stupider and uglier. What does Nadler do now? Does he still want to grill St. Mueller? Major scandals are on the horizon for Obama Admin Officials. Trump's chances for re-election look good.

    But. In my very humble opinion the economic reset has begun. Election day could look nothing like today.

    Trump’s chances for re-election look good.

    Very unfortunate IMO. There are never any consequences for using and abusing White voters.

  26. @Diversity Heretic
    Voters increasingly make their decisions based not on policies advocated by the candidate, but rather by the candidate's identity. The demographic changes make Trump's reelection in 2020 unlikely and the prospects of a Republican candidate winning in 2024 are virtually nil.

    So how did blacks vote alongside WASP Republicans for a while?

    And why do still millions of whites hate Trump? Granted, it’s in their best interest to love him, but even in some whiter places they do not (ie Vermont).
    Race is not the only factor unifying a nation, it is the first one (concentric circles theory, agreed) but realistically it is not the only one. Geography did not solidly separate the races, nor unified them (compare Medi vs North Sea vs Eastern/steppe whites).

    The US obviously needs an immigration moratorium, but a united America-wide white ethnostate is as utopian as the brotherhood of man. Natives, some blacks, some Asians, and some Hispanics do have the much requested “blood and soil ties” to this land for longer than the much touted 1965 start date of the deluge. Obviously that does not mean any more should come, specially not from even less Westernized places. Just have the moratorium so that the white majority should be allowed to grow* back to prominence; 80% at least, so blacks and Hispanics go under 10% and adapt easier to white-led society. Otherwise allow enough separation and states rights; so if anyone wants to live in a hierarchical multiracial structure or a corporate monoracial within their state, or outright leave en blocs, they can.

    Then again, I’m pretty sure you guys would miss the gulf of Mexico, and try to “negotiate” for it. If only the North Sea’s industriousness and the Medi’s faith could have stayed together and not fought for 500 years, maybe the castizos ruling Latin America would cut you some slack… but no, the Anglosphere funded freemasons and liberals all over the Catholic world; which true, had tons of (rapidly spent) Peruvian gold from Manila to Vienna, but little of the open lebensraum that North Americans had. Nor did we have the ancestral thrift and grit of Inner Hajnals; but on the other hand, our lazy/convoluted/whatever institutions were stable enough to keep the crazies off the Mediterranean (again, Lepanto). Until the evil axis of Luther-Descartes-Rousseau-Hegel-Marx-AynRand taught deracionalist individualism to Germanics, that old Faustian soul deal, which then spread theoughout the world in the name of freer trade and bourgeois consumerism… which enabled those ancient (((financiers))), hitherto subdued by Rome**, now free to use their powers…

    But at any rate, whatever faults our white-led order had, it’s gone with the wind… thus you end with white Argentine Che Guevara siding with the browns against “Yankees”, and ultra WASP Hemingway siding with the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War… while all forget Eamon de Valera signing a respectful neutrality with the Third Reich… in fact Latin America was friendly to Germans until FDR made the “Good” Neighbor Polic(e)y an obligatory dogma for the Latin elites… no wonder all wanna move to Miami and flee responsibility…

    Yes, we can patch up, but it will be hard… WASPs abandoned their brethren in South Africa and Rhodesia, could us based Outer Hajnals have any hope? Or are we consigned to cherish memories of Franco til death?

    *(I know it’s tricky WASPs, but the popes have advice… or idk, buy the CRISPR machine from the Chinese? lol…)

    **true, Rome turned into imperialist and then internationalist shit too; but again, how else would whites (and based offcolor friends) unite across languages and lands and genetic pools? No other races are completely united either; Rome, IF kept in check, could serve at least as an occasional unifier, like in medieval times… BUT without messing around with vernacular literature and cultures in general so much, as that kind of backfired…

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Rome, IF kept in check, could serve at least as an occasional unifier, like in medieval times… BUT without messing around with vernacular literature and cultures in general so much, as that kind of backfired…
     
    It's most unfortunate that Rome refused to back down on the indulgences scandal.
  27. @dfordoom

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.
     
    Late Boomers (born 1955-64) were less liberal than either early Boomers or the Silent Generation. That was partly fuelled by the disgust that we late Boomers felt for dirty stinking hippies. We were also more sceptical about the whole peace and love thing. We were too young for the Summer of Love or Woodstock. We regarded the Beatles with contempt and cringed when we heard Imagine.

    For early Boomers youth culture was Easy Rider, acid rock and the hippie thing. For late Boomers youth culture had started to fragment. There were different youth subcultures. We were left-leaning when young but with an edge of scepticism. Late Boomers were inclined to admire Thatcher or Reagan, partly because it was a style thing. Thatcher and Reagan had more style than their more overtly liberal opponents. They weren't as creepy and clammy. And there was a very satisfying shock value in announcing one's admiration for Thatcher.

    I think there's a large overlap in attitudes between the late Boomers and the early Gen Xers. Both were inclined to drift towards the right to a much greater extent than the Early Boomers.

    Yeah, the deluge came afterwards. Late Gen Xers full of 80s consumerism and Live Aid and Iran Contra scandal saw the Wall fall and thought it was time to “save the children”… and voted Bush 1 and then Clinton…

    That the Boomers started becoming nice super spoiling grandparents did not help…

  28. @dfordoom

    the argument is
    – becoming a minority will make gen Z whites more tribal than previous generations
     
    I'm not entirely convinced by that argument. If you look at South Africa for example, where whites are now very much a threatened minority, are South African whites becoming more tribal? Or are they just becoming more passive and more defeatist and hoping that that will protect them?

    Ask the Indians how that went.
    Inner Hajnal whites, as portrayed in the Tolkien tales, are too busy, digging for gold or power-struggling.
    No time to care of themselves.

  29. @iffen
    But no generations in human history have ever been as thoroughly and effectively indoctrinated as the Millennials and Zoomers.

    I know that you are familiar with this:


    “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

    ― Karl Marx, The German Ideology / Theses on Feuerbach / Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy
     

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the "dissidents" do not seem to be able to get their act together.

    Thanks to that Enlightenment of yours people stopped looking at tradition, blood and soil, in the first place. Now the world belongs to the press printers. Meanwhile the priestly Salamanca school had already determined in the 16th century that races were different. But then came the “I think therefore I am” people. Deracinated bourgeois, as always. Much easily manipulated by the (((financiers))), too. From then they infiltrated everything. Elites stopped worshipping the organic nation, instead worshipping the bureaucrat state, (((gold))), and themselves as elites.
    May Robespierre burn in Hell.

    • Replies: @iffen
    May Robespierre burn in Hell.

    I don't believe he worried about this.
  30. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    So how did blacks vote alongside WASP Republicans for a while?

    And why do still millions of whites hate Trump? Granted, it's in their best interest to love him, but even in some whiter places they do not (ie Vermont).
    Race is not the only factor unifying a nation, it is the first one (concentric circles theory, agreed) but realistically it is not the only one. Geography did not solidly separate the races, nor unified them (compare Medi vs North Sea vs Eastern/steppe whites).

    The US obviously needs an immigration moratorium, but a united America-wide white ethnostate is as utopian as the brotherhood of man. Natives, some blacks, some Asians, and some Hispanics do have the much requested "blood and soil ties" to this land for longer than the much touted 1965 start date of the deluge. Obviously that does not mean any more should come, specially not from even less Westernized places. Just have the moratorium so that the white majority should be allowed to grow* back to prominence; 80% at least, so blacks and Hispanics go under 10% and adapt easier to white-led society. Otherwise allow enough separation and states rights; so if anyone wants to live in a hierarchical multiracial structure or a corporate monoracial within their state, or outright leave en blocs, they can.

    Then again, I'm pretty sure you guys would miss the gulf of Mexico, and try to "negotiate" for it. If only the North Sea's industriousness and the Medi's faith could have stayed together and not fought for 500 years, maybe the castizos ruling Latin America would cut you some slack... but no, the Anglosphere funded freemasons and liberals all over the Catholic world; which true, had tons of (rapidly spent) Peruvian gold from Manila to Vienna, but little of the open lebensraum that North Americans had. Nor did we have the ancestral thrift and grit of Inner Hajnals; but on the other hand, our lazy/convoluted/whatever institutions were stable enough to keep the crazies off the Mediterranean (again, Lepanto). Until the evil axis of Luther-Descartes-Rousseau-Hegel-Marx-AynRand taught deracionalist individualism to Germanics, that old Faustian soul deal, which then spread theoughout the world in the name of freer trade and bourgeois consumerism... which enabled those ancient (((financiers))), hitherto subdued by Rome**, now free to use their powers...

    But at any rate, whatever faults our white-led order had, it's gone with the wind... thus you end with white Argentine Che Guevara siding with the browns against "Yankees", and ultra WASP Hemingway siding with the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War... while all forget Eamon de Valera signing a respectful neutrality with the Third Reich... in fact Latin America was friendly to Germans until FDR made the "Good" Neighbor Polic(e)y an obligatory dogma for the Latin elites... no wonder all wanna move to Miami and flee responsibility...

    Yes, we can patch up, but it will be hard... WASPs abandoned their brethren in South Africa and Rhodesia, could us based Outer Hajnals have any hope? Or are we consigned to cherish memories of Franco til death?

    ---

    *(I know it's tricky WASPs, but the popes have advice... or idk, buy the CRISPR machine from the Chinese? lol...)

    **true, Rome turned into imperialist and then internationalist shit too; but again, how else would whites (and based offcolor friends) unite across languages and lands and genetic pools? No other races are completely united either; Rome, IF kept in check, could serve at least as an occasional unifier, like in medieval times... BUT without messing around with vernacular literature and cultures in general so much, as that kind of backfired...

    Rome, IF kept in check, could serve at least as an occasional unifier, like in medieval times… BUT without messing around with vernacular literature and cultures in general so much, as that kind of backfired…

    It’s most unfortunate that Rome refused to back down on the indulgences scandal.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    That was just the most popular excuse. Luther came up with 95 other Theses. Plus, him and other reformers were funded by German princes who wanted to shake off the Catholic emperor's taxes as he wanted to give homes and lands to whites in the New World, while the pope was himself making the new St Peters. Again, more disputes over gold and power. Tolkien...

    I think a more apt solution was to give a Patriarch to the Germanic peoples, aka descentralization. Or, if fearing the same fate of the Greeks and Balkanics, the Holy Roman Empire could have been split.

    Nowadays Luther's intellectual followers sell you "holy water" to fund the construction of the Third Temple, and their visits to fancy Tel Aviv. Not that Pope Francis is any different, he rather keep the Dome of the Rock though, and let the blessed pedo cardinals visit Tel Aviv in his humble stead. Meanwhile Notre Dame had to burn to get enough donations to preserve it.

    Christ gave His life already, enough destruction...
    , @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Also, a good ole Council (which did come, Trent) would have been enough to fix internal issues. Sadly the politics got in the way. Guess it serves the Church right for believing in kings. Then again, all medieval kingdoms had some elected body of representatives or semblance of, courts, diets, etats generals, you name it. Aristotelian-Thomistic model was the ideal, not the Machiavellian absolutist one which arose out of the struggle for gold in the age of discovery. The latter morphed in the Bourbonic era into illustrated despotism - après, le deluge...

    Instead of all that, further political devolution of the Germanic Empire could have happened without splitting the "faith of our fathers", or worse, introducing the deracinating individualist beliefs of personal salvation... if anything, Luther could have been a Germanic Francis of Assisi character at most, and perhaps today all Germanics would have attend a High Church Anglican style vernacular mass. A little further in time, Blessed Emperor Charlemagne also showed the way (then again, his sons did not).

    Anyway, on-topic, barring any massive registration of younger extreme pocs (and banning any neocon ideas from being put in practice), 2020 should be safe. Let that not comfort anyone though. The lamps have to stay lit for when the time for action comes, political or otherwise.

  31. @dfordoom

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the “dissidents” do not seem to be able to get their act together.
     
    You've raised an incredibly important point. If you look at dissident political ideologies in the early to mid 20th century they had an extraordinary ability to inspire zeal and confidence, and discipline. The Bolsheviks seemed destined to remain a tiny insignificant failed revolutionary clique. Even after the February 1917 Revolution they were still insignificant. But they had zeal and confidence and discipline and they won.

    Look at the Chinese communists. They suffered catastrophes in the late 20s and early 30s that stagger the imagination. In 1934, to avoid annihilation by Chiang Kai-shek, 80,000 communists set off on the Long March. 10,000 survived. And immediately began planning for their eventual victory.

    Mussolini built the Italian Fascists from nothing at the end of WW1 to rulers of the country in 1922. They won by sheer bravado and outrageous self-confidence.

    Today there's no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.

    Mao was able to take the peasants because Chiang was a Westernizer, and between a left and right Westernizer, the peasants chose the one closer to them. Furthermore, the 19th century had left traditional Chinese culture in need of either updating or canning. Mao chose to can it, thus the bloodshed for decades after the Revolution had brought the supposed peasant utopia. If it was not for the Shanghai educated class and Deng’s compromise, we would still look at most of them as endearing peasants.

    Mussolini likewise won because the mass of disgruntled WW1 veterans and patriotic low class Italians was with him and not the (((internationalists))). And unlike Mao, il Duce chose to update the Italian tradition, but like him, he wanted to stay close to the masses. Problem was, Italy only exists since a century and a half ago, and the heritage of the Roman Republic is quite removed and non-ideal (no one wants to rebuild the pagan temples); its politics therefore are as full of intrigue and regionalism as they were in the times of the Borgias, or the Claudii of Roman times. Fascists were brave when attaining power and successful when ruling for some years, but eventually showed the same vices too (not to mention, they would have been more useful to the Axis if Italy had remained neutral). A more sober Catholic unity suits Italy better, even in democracy, as Salvini is showing.

    The spark will happen with blood. Tons of Russians complained about the Czar before the 20th century, but he was also the anointed defender of the Orthodox faith and Father of all Russians. What changed this was the 1905 massacre of protesters plus the loss of the war with Japan, taking away internal and external confidence. The Chinese revolutionaries likewise made much noise of the elitists’ massacres, framing theirs as “peasant-led”. 4d chess, lol.

    Thus, I think maybe the next Democrat regime will… accelerate things.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Mao was able to take the peasants because Chiang was a Westernizer, and between a left and right Westernizer, the peasants chose the one closer to them.
     
    Chiang was not a rightist and enjoyed Soviet support for a while. He was a corrupt warlord more than anything else and was responsible for losing China. He was also not a Westernizer, a reputation he may have acquired due to his Western-oriented fourth wife, “Madame Chiang” who hailed from the wealthy mercantile Soong family.
  32. @Rosie

    Rome, IF kept in check, could serve at least as an occasional unifier, like in medieval times… BUT without messing around with vernacular literature and cultures in general so much, as that kind of backfired…
     
    It's most unfortunate that Rome refused to back down on the indulgences scandal.

    That was just the most popular excuse. Luther came up with 95 other Theses. Plus, him and other reformers were funded by German princes who wanted to shake off the Catholic emperor’s taxes as he wanted to give homes and lands to whites in the New World, while the pope was himself making the new St Peters. Again, more disputes over gold and power. Tolkien…

    I think a more apt solution was to give a Patriarch to the Germanic peoples, aka descentralization. Or, if fearing the same fate of the Greeks and Balkanics, the Holy Roman Empire could have been split.

    Nowadays Luther’s intellectual followers sell you “holy water” to fund the construction of the Third Temple, and their visits to fancy Tel Aviv. Not that Pope Francis is any different, he rather keep the Dome of the Rock though, and let the blessed pedo cardinals visit Tel Aviv in his humble stead. Meanwhile Notre Dame had to burn to get enough donations to preserve it.

    Christ gave His life already, enough destruction…

  33. @Rosie

    Rome, IF kept in check, could serve at least as an occasional unifier, like in medieval times… BUT without messing around with vernacular literature and cultures in general so much, as that kind of backfired…
     
    It's most unfortunate that Rome refused to back down on the indulgences scandal.

    Also, a good ole Council (which did come, Trent) would have been enough to fix internal issues. Sadly the politics got in the way. Guess it serves the Church right for believing in kings. Then again, all medieval kingdoms had some elected body of representatives or semblance of, courts, diets, etats generals, you name it. Aristotelian-Thomistic model was the ideal, not the Machiavellian absolutist one which arose out of the struggle for gold in the age of discovery. The latter morphed in the Bourbonic era into illustrated despotism – après, le deluge…

    Instead of all that, further political devolution of the Germanic Empire could have happened without splitting the “faith of our fathers“, or worse, introducing the deracinating individualist beliefs of personal salvation… if anything, Luther could have been a Germanic Francis of Assisi character at most, and perhaps today all Germanics would have attend a High Church Anglican style vernacular mass. A little further in time, Blessed Emperor Charlemagne also showed the way (then again, his sons did not).

    Anyway, on-topic, barring any massive registration of younger extreme pocs (and banning any neocon ideas from being put in practice), 2020 should be safe. Let that not comfort anyone though. The lamps have to stay lit for when the time for action comes, political or otherwise.

  34. Ah, the loaded poll question.

    insensitive devil if you say no.

    bleeding heart if you say yes.

    One of the requirements for entry into the US should be coverage by some existing plan elsewhere.

    I have held a tough line on myself regarding healthcare and my opposition to any national scheme. And oddly enough when I needed it, I found the system deeply bankrupt. It was all I could do to keep cursing the whole thing. And what stunned me were just how many latinos surrounded my space. It was unnerving.

    I was struggling with conscience over every penny only to find out I needn’t have and this in the US where I am citizen — it’s hard to plead a case for others that use what is by hard work and payment against you.

    No, my integrity is not for sale —- regardless of the guilt mongering and whatever nefarious noxious accusations get profered as coersion or credibility damage.

    No.

    All of these people have some country somewhere who serve as conduits fro their advocacy — I have one that is the US. If she is so willing to sell out for foreigners her own — then what point country —- none.

  35. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Thanks to that Enlightenment of yours people stopped looking at tradition, blood and soil, in the first place. Now the world belongs to the press printers. Meanwhile the priestly Salamanca school had already determined in the 16th century that races were different. But then came the "I think therefore I am" people. Deracinated bourgeois, as always. Much easily manipulated by the (((financiers))), too. From then they infiltrated everything. Elites stopped worshipping the organic nation, instead worshipping the bureaucrat state, (((gold))), and themselves as elites.
    May Robespierre burn in Hell.

    May Robespierre burn in Hell.

    I don’t believe he worried about this.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Of course he did not.
    And neither do we, indoctrinated as we were in school in that his only crime was "going too far with the guillotine".
    So he won. For now at least.

    Wonder what he'd think of Africans storming his neopagan Pantheon... maybe he'd say they are full of revolutionary zeal?
  36. @dfordoom

    But perhaps we should consider that what worked in the past will not work now. Let’s not try and fight the last war. We need our own Aqaba. Even so, it has to be some sort of cooperative effort.
     
    Yeah, you can learn from history that in general terms certain things seem to work and certain things don't seem to work but you then have to apply those general lessons to different situations. And you can't be sure which lessons from the past will prove useful in the future and which won't.

    You can look at what Mao did. He learnt from the history of the Russian Revolution and the lessons of that Revolution produced nothing but disaster in China. So he invented a whole new approach based on using the peasants rather than the proletariat as the engine of revolution. So you need to be flexible and you need to be prepared to abandon methods that produce failures.

    But it's hard to see how success can ever be achieved without leadership and discipline and organisation.

    I have no idea why all these things are lacking today. Maybe life in the modern West is just too easy. Maybe we've become too self-indulgent and too lazy. Or too cowardly. Maybe it's the nature of the modern dissident movements - maybe they just don't capture people's imaginations the way Marxism once did. Or maybe right-wing ideologies just don't produce good revolutionaries (of course we could argue from now until Doomsday as to whether fascism was left-wing or right-wing and whether it was revolutionary or counter-revolutionary).

    But it’s hard to see how success can ever be achieved without leadership and discipline and organisation.

    Duh.

    So you need to be flexible and you need to be prepared to abandon methods that produce failures.

    All of these examples that we are looking at do not apply to our situation.

    We cannot create a milieu that we want. It just is. We need to find what works in this milieu.

    Hitler rose to power by betting on and seizing power within the right group. There were literally hundreds of similiar anti-Semitic and whatever groups. The same applies to the Bolsheviks.

    We have to operate in this specific milieu.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    But it’s hard to see how success can ever be achieved without leadership and discipline and organisation.
     
    Duh.
     
    Well there are alt-rightists who do actually believe that leadership, discipline and organisation are unnecessary. Vox Day, for instance.
  37. Hehe…and who exactly are “we”?

    In Hitler/Bolshevik/Nationalist examples people involved knew exactly who they were.

    It would be also useful (for a tiny minority in the “alt-whatever” who actually think…..) to take into account just one little thing:
    In all those examples above people were desperate on an existential level.
    People in the West, the Hyperpower in particular, are light-years from it now. Desperate on an existential level that is.

    There is more.
    Those three groups operated within people much harder than a current Westerner is. Nationalists were the softest there but even they were much harder than Americans. Or any Westerner. Living under those regimes in the “Workers Paradise” tended to make such people.

    The average White American (it’s “us” in my book) must feel existentially threatened in order to start thinking about these issues.
    It won’t be the economy. When Americans talk about poverty the people who have lived in poverty fell off the chair laughing.
    It will be a threat from the “other”. And….hehehe…that is actually much stronger threat than economic despair. Demographics.
    So, not long now.
    When enough White Americans get into that mindset the leadership will spring out with speed and ease. Say, 30 %. Say…..3-7 years from now?

    • Replies: @iffen
    In Hitler/Bolshevik/Nationalist examples people involved knew exactly who they were.

    No they didn't. Some of the best Nazis were former commies and vice versa.

    You really need to get over the white thingy.
  38. @peterAUS
    Hehe...and who exactly are "we"?

    In Hitler/Bolshevik/Nationalist examples people involved knew exactly who they were.

    It would be also useful (for a tiny minority in the "alt-whatever" who actually think.....) to take into account just one little thing:
    In all those examples above people were desperate on an existential level.
    People in the West, the Hyperpower in particular, are light-years from it now. Desperate on an existential level that is.

    There is more.
    Those three groups operated within people much harder than a current Westerner is. Nationalists were the softest there but even they were much harder than Americans. Or any Westerner. Living under those regimes in the "Workers Paradise" tended to make such people.

    The average White American (it's "us" in my book) must feel existentially threatened in order to start thinking about these issues.
    It won't be the economy. When Americans talk about poverty the people who have lived in poverty fell off the chair laughing.
    It will be a threat from the "other". And....hehehe...that is actually much stronger threat than economic despair. Demographics.
    So, not long now.
    When enough White Americans get into that mindset the leadership will spring out with speed and ease. Say, 30 %. Say.....3-7 years from now?

    In Hitler/Bolshevik/Nationalist examples people involved knew exactly who they were.

    No they didn’t. Some of the best Nazis were former commies and vice versa.

    You really need to get over the white thingy.

    • Replies: @peterAUS

    You really need to get over the white thingy.
     
    Hahahahaha....at least. Sooner or later......haha.....
    Hermoso.

    Muy apreciado.

    Muchas gracias
    非常感谢你
    , @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Actually, when the Nazis moved towards a more statist-totalitarian direction at the end of the Four Year Plan, their popularity had to be kept with higher numbers of SS guards. And with patriotism of course; race/ethnic/filial politics are naturally more binding than inorganic soviets, which however do have a function at times... the fewer times the better.
  39. I certainly hope there’s something more than

    “I am white, here me roar,” on the table. The reality is that millions of whites have found the measure bankrupt and not workable even them as whites.

    I am concerned that some of you don’t get it. Millions of whites lost out because of the behavior of a small number of whites. Identity politics against those realities may reign a while longer, but eventually — you have to offer something resembling results.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Millions of whites lost out because of the behavior of a small number of whites.
     
    It may make you feel better to single out a "few bad apples" for corruption, but sheeitt, the average American house has been getting bigger since 1983. We all have blood on our hands.
  40. @iffen
    In Hitler/Bolshevik/Nationalist examples people involved knew exactly who they were.

    No they didn't. Some of the best Nazis were former commies and vice versa.

    You really need to get over the white thingy.

    You really need to get over the white thingy.

    Hahahahaha….at least. Sooner or later……haha…..
    Hermoso.

    Muy apreciado.

    Muchas gracias
    非常感谢你

  41. I know a few California vally moms who switched Republican because the state is giving medical care to illegals

  42. @Twinkie
    It's again going to come down to a handful of Rust Belt states.

    President Trump should relentlessly hammer home the idea that the Democrats are for open borders and entitlements for illegal aliens. In other words, they want Americans to pay for goodies for everyone in the world.

    Picking fights with "the Squad" and having the Establishment side with the latter might actually be a pretty smart thing to do, given how disliked it is in Middle America.

    Agree, but here’s why crime is also really important: much of the rustier parts of the rust belt have few immigrants. That doesn’t mean they favor mass migration, but it doesn’t impact them in any direct way they can see and feel. Example: Flint is 3.9% hispanic and 0.5% asian. Oakland County MI has 1.25 million, second largest in MI and the key GOP county. It is 5.6% asian and 3.5% hispanic. And the hispanics are often 3rd generation types who don’t speak spanish.

    The more prosperous parts of the Midwest are getting deluged, especially the ag belt and random towns targeted as refugee dumping grounds. But other areas immigrants are small enough in number that they are welcomed and quickly integrated into community life.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    There was a #1 hit in 1966 called "96 Tears" from Question Mark and the Mysterians. They were a garage band and some call it early punk rock. I found it interesting that this was an all Hispanic band from Michigan (Saginaw-Bay City). I wouldn't have guessed Michigan had a sizeable Hispanic population in the 60s.
    , @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Which is why those voters are reached better by the economic/took mah jobs argument.
    In other areas, crime argument will be made. The few based/lightskin non-whites may join this latter group.
    Also the anticommie argument always helps, but to reach the current youth the Reaganomics has to be toned down quite some; the tax cut was okay but go no further.
    Don't go full Strasserist either, as the white youth has enough nonwhite friends and family whom they will want to give healthcare; so money can be offered but not wasted.

    So with the wall and the moratorium (which will make lots leave already with their illegal relatives) and some tariffs, also offer cheap limited "public options" that scare medically-limited immigrants away; some limited student loan/cheaper college deal that discourages international students; monetary reform that erases interest slavery while keeping dollar afloat (hard trick, I recommend going back to the US Bank system and maybe even gold); and labor laws that boost wage and protections a little but limited to Americans; maybe even offer a bit more to those with longer ancestry here, adjusted for present wealth levels, perhaps excused on "accumulated worker rights over the generations"; that way both "American descendants of slaves" and whites (some descendants of indentured servitude too) have a small reparation of sorts (that rule change may need an amendment though, blessed be the Holy Book I mean the Constitution that allows us so much personal salvation I mean freedom...).
    Ohhhh and yeah, Hungary style pronatalist policies... sorry wasps, but you sorely need them; perhaps however also penalize people with 4+ children, so Irish-inspired nightmares do not haunt your dreams either... and if on welfare, no breaks at all, in fact more than 2 kids should cancel welfare eligibility. Relatedly, impose pro-male headship policies to discourage divorcees/baby mamas living off alimony... again, sorry wasps lol, but you are devolving into female-led tribal mating too... look up The Garbage Generation, a little old but still valid.

    Anyway, with these ideas or similar, those currently Marxoid idealistic young whites may not struggle carrying the world on their shoulders as those in the present do. Perhaps they will then not hate heritage America like their current poc friends tell them. These poc will also be fewer in percentage and relatively more mixed, more English speaking, and less useless, which (if 1920-65 moratorium was any indication) will keep them from radicalizing as antiwhite commies any further. Though again, just 1 out of 3 at most will respond, the others will have to either bow their heads or get sent back. Maybe bringing back loyalty oaths, reinstating a draft or civil service of sorts, and raising the right hand during a daily sung anthem in school, will help scare a lot into obedience or "back to where they came from".

    Thus these future whites will also still get to cut off tons of grifters, specially those least racially related to them. Maybe then the racial balance will be peaceful enough, or not; the h1b sellout to richer elite Asiatic minorities is indeed going on while Trump is praised for tweets. These Asiatics you should fear more, they have the money to fund the rest; Mexico, Latam, Africa can be toyed with and cowed in comparison ("no trade deals until you cease emigrating"). If they and other pocs still get above the 10-15% threshold and influence politics and culture, then at least the future generations will have a better excuse to do the job of separating the wheat from the chaff... "we gave you all this socialdemocracy that even we wanted, but you still don't fit in". "You have to go back" might then finally be a viable campaign slogan.

    Whatever the measures, the Reagan GOP stance of making everything expensive (except land for Boomers with savings) so the young and minorities bow their heads and keep working, got turned on its head by richer and/or more easily hired minorities coming in and pushing lower whites down, while taking over all the disordered Dem-created programs of gibs (started by WASP progressives, mind you, FDR's blood came in the Mayflower) and increasing debt thanks to Dubya's mortgage giveaway. Thus Trump showed this GOP platform as an untenable position; but he still has to replace it with another one though.

    But again, a mass pro-ethnostate insurrection will only come with blood and authoritarian leaders in both sides. Think the Draft Riots, but obviously much wider contrast and scope. And even then, again, current Americans white or not prefer to Netflix (which indoctrinates even more) or are too busy overworked for (((interest money)))... so I think my silly outer hajnal proposals at least get the ball rolling somewhere, we are more used to dealing with browns and (((financiers))) after all...

    Finally, and most importantly, I've noticed white American pop culture is near dead. Perhaps that revival needs to happen first. Youtubers and memes is not enough. Aesthetic expressions of whiteness that support it without falling too much into older forms, but without the formless post 60s pomo worldview. For example, in music, I recommend a punk and alt-rock revival - but based. Idk but the Limp Bizkit dude liked to wear red hats and cause whites (and based friends) to riot harder than Richard Spencer ever could dream.
  43. @dfordoom

    The elites have always controlled the flow of information to the masses. This is not something new to our times. However, from the time of the rise in literacy and then the supercharging by the Enlightenment, dissidents have always been able to chip away at that monolith.

    What is new for our times is that the “dissidents” do not seem to be able to get their act together.
     
    You've raised an incredibly important point. If you look at dissident political ideologies in the early to mid 20th century they had an extraordinary ability to inspire zeal and confidence, and discipline. The Bolsheviks seemed destined to remain a tiny insignificant failed revolutionary clique. Even after the February 1917 Revolution they were still insignificant. But they had zeal and confidence and discipline and they won.

    Look at the Chinese communists. They suffered catastrophes in the late 20s and early 30s that stagger the imagination. In 1934, to avoid annihilation by Chiang Kai-shek, 80,000 communists set off on the Long March. 10,000 survived. And immediately began planning for their eventual victory.

    Mussolini built the Italian Fascists from nothing at the end of WW1 to rulers of the country in 1922. They won by sheer bravado and outrageous self-confidence.

    Today there's no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.

    “Today there’s no sign of that kind of fanatical zeal combined with discipline and a willingness for self-sacrifice, the qualities that you need if you want to win a political struggle.”

    Sure, life in America is just pretty good overall. Revolutions also require talented leaders. The meritocracy sucks up potential leaders in the USA and gives them good jobs.

    Our elite is just as large and corrupt, but they leave enough scraps to keep the rest of the population content.

  44. @albionrevisited
    I think that depends on how the Trump movement continues to appeal to Hispanics. Trumps was able to win in 2016 because of his increased support among Hispanics, not his greater support among whites. I think you underestimate how popular someone with a national populist program could be to non-whites. I'm not trying to go all Jack Kemp here, but a Republican could easily win in 2020 and 2024 if Republicans take up issues like student debt reform and single payer healthcare.

    I think you underestimate how popular someone with a national populist program could be to non-whites. I’m not trying to go all Jack Kemp here, but a Republican could easily win in 2020 and 2024 if Republicans take up issues like student debt reform and single payer healthcare.

    If their donors would allow it, they’d have already done it.

  45. @iffen
    May Robespierre burn in Hell.

    I don't believe he worried about this.

    Of course he did not.
    And neither do we, indoctrinated as we were in school in that his only crime was “going too far with the guillotine”.
    So he won. For now at least.

    Wonder what he’d think of Africans storming his neopagan Pantheon… maybe he’d say they are full of revolutionary zeal?

  46. @Lot
    Agree, but here’s why crime is also really important: much of the rustier parts of the rust belt have few immigrants. That doesn’t mean they favor mass migration, but it doesn’t impact them in any direct way they can see and feel. Example: Flint is 3.9% hispanic and 0.5% asian. Oakland County MI has 1.25 million, second largest in MI and the key GOP county. It is 5.6% asian and 3.5% hispanic. And the hispanics are often 3rd generation types who don’t speak spanish.

    The more prosperous parts of the Midwest are getting deluged, especially the ag belt and random towns targeted as refugee dumping grounds. But other areas immigrants are small enough in number that they are welcomed and quickly integrated into community life.

    There was a #1 hit in 1966 called “96 Tears” from Question Mark and the Mysterians. They were a garage band and some call it early punk rock. I found it interesting that this was an all Hispanic band from Michigan (Saginaw-Bay City). I wouldn’t have guessed Michigan had a sizeable Hispanic population in the 60s.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Cubans and Puerto Ricans settled in the midwest during the 1940s to 1960s when there were still a lot of factory jobs. The numbers were small enough they just assimilated into the general population, and they Anglicized their names a fair amount. Milwaukee has also had a small Mexican population for a really long time.
    , @Thea
    Another Hispanic from Michigan, Under recognized musician Jessica Hernandez. She sings about the decay of the culture and elusiveness of the American dream. Any rust belt working class guy could relate,
  47. @Diversity Heretic
    Voters increasingly make their decisions based not on policies advocated by the candidate, but rather by the candidate's identity. The demographic changes make Trump's reelection in 2020 unlikely and the prospects of a Republican candidate winning in 2024 are virtually nil.

    If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they’d dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.

    I don’t disagree with the main thrust of your post, though.

    • Replies: @Lot
    “If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they’d dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.”

    Trump barely won in 2016 with about 63%, and those votes were distributed just right for him. Dominate 2028 with only 3.67% more?

    I think the next few cycles are going to be narrow wins for both sides.

    , @Realist

    If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they’d dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.
     
    If pigs could fly.
    , @indocon
    Only way I see Republicans getting more than 60% of white vote consistently is if interest rates start to go up. Then every spending is will require opposite cuts, all the dibs for non-whites are going to be have to be paid by cuts to programs like SS and defense that benefit whites. Short of that I see 60% as a ceiling, I mean in the last election Democrats came just short of saying F u whitey, and they still won 42% of white vote.
    , @Feryl
    I heard someone recently point out that since at least the Obama era, there's been a big rise in the rhetorical tactic of focusing on your opponents lousy character/track record, instead of highlighting your own side's successes. But as the neo-liberal era slouches onward, there's less and less for either side to brag about. Neo-liberalism, for at least 80% of society, has sucked, and keeps sucking harder and harder every year that goes by.

    People know, either conciously or unconsiously, that the GOP got the ball rolling on the chaos of sweeping de-regulation back in the 70's and 80's, as the New Deal became vilified and Reagan's esteem rose as the 70's and 80's went on. Back then, the GOP's efforts at de-regulation generally were premised on economic issues, with "liberals" taking the blame for cultural issues even though any form of "de-regulation" was going to ultimately f**k everything up, at any rate. Both sides began to push for de-regulation around 1970, but Americans were more readily accepting of the GOP's econ. de-regulation* so they got anointed as the "reform" party who would completely leave the New Deal behind in the 1980's.

    *Cultural de-regulation would not full began until the late 1990's, which is when dickhead Boomers became powerful enough to drown out the voices of GIs and Silents who didn't want "motherfucker" being spoken on daytime cable TV.

    Point is that you can't expect that many people to be that enthused about the GOP when they were the chief annihilators of domestic manufacturing, labor unions, and border security, during the libertarian turn of the 1970's and 80's. GOP figures openly denouncing this shameful past, while taking clear steps to reverse these mistakes, would make people more excited about the GOP. Trump got elected precisely by not being a Republican to begin with, something which strangely has been forgotten by not just the Reaganites, but even many on the Alt-Right too (way too many people on the Alt-Right now reflexively defend Trump on the grounds that he just happens to annoy your typical Democrat; we need to have higher standards than this).

  48. @The Alarmist
    To paraphrase the old saying, it's not important who votes, or even in what numbers; what is important is who counts the votes.

    The Dems learned from 2016 that they have to work in all 50 states, and they learned in 2018 that getting out the vote really means stretching out the vote until they "find" all the votes they need. The fact that the Administration has not seriously policed the aftermath of the last two elections is a good indicator that there is a non-trivial chance that President Trump is toast.

    It’s something I need to dig into more deeply. In the 2018 mid-terms, the early results showed Republicans retaining control of the House, and then as the night dragged on, hours after polls closed, more and more too-close-to-calls went blue. Virtually every single one of them IIRC.

    • Agree: The Alarmist
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Texas and Florida are so close to flipping that it is foreseeable they can be stolen, yet still no serious investigation of 2018.
    , @Ghost of Bull Moose
    2018 was a trial run to see if they could get away with 'harvesting' crucial votes all over the place, after the fact. The press is no longer interested, even if it's a career-making story, because they are all in. The Big Harvest will be 2020.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    It’s something I need to dig into more deeply. In the 2018 mid-terms, the early results showed Republicans retaining control of the House, and then as the night dragged on, hours after polls closed, more and more too-close-to-calls went blue. Virtually every single one of them IIRC.
     
    I think the single best place to start digging is CA 39, in which all the circumstantial evidence points to vote fraud. The Republican, Young Kim, was actually pronounced the winner when the polls closed and was up by like 2%. But an inexplicable surge of votes postmarked on the day of the election suddenly showed up. And -- surprise, surprise -- they were 90% for the Dem who ended up winning by about 2%.

    California, of course, has zero voter integrity. Any alleged human being can register on line without ID. And third parties are allowed to hand deliver or mail in other people's ballots form wherever they can generate them.

    A vote surge that late, and that lopsided, in a 50/50 district is simply not plausible on its face. Combined with the easy opportunity for fraud in CA, it's not hard to connect the dots. Amazingly, however, no one seems the least bit interested in probing the 10 or 12 races that followed this exact pattern.
  49. @Twinkie
    It's again going to come down to a handful of Rust Belt states.

    President Trump should relentlessly hammer home the idea that the Democrats are for open borders and entitlements for illegal aliens. In other words, they want Americans to pay for goodies for everyone in the world.

    Picking fights with "the Squad" and having the Establishment side with the latter might actually be a pretty smart thing to do, given how disliked it is in Middle America.

    Agree. As unpopular as Trump is, he’s more popular than Omar or AOC are.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Realist

    As unpopular as Trump is, he’s more popular than Omar or AOC are.
     
    Always a loser for the American people....picking the lesser asshole.

    The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the 'two parties' as long as their important issues are maintained. As a matter of fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
  50. @Arclight
    Mass illegal immigration, free health care for illegals, busing, reparations. If Trump can't get re-elected with this kind of ammo, then he's the lucky dunce the left thinks he is.

    All the left has to do to be competitive with Trump is not be crazy...and they are currently choosing crazy. Obviously the nominee will try to position theyself as more moderate in the general election and major news outlets will break their backs trying to support that narrative, but with the current state of the Democrats there will be a lot of footage available to put the lie to that.

    “theyself”

    Is that really the preferred pronoun now? I honestly have no idea.

    • Replies: @Arclight
    Something like that - it was tongue in cheek, but that's the Orwellian future we are headed towards at present. I read Elizabeth Warren put her preferred pronouns up on her webpage, as though anyone was confused by this before. Just unbelievable.
  51. Lot says:
    @Jay Fink
    There was a #1 hit in 1966 called "96 Tears" from Question Mark and the Mysterians. They were a garage band and some call it early punk rock. I found it interesting that this was an all Hispanic band from Michigan (Saginaw-Bay City). I wouldn't have guessed Michigan had a sizeable Hispanic population in the 60s.

    Cubans and Puerto Ricans settled in the midwest during the 1940s to 1960s when there were still a lot of factory jobs. The numbers were small enough they just assimilated into the general population, and they Anglicized their names a fair amount. Milwaukee has also had a small Mexican population for a really long time.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    See, it can be done, with the right numbers. Unlike in the sunbelt...
    , @Hibernian
    "...and they Anglicized their names a fair amount."

    I'm assuming you mean given names.

  52. @Audacious Epigone
    If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they'd dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.

    I don't disagree with the main thrust of your post, though.

    “If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they’d dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.”

    Trump barely won in 2016 with about 63%, and those votes were distributed just right for him. Dominate 2028 with only 3.67% more?

    I think the next few cycles are going to be narrow wins for both sides.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Yep. 2/3 of whites is not enough, if whites do not vote together. Will they ever?
    Relatedly, Hispanics vote in similar proportions for Democrats. Don't know if Dems will reach the elusive Whispanic third either, or if it matters.
    , @Arclight
    I agree that in the Electoral College it will be very close in 2020 regardless of the popular vote. Other comments: Latinos are not super motivated voters, so if the economy is still reasonably strong in 2020, a lot of them stay home, which helps Trump. Same with black voters.

    The only other angles the GOP has to hope for in the future is that Latinos vote more similarly to whites the further up the economic ladder you go, so if we managed to hit the pause button on immigration for a bit, some percentage would benefit and move up into the middle class and that helps the GOP. The Dems know this, which is why they want unlimited immigration. Also, I don't know how the GOP could pull this off, but the Dems basically need 90% of black voters to win, so if the GOP could even drive this down a few percentage points, a lot of the rust belt states would be very difficult for the Dems to hang on to, like Michigan and Pennsylvania.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Trump got between 56%-59% of the white vote in 2016 depending on which source is being used. I've not seen a source showing him getting 63%. Do you know where that one is coming from?
    , @BengaliCanadianDude
    Trump did not get that much of the white vote
  53. @Lot
    Agree, but here’s why crime is also really important: much of the rustier parts of the rust belt have few immigrants. That doesn’t mean they favor mass migration, but it doesn’t impact them in any direct way they can see and feel. Example: Flint is 3.9% hispanic and 0.5% asian. Oakland County MI has 1.25 million, second largest in MI and the key GOP county. It is 5.6% asian and 3.5% hispanic. And the hispanics are often 3rd generation types who don’t speak spanish.

    The more prosperous parts of the Midwest are getting deluged, especially the ag belt and random towns targeted as refugee dumping grounds. But other areas immigrants are small enough in number that they are welcomed and quickly integrated into community life.

    Which is why those voters are reached better by the economic/took mah jobs argument.
    In other areas, crime argument will be made. The few based/lightskin non-whites may join this latter group.
    Also the anticommie argument always helps, but to reach the current youth the Reaganomics has to be toned down quite some; the tax cut was okay but go no further.
    Don’t go full Strasserist either, as the white youth has enough nonwhite friends and family whom they will want to give healthcare; so money can be offered but not wasted.

    So with the wall and the moratorium (which will make lots leave already with their illegal relatives) and some tariffs, also offer cheap limited “public options” that scare medically-limited immigrants away; some limited student loan/cheaper college deal that discourages international students; monetary reform that erases interest slavery while keeping dollar afloat (hard trick, I recommend going back to the US Bank system and maybe even gold); and labor laws that boost wage and protections a little but limited to Americans; maybe even offer a bit more to those with longer ancestry here, adjusted for present wealth levels, perhaps excused on “accumulated worker rights over the generations”; that way both “American descendants of slaves” and whites (some descendants of indentured servitude too) have a small reparation of sorts (that rule change may need an amendment though, blessed be the Holy Book I mean the Constitution that allows us so much personal salvation I mean freedom…).
    Ohhhh and yeah, Hungary style pronatalist policies… sorry wasps, but you sorely need them; perhaps however also penalize people with 4+ children, so Irish-inspired nightmares do not haunt your dreams either… and if on welfare, no breaks at all, in fact more than 2 kids should cancel welfare eligibility. Relatedly, impose pro-male headship policies to discourage divorcees/baby mamas living off alimony… again, sorry wasps lol, but you are devolving into female-led tribal mating too… look up The Garbage Generation, a little old but still valid.

    Anyway, with these ideas or similar, those currently Marxoid idealistic young whites may not struggle carrying the world on their shoulders as those in the present do. Perhaps they will then not hate heritage America like their current poc friends tell them. These poc will also be fewer in percentage and relatively more mixed, more English speaking, and less useless, which (if 1920-65 moratorium was any indication) will keep them from radicalizing as antiwhite commies any further. Though again, just 1 out of 3 at most will respond, the others will have to either bow their heads or get sent back. Maybe bringing back loyalty oaths, reinstating a draft or civil service of sorts, and raising the right hand during a daily sung anthem in school, will help scare a lot into obedience or “back to where they came from”.

    Thus these future whites will also still get to cut off tons of grifters, specially those least racially related to them. Maybe then the racial balance will be peaceful enough, or not; the h1b sellout to richer elite Asiatic minorities is indeed going on while Trump is praised for tweets. These Asiatics you should fear more, they have the money to fund the rest; Mexico, Latam, Africa can be toyed with and cowed in comparison (“no trade deals until you cease emigrating”). If they and other pocs still get above the 10-15% threshold and influence politics and culture, then at least the future generations will have a better excuse to do the job of separating the wheat from the chaff… “we gave you all this socialdemocracy that even we wanted, but you still don’t fit in”. “You have to go back” might then finally be a viable campaign slogan.

    Whatever the measures, the Reagan GOP stance of making everything expensive (except land for Boomers with savings) so the young and minorities bow their heads and keep working, got turned on its head by richer and/or more easily hired minorities coming in and pushing lower whites down, while taking over all the disordered Dem-created programs of gibs (started by WASP progressives, mind you, FDR’s blood came in the Mayflower) and increasing debt thanks to Dubya’s mortgage giveaway. Thus Trump showed this GOP platform as an untenable position; but he still has to replace it with another one though.

    But again, a mass pro-ethnostate insurrection will only come with blood and authoritarian leaders in both sides. Think the Draft Riots, but obviously much wider contrast and scope. And even then, again, current Americans white or not prefer to Netflix (which indoctrinates even more) or are too busy overworked for (((interest money)))… so I think my silly outer hajnal proposals at least get the ball rolling somewhere, we are more used to dealing with browns and (((financiers))) after all…

    Finally, and most importantly, I’ve noticed white American pop culture is near dead. Perhaps that revival needs to happen first. Youtubers and memes is not enough. Aesthetic expressions of whiteness that support it without falling too much into older forms, but without the formless post 60s pomo worldview. For example, in music, I recommend a punk and alt-rock revival – but based. Idk but the Limp Bizkit dude liked to wear red hats and cause whites (and based friends) to riot harder than Richard Spencer ever could dream.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Finally, and most importantly, I’ve noticed white American pop culture is near dead.
     
    Aren't superhero movies an example of white American pop culture? Of course, like comic books, they're white liberal pop culture. And, like comic books, they're complete trash. But they are white pop culture.

    Perhaps that's the problem. White American pop culture has always been liberal and it's always been trash.

    Look at Hollywood. Hollywood has been monolithically liberal since the 1920s. American television has been monolithically liberal since it began.
    , @Feryl

    These poc will also be fewer in percentage and relatively more mixed, more English speaking, and less useless, which (if 1920-65 moratorium was any indication)
     
    Recorded immigration levels didn't fully collapse until the Great Depression, when elites realized how idiotic it was to import more hands to toil (and mouths to feed) during a time of widespread poverty. Immigration levels rose moderately in the late 40's-early 60's, though still well below the levels of the early 20th century. In Nixon's first term, immigration went up considerably, though it actually went back down and stayed fairly low in the early 70's. Under Carter, immigration began to near early 20th century levels, and by Reagan's 2nd term we were back to circa 1920 levels. Then GHW Bush and Clinton pushed levels of immigration up to Social Darwinist late 19th century levels, which subsequent presidents emulated, even Trump. Since 1975, the only two periods of relatively reduced immigration have been 1993-1995 (due to a backlash caused by the moronic 1990 immigration act and the early 90's recession) and 2002-2003 (9/11, duh). In other words, take out 9/11 and every Republican since Reagan would've totally failed to halt the entry of aliens into America.
    , @Feryl

    Whatever the measures, the Reagan GOP stance of making everything expensive
     
    Shush, you're not supposed to complain about this, you're supposed to "work harder" to make a go of it. What kind of whiner dislikes the massive rise in basic living expenses since the late 80's?

    Saying that "hard work" is the solution to everything, that tired cliche ain't gonna work like it used to.
  54. @Jay Fink
    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren't liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.

    We grew up on Alex P. Keaton who cried as a child when told that his father’s work was a non-profit. I think that was the last time a TV Republican was a lovable main character, not some Haven Monahan-type rapist.

    I came to Reagan’s “It’s morning again in America” as a young teenager and absolutely fell in love with it and his sunny, Western Republicanism. I’m still nostalgic for those days… even though my politics and family culture have become decidedly more Southern conservative.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    The last reminder of that in pop culture, if usually satirized but relatively warmly to this day, was Will Smith's Uncle Phil and his black Republican son Carlton - the latter's name obviously gave his disposition away. Obviously the show was for raising Clintonian Democrats, and probably helped change paradigms and indoctrinate a lot of white millennials into thinking Reaganites were no good and blacks were the shizz. The Simpsons also helped with their Mr Burns portrayal. But, at least such satire was relatively lighthearted and did not have the "natzee bible thumping redneck" stereotypes that became the Dems official view of conservatives and whites post Dubya. Guess the 90s were just a big multiculti indoctrinating fun facade previewing the coming antiwhite culture in that sense...
  55. @Lot
    “If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they’d dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.”

    Trump barely won in 2016 with about 63%, and those votes were distributed just right for him. Dominate 2028 with only 3.67% more?

    I think the next few cycles are going to be narrow wins for both sides.

    Yep. 2/3 of whites is not enough, if whites do not vote together. Will they ever?
    Relatedly, Hispanics vote in similar proportions for Democrats. Don’t know if Dems will reach the elusive Whispanic third either, or if it matters.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Clannish Scots-Irish whites will. We know this because they already in do. In Alabama and Mississippi, whites vote more than 80% Republican in presidential elections.

    Albion's other seeds aren't clannish enough to do so for the same reasons, but that doesn't mean they won't do so for other reasons. Appeals to fairness is the way that seems most obvious (and it has the added bonus of being true!) to me.

    "Dems are the real racists!" comes in for plenty of deserved mockery as it's currently expressed. Trying to claim that Robert Byrd is controlling the Democrat party from the grave or that the squad hates brown people is stupid, futile, and untrue. But claiming that Republicans want fairness while Democrat policies are racist against whites could reach them because it's both true and appeals to a moral foundation--fairness--that is very important to them.
  56. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Mao was able to take the peasants because Chiang was a Westernizer, and between a left and right Westernizer, the peasants chose the one closer to them. Furthermore, the 19th century had left traditional Chinese culture in need of either updating or canning. Mao chose to can it, thus the bloodshed for decades after the Revolution had brought the supposed peasant utopia. If it was not for the Shanghai educated class and Deng's compromise, we would still look at most of them as endearing peasants.

    Mussolini likewise won because the mass of disgruntled WW1 veterans and patriotic low class Italians was with him and not the (((internationalists))). And unlike Mao, il Duce chose to update the Italian tradition, but like him, he wanted to stay close to the masses. Problem was, Italy only exists since a century and a half ago, and the heritage of the Roman Republic is quite removed and non-ideal (no one wants to rebuild the pagan temples); its politics therefore are as full of intrigue and regionalism as they were in the times of the Borgias, or the Claudii of Roman times. Fascists were brave when attaining power and successful when ruling for some years, but eventually showed the same vices too (not to mention, they would have been more useful to the Axis if Italy had remained neutral). A more sober Catholic unity suits Italy better, even in democracy, as Salvini is showing.

    The spark will happen with blood. Tons of Russians complained about the Czar before the 20th century, but he was also the anointed defender of the Orthodox faith and Father of all Russians. What changed this was the 1905 massacre of protesters plus the loss of the war with Japan, taking away internal and external confidence. The Chinese revolutionaries likewise made much noise of the elitists' massacres, framing theirs as "peasant-led". 4d chess, lol.

    Thus, I think maybe the next Democrat regime will... accelerate things.

    Mao was able to take the peasants because Chiang was a Westernizer, and between a left and right Westernizer, the peasants chose the one closer to them.

    Chiang was not a rightist and enjoyed Soviet support for a while. He was a corrupt warlord more than anything else and was responsible for losing China. He was also not a Westernizer, a reputation he may have acquired due to his Western-oriented fourth wife, “Madame Chiang” who hailed from the wealthy mercantile Soong family.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Well I stand corrected regarding Chiang. I do remember now reading about the Soviet funding too, however iirc it was during the time of post-imperial crash when all warlords scrambled for outside funds.
    But still, corrupt warlord + Westernized wife = right wing in peasant eyes, at least when compared to Mao.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Chiang was not a rightist and enjoyed Soviet support for a while. He was a corrupt warlord more than anything else and was responsible for losing China.
     
    The KMT enjoyed Soviet support, because it was thoroughly infiltrated with Communists. Chiang played along, until he could muster sufficient backing within the KMT for a thorough purge. Then he acted. He sent his son to the Soviet Union because Stalin demanded a hostage in return for financial support. Chiang obliged, not because he was a fellow traveler, but because he needed the resources. And what he did was well within the mainstream of the Chinese historical tradition of the hostage prince, dating back to the time of the First Emperor, and before. The problem with a lot of the standard commentary about Chiang is that it is infested by calumnies from left-wingers and fellow travelers. The following excerpt, from a review on the book Generalissimo by Jay Taylor, talks about some of these issues:

    https://lists.h-net.org/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-diplo&month=1112&week=c&msg=CCpvwM3jw2gvHHWs1N8ZEw&user=&pw=

    Jay Taylor's authoritative and indispensable biography of one of modern China's towering political figures is sympathetic in tone yet critical in judgment. He has managed to do what no one else has, namely, to restore Chiang Kai-shek to the position in history his accomplishments merit without, however, engaging in apotheosis. Taylor makes meticulous use of a broad array of written and oral sources in Chinese and Western languages, in particular the private diaries that the Chinese leader kept throughout his life. He dispels many of the persistent myths that have shrouded Chiang's career as political and military leader, including the false charges that he was a political reactionary, an instrument of landlords and capitalists, that he failed to fight the Japanese, and that he was later a puppet of American imperialism. These calumnies, which originated in Chinese Communist propaganda, unfortunately found their way into much Western academic as well as popular literature on China after World War II and became the conventional wisdom. Some among us will likely be reluctant to reassess what were long considered verities, yet we must in light of the evidence. As Taylor ably demonstrates, Chiang was in essence a revolutionary nationalist who sought to dominate, not serve, the landlords and corporate capitalists. He fought hard against the Japanese and asserted Chinese interests vis-à-vis the Americans as much as circumstances allowed.

    It is true that in the twentieth century competition to unify China, restore China's sovereignty, and establish a modern developmental state, Chiang Kai-shek finished second, a respectable showing but not enough to win the gold. Yet it might well have been otherwise. By the eve of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, under extremely difficult domestic and international conditions, Chiang had gone far to achieve those goals. Although the vagaries of history only permit a counter factual supposition, it seems very likely that absent Japan's imperial ambitions in China, Chiang might well have succeeded in marginalizing, if not totally eliminating, the Chinese Communists and other domestic enemies and setting China firmly on a moderate, internationally-oriented, state capitalist development trajectory. Instead, the primary contagion of Japanese aggression fatally weakened the Chinese body politic making it susceptible to the secondary infection of communism, an opportunistic disease that killed any hope of establishing a progressive, pluralist, and democratic polity. These ideals remain unfulfilled to this day except in that part of the Chinese cultural sphere that is contemporary Taiwan. In this sense, the greatest crime that Japanese imperialism committed against China was not the Nanjing Massacre or even the Imperial Army's responsibility for the deaths of many millions of Chinese victims, but rather opening the floodgates to Chinese communism and the murderous dictatorship of Mao Zedong that claimed tens of millions of lives in the process of constructing what purported to be socialism.
     
  57. @Twinkie

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.
     
    We grew up on Alex P. Keaton who cried as a child when told that his father’s work was a non-profit. I think that was the last time a TV Republican was a lovable main character, not some Haven Monahan-type rapist.

    I came to Reagan’s “It’s morning again in America” as a young teenager and absolutely fell in love with it and his sunny, Western Republicanism. I’m still nostalgic for those days... even though my politics and family culture have become decidedly more Southern conservative.

    The last reminder of that in pop culture, if usually satirized but relatively warmly to this day, was Will Smith’s Uncle Phil and his black Republican son Carlton – the latter’s name obviously gave his disposition away. Obviously the show was for raising Clintonian Democrats, and probably helped change paradigms and indoctrinate a lot of white millennials into thinking Reaganites were no good and blacks were the shizz. The Simpsons also helped with their Mr Burns portrayal. But, at least such satire was relatively lighthearted and did not have the “natzee bible thumping redneck” stereotypes that became the Dems official view of conservatives and whites post Dubya. Guess the 90s were just a big multiculti indoctrinating fun facade previewing the coming antiwhite culture in that sense…

  58. @Twinkie

    Mao was able to take the peasants because Chiang was a Westernizer, and between a left and right Westernizer, the peasants chose the one closer to them.
     
    Chiang was not a rightist and enjoyed Soviet support for a while. He was a corrupt warlord more than anything else and was responsible for losing China. He was also not a Westernizer, a reputation he may have acquired due to his Western-oriented fourth wife, “Madame Chiang” who hailed from the wealthy mercantile Soong family.

    Well I stand corrected regarding Chiang. I do remember now reading about the Soviet funding too, however iirc it was during the time of post-imperial crash when all warlords scrambled for outside funds.
    But still, corrupt warlord + Westernized wife = right wing in peasant eyes, at least when compared to Mao.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I do remember now reading about the Soviet funding too, however iirc it was during the time of post-imperial crash when all warlords scrambled for outside funds.
     
    Oh, it wasn't just financial. He trained in the Soviet Union and later sent his eldest son there to study (where he was promptly held as a hostage). Until he decided to purge the communists and consolidate his power, he was quite adored by the Soviets.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek#Rising_power


    In the West and in the Soviet Union, Chiang Kai-shek was known as the "Red General".[1] Movie theaters in the Soviet Union showed newsreels and clips of Chiang. At Moscow, Sun Yat-sen University portraits of Chiang were hung on the walls; and, in the Soviet May Day Parades that year, Chiang's portrait was to be carried along with the portraits of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and other Communist leaders.[28] The United States consulate and other Westerners in Shanghai were concerned about the approach of "Red General" Chiang as his army was seizing control of large areas of the country in the Northern Expedition.[29][30]
     
    As for this:

    But still, corrupt warlord + Westernized wife = right wing in peasant eyes, at least when compared to Mao.
     
    It wasn't so much that the peasants viewed Chiang as more "rightist" - it was that Mao explicitly trained his cadres to care for the peasants (carrying their loads when encountering them on campaigns) so as to appear to be on their side and also supported land reforms that were exceedingly popular with the latter. As with politics, "they don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care."
  59. @Lot
    Cubans and Puerto Ricans settled in the midwest during the 1940s to 1960s when there were still a lot of factory jobs. The numbers were small enough they just assimilated into the general population, and they Anglicized their names a fair amount. Milwaukee has also had a small Mexican population for a really long time.

    See, it can be done, with the right numbers. Unlike in the sunbelt…

  60. @iffen
    In Hitler/Bolshevik/Nationalist examples people involved knew exactly who they were.

    No they didn't. Some of the best Nazis were former commies and vice versa.

    You really need to get over the white thingy.

    Actually, when the Nazis moved towards a more statist-totalitarian direction at the end of the Four Year Plan, their popularity had to be kept with higher numbers of SS guards. And with patriotism of course; race/ethnic/filial politics are naturally more binding than inorganic soviets, which however do have a function at times… the fewer times the better.

    • Replies: @iffen
    In effect, you are saying that we can't govern ourselves using political ideas and ideals, instead, we must use race, ethnicity, religion, language, etc. as the controls. What's the point? We've done that for millennia.
  61. Willam Buckley once asked, regarding invading migrants, “What will you do? Will you shoot them? Will you starve them?” To that I would add: “Will you allow them to be untreated when ill or injured?” These questions are rhetorical.

    Buckley also observed that immigration laws seem too harsh or inhumane when applied to palpable, specific people.

    Thus, there must somehow exist free medical treatment. Treatment will increasingly land in the emergency rooms. Here in S. California, the ER waiting time is already out of control; don’t get me started. At some point, waiting time will become utterly third-world. At that point, even Republicans will reluctantly endorse free outpatient non-ER care.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Willam Buckley once asked, regarding invading migrants, “What will you do? Will you shoot them? Will you starve them?” To that I would add: “Will you allow them to be untreated when ill or injured?” These questions are rhetorical.
     
    Do you feed people after they break into your house? With "conservatives" like this, who needs liberals? And what was Cuckley doing in his spare time, anyway? Was he down at the border rendering aid to the po migrants? And we all know how the story goes, in the last 50 years of ever growing cowardice and standard slippage; Cuckley, with each passing year, professes more and more embarrassment at being associated with nationalists and cultural conservatives, with only his discomfort with ghey buggery remaining intact for the long-haul, though as I understand even he was slipping on this issue by circa 2000. Da Fuq were these "conservatives" doing, or thinking, anyway? Your average Detroit factory worker circa 1965 had a better moral compass and sense of worthwhile goals then yer typical Beltway ghoul of the last 50 years.
  62. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Well I stand corrected regarding Chiang. I do remember now reading about the Soviet funding too, however iirc it was during the time of post-imperial crash when all warlords scrambled for outside funds.
    But still, corrupt warlord + Westernized wife = right wing in peasant eyes, at least when compared to Mao.

    I do remember now reading about the Soviet funding too, however iirc it was during the time of post-imperial crash when all warlords scrambled for outside funds.

    Oh, it wasn’t just financial. He trained in the Soviet Union and later sent his eldest son there to study (where he was promptly held as a hostage). Until he decided to purge the communists and consolidate his power, he was quite adored by the Soviets.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek#Rising_power

    In the West and in the Soviet Union, Chiang Kai-shek was known as the “Red General”.[1] Movie theaters in the Soviet Union showed newsreels and clips of Chiang. At Moscow, Sun Yat-sen University portraits of Chiang were hung on the walls; and, in the Soviet May Day Parades that year, Chiang’s portrait was to be carried along with the portraits of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and other Communist leaders.[28] The United States consulate and other Westerners in Shanghai were concerned about the approach of “Red General” Chiang as his army was seizing control of large areas of the country in the Northern Expedition.[29][30]

    As for this:

    But still, corrupt warlord + Westernized wife = right wing in peasant eyes, at least when compared to Mao.

    It wasn’t so much that the peasants viewed Chiang as more “rightist” – it was that Mao explicitly trained his cadres to care for the peasants (carrying their loads when encountering them on campaigns) so as to appear to be on their side and also supported land reforms that were exceedingly popular with the latter. As with politics, “they don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.”

  63. It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz ply his trade. He singlehandedly ties up hundreds if not thousands of WNs at once. His strategy is particularly elegant when one observes the chess pieces that Ron advances in the correct sequence.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to bad at making money, so that they write for very little payment.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion, and then someone like Philip Giraldi to make anti-Semites feel at ease about saying anything.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew. Remember, he got handed an unprestigious assignment from Jewish central command. Harvey Weinstein got to have sex with the prettiest actresses for 30 years, George Soros gets to be a billionaire, etc. But someone has to do the less glamorous work, and Runzie Baby is equal to the task.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated on TUR, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally, even as any and all anti-Israel content is fully welcome.

    Why?

    It is because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess from the perception of a 70-IQ WN. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron’s plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring out that they are the frog and the temperature is already up to about 160 degrees F.

    I am strongly in favor of what Ron Unz is doing. His recent ‘An Open Letter….’ article was a trial balloon through which he tested the speed at which the temperature can be increased under the immerse-in-water frog. I look forward to seeing him go for the kill (i.e. 212 degrees F) by around 2023 or so.

    Thanks,
    -Ira Rabinowitz

    • Replies: @iffen
    Dang, dem Jews what dunnit. Whoda thunk it.
    , @AaronB
    One thing is for sure - this site is not what it seems. You have to be an idiot not to realize that.

    Ron has his motives lol.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    When the high-IQ brain train takes a corner too fast and flies off the rails...
    , @King of Prussia

    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz ply his trade. He singlehandedly ties up hundreds if not thousands of WNs at once.
     
    Add me to the list of people who agree with what Thomm has outlined.

    Ron Unz has definitely created this website to advance Jewish interests. The lack of advertisers alone prove that this site has some big-money backers who have a hidden agenda.

    What convinced me was how Chateau Heartiste got deplatformed within a week of tightening on the screws on Ron Unz. Heartiste did not write anything that was any different from his content of five years prior. But when Heartiste pointed out that Ron Unz is the designated Jew representative to mess up WNs, and that Ron Unz's desire to advocate for Hispanics is because Ron Unz's Mexican cleaning lady is his only romantic relationship in the 21st century, the deplatforming was swift.

    The timing of all that was suspicious.
    , @Anon
    Your paranoia is that of a jobless drug user, and your theory has obvious flaws in multiple places and a major less-obvious flaw that will always escape all slopes such as yourself.

    Meanwhile, every NAM, including you and your group, still depends on White Nationalists for survival (White Nationalists being the establishment as well as greater society - notice how NAMs are still largely segregated from us except in the largest of metros, to start giving you the first inkling of a clue).

    Your projection in regard to IQ is ironic and painful to watch. You sat in your hovel and crafted a grand theory of an Unzian Jewish spider web meant to ensnare White Nationalists toward their disadvantage if not worse. How long did that take you at which to arrive? If it was more than a day, then you are behind anyone with an IQ above a warm simmer. Everyone else worked through the scenario that you describe, discarding it for its obvious flaws, while you sat and patted yourself on the back for it like the simian that you are. That's pathetic.

    Have you read the Bible Thomm? How about Jewish apocrypha? Do you understand it? Of course not, on both counts.

    Every day that you live you spend breathing in the spider's air, wearing his clothes, thinking his thoughts, and using his language as he watches you not even aware of the web that attaches to every particle of your skin. Every moment of your existence is defined by the spider. Which is all contextualized by his civilization defining texts that you misunderstand if not outright ignore.

    When what passes for your "people" finally emerge again in the next age, they will be cave dwellers looking to attack and rape civilized human women. That is how your people began in this age, and that is how they will begin and continue in the next.

    We aren't worried about Unz. What the Jews do, whether acting as friend or foe, is part and parcel for their role to bring about what is coming.

    You are the prey, Thomm. As you have always been throughout history. On the very low chance that you are actually White and will remain a true self-hater to the end, you and your progeny will not have a future anymore than similar Jews do. Per the texts of Israel.
  64. @Audacious Epigone
    It's something I need to dig into more deeply. In the 2018 mid-terms, the early results showed Republicans retaining control of the House, and then as the night dragged on, hours after polls closed, more and more too-close-to-calls went blue. Virtually every single one of them IIRC.

    Texas and Florida are so close to flipping that it is foreseeable they can be stolen, yet still no serious investigation of 2018.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    As per usual, as long as the donor checks clear why should the G(ghey)O(old)P(priss) party regret their disembowling of America's economic future and demographics (and thus, their own electoral future)?
    , @The Alarmist
    Game Over Party.
  65. @Thomm
    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz ply his trade. He singlehandedly ties up hundreds if not thousands of WNs at once. His strategy is particularly elegant when one observes the chess pieces that Ron advances in the correct sequence.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to bad at making money, so that they write for very little payment.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion, and then someone like Philip Giraldi to make anti-Semites feel at ease about saying anything.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew. Remember, he got handed an unprestigious assignment from Jewish central command. Harvey Weinstein got to have sex with the prettiest actresses for 30 years, George Soros gets to be a billionaire, etc. But someone has to do the less glamorous work, and Runzie Baby is equal to the task.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated on TUR, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally, even as any and all anti-Israel content is fully welcome.

    Why?

    It is because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess from the perception of a 70-IQ WN. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron’s plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring out that they are the frog and the temperature is already up to about 160 degrees F.

    I am strongly in favor of what Ron Unz is doing. His recent ‘An Open Letter….’ article was a trial balloon through which he tested the speed at which the temperature can be increased under the immerse-in-water frog. I look forward to seeing him go for the kill (i.e. 212 degrees F) by around 2023 or so.

    Thanks,
    -Ira Rabinowitz

    Dang, dem Jews what dunnit. Whoda thunk it.

  66. @Thomm
    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz ply his trade. He singlehandedly ties up hundreds if not thousands of WNs at once. His strategy is particularly elegant when one observes the chess pieces that Ron advances in the correct sequence.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to bad at making money, so that they write for very little payment.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion, and then someone like Philip Giraldi to make anti-Semites feel at ease about saying anything.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew. Remember, he got handed an unprestigious assignment from Jewish central command. Harvey Weinstein got to have sex with the prettiest actresses for 30 years, George Soros gets to be a billionaire, etc. But someone has to do the less glamorous work, and Runzie Baby is equal to the task.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated on TUR, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally, even as any and all anti-Israel content is fully welcome.

    Why?

    It is because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess from the perception of a 70-IQ WN. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron’s plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring out that they are the frog and the temperature is already up to about 160 degrees F.

    I am strongly in favor of what Ron Unz is doing. His recent ‘An Open Letter….’ article was a trial balloon through which he tested the speed at which the temperature can be increased under the immerse-in-water frog. I look forward to seeing him go for the kill (i.e. 212 degrees F) by around 2023 or so.

    Thanks,
    -Ira Rabinowitz

    One thing is for sure – this site is not what it seems. You have to be an idiot not to realize that.

    Ron has his motives lol.

    • Replies: @peterAUS

    One thing is for sure – this site is not what it seems. You have to be an idiot not to realize that.

    Ron has his motives lol.
     
    Yep.

    But, then, who doesn't?!

    The character IS right (up to the point) about:

    ....the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion.
     
    That applies to the majority of people; race/culture/ideology has nothing to do with it.
    Those people don't think. They want something. It's the job of people who think to give that to them. And, of course, take advantage of it. Eternal.

    What's the true purpose of this site doesn't matter.
    What only matters is that here some people can "filter" their thoughts and ideas.

    That "2023" is an interesting little bit.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Ron is concerned about free expression over everything else. It is his highest value. If you are able to find something that contradicts that, I'd be interested to hear it.

    Parenthetically, the schoolmarm is entirely my creation. I think he's a little naive in thinking he won't be a target because he allows the full range of opinions just because he hasn't been targeted yet.
  67. @Lot
    Cubans and Puerto Ricans settled in the midwest during the 1940s to 1960s when there were still a lot of factory jobs. The numbers were small enough they just assimilated into the general population, and they Anglicized their names a fair amount. Milwaukee has also had a small Mexican population for a really long time.

    “…and they Anglicized their names a fair amount.”

    I’m assuming you mean given names.

  68. @Audacious Epigone
    If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they'd dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.

    I don't disagree with the main thrust of your post, though.

    If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they’d dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.

    If pigs could fly.

  69. @Audacious Epigone
    Agree. As unpopular as Trump is, he's more popular than Omar or AOC are.

    As unpopular as Trump is, he’s more popular than Omar or AOC are.

    Always a loser for the American people….picking the lesser asshole.

    The Deep State doesn’t care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the ‘two parties’ as long as their important issues are maintained. As a matter of fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

  70. @Audacious Epigone
    "theyself"

    Is that really the preferred pronoun now? I honestly have no idea.

    Something like that – it was tongue in cheek, but that’s the Orwellian future we are headed towards at present. I read Elizabeth Warren put her preferred pronouns up on her webpage, as though anyone was confused by this before. Just unbelievable.

  71. @Lot
    “If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they’d dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.”

    Trump barely won in 2016 with about 63%, and those votes were distributed just right for him. Dominate 2028 with only 3.67% more?

    I think the next few cycles are going to be narrow wins for both sides.

    I agree that in the Electoral College it will be very close in 2020 regardless of the popular vote. Other comments: Latinos are not super motivated voters, so if the economy is still reasonably strong in 2020, a lot of them stay home, which helps Trump. Same with black voters.

    The only other angles the GOP has to hope for in the future is that Latinos vote more similarly to whites the further up the economic ladder you go, so if we managed to hit the pause button on immigration for a bit, some percentage would benefit and move up into the middle class and that helps the GOP. The Dems know this, which is why they want unlimited immigration. Also, I don’t know how the GOP could pull this off, but the Dems basically need 90% of black voters to win, so if the GOP could even drive this down a few percentage points, a lot of the rust belt states would be very difficult for the Dems to hang on to, like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

  72. @albionrevisited
    I think that depends on how the Trump movement continues to appeal to Hispanics. Trumps was able to win in 2016 because of his increased support among Hispanics, not his greater support among whites. I think you underestimate how popular someone with a national populist program could be to non-whites. I'm not trying to go all Jack Kemp here, but a Republican could easily win in 2020 and 2024 if Republicans take up issues like student debt reform and single payer healthcare.

    The problem with the Republicans supporting things like student debt reform and single payer healthcare is that to pay for it they have to go where the money is and that means going to the white middle class. The top twenty percent of income earners already pay ninety percent of all income taxes. The bottom fifty percent pay almost nothing and already receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. Since there are only so many rich white people, you will eventually run out of rich white people to tax. You will then have to increase taxes on the white middle class and then these programs will end up being income transfers from whites to nonwhites. You aren’t going to be able to put a fence around these government benefit programs and put a sign on the fence saying “white people only” so you are better off not supporting them at all.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    The top twenty percent of income earners already pay ninety percent of all income taxes. The bottom fifty percent pay almost nothing and already receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.
     
    Perhaps they "pay nothing" because they have nothing. Jeebus, it's not 1980 anymore. Today's broke as hell young adults aren't 30 year olds in 1980 who buy the idea that the wealthy are "unfairly penalized" by progressive tax rates. Since the early 80's, each upturn in the economy has increasingly gone to the already wealthy.

    Yeah, I get it; people who graduated from high school before 1990 want to keep Uncle Sam out of their bank account. Those of us born later, well, we don't have anything to be "confiscated" in the first place.
  73. @iffen
    But it’s hard to see how success can ever be achieved without leadership and discipline and organisation.

    Duh.

    So you need to be flexible and you need to be prepared to abandon methods that produce failures.


    All of these examples that we are looking at do not apply to our situation.

    We cannot create a milieu that we want. It just is. We need to find what works in this milieu.

    Hitler rose to power by betting on and seizing power within the right group. There were literally hundreds of similiar anti-Semitic and whatever groups. The same applies to the Bolsheviks.

    We have to operate in this specific milieu.

    But it’s hard to see how success can ever be achieved without leadership and discipline and organisation.

    Duh.

    Well there are alt-rightists who do actually believe that leadership, discipline and organisation are unnecessary. Vox Day, for instance.

    • Replies: @iffen
    It's hard for me to visualize how anything could get accomplished without it. But then I keep saying that I don't know what will work. It seems self-evident that political organization would be required to effect a change in the political direction.

    I don't spend any time in the alt-right arena. I think that a large part of it is MSM created. As for the personalities, I don't have any use for them and don't believe that they accomplish much of anything worthwile, except self-aggrandizement.The UR without the anti-Semitism and overt racism would be nice. I would like to know how many people take one look and then move on because of it.
  74. @Audacious Epigone
    It's something I need to dig into more deeply. In the 2018 mid-terms, the early results showed Republicans retaining control of the House, and then as the night dragged on, hours after polls closed, more and more too-close-to-calls went blue. Virtually every single one of them IIRC.

    2018 was a trial run to see if they could get away with ‘harvesting’ crucial votes all over the place, after the fact. The press is no longer interested, even if it’s a career-making story, because they are all in. The Big Harvest will be 2020.

    • Agree: The Alarmist
  75. @Audacious Epigone
    If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they'd dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.

    I don't disagree with the main thrust of your post, though.

    Only way I see Republicans getting more than 60% of white vote consistently is if interest rates start to go up. Then every spending is will require opposite cuts, all the dibs for non-whites are going to be have to be paid by cuts to programs like SS and defense that benefit whites. Short of that I see 60% as a ceiling, I mean in the last election Democrats came just short of saying F u whitey, and they still won 42% of white vote.

  76. @AaronB
    One thing is for sure - this site is not what it seems. You have to be an idiot not to realize that.

    Ron has his motives lol.

    One thing is for sure – this site is not what it seems. You have to be an idiot not to realize that.

    Ron has his motives lol.

    Yep.

    But, then, who doesn’t?!

    The character IS right (up to the point) about:

    ….the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion.

    That applies to the majority of people; race/culture/ideology has nothing to do with it.
    Those people don’t think. They want something. It’s the job of people who think to give that to them. And, of course, take advantage of it. Eternal.

    What’s the true purpose of this site doesn’t matter.
    What only matters is that here some people can “filter” their thoughts and ideas.

    That “2023” is an interesting little bit.

  77. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Herro! Mao izz da famoss leada!

    More proof that Twink isn't a true American, at heart he is still an Asian communist. Never trust an Asian. Time to go back home.

    Twinkie doesn’t need my help or endorsement, but;

    Twinkie is a true “Murican.

    I’ll take one of him for a thousand ten thousand of you. Whatever you are.

  78. @Lot
    Related to the post and my prior comment, “Health care for illegals” polls badly, but healthcare overall is the best issue for the Dems. Best tactic for the GOP to not bring it up at all. Subconsciously, healthcare-insecure independents hear Biden say cover illegals, they may disagree with that particular policy, but it underscores Dems want free universal coverage and the GOP doesn’t.

    If it is brought up:

    “Dems want free health care for illegals while working Americans pay more and more each year. Those migrant caravans, I didn’t see any doctors jumping the border. More people without even an 8th grade education, not even able to read and write in Spanish much less English. Many with rare diseases and no vaccinations. The Democrat open borders means higher taxes and longer waits for heathcare for Americans.”

    “Health care for illegals” polls badly, but healthcare overall is the best issue for the Dems. Best tactic for the GOP to not bring it up at all.

    I wonder if it could be possible for Trump or the GOP to come up with a health care plan that: (a) actually made sense; (b) wasn’t a complete fiscal debacle, and (c) could at least establish their bona fides on the issue enough to steal the Dems’ thunder.

    It’s not like our current healthcare system is so great or somehow embodies important conservative or nationalist principles. In fact, it’s an inefficient, bastardized combination of centrally-planned socialism and privatized price-gouging. The worst of all worlds, really.

    As a political reality, however, the right is probably too divided on the issue and has probably dug itself in too deep about the evils Obamacare to ever come up with anything coherent to propose. It’s a pity, because you’re right, it’s the biggest winning issue for the Dems among middle class swing voters. If they didn’t totally own the bread and butter healthcare issue they really would be written off as the kook party of Free Stuff for Foreigners.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Medicare for all is pretty popular across party lines, even a lot of Republicans support it. It feels like an inevitability, so it seems to me that a GOP plan essentially mirroring that of the Democrats but excluding eligibility for non-citizens would be an electoral coup--so we can be sure it won't happen.
  79. @Audacious Epigone
    It's something I need to dig into more deeply. In the 2018 mid-terms, the early results showed Republicans retaining control of the House, and then as the night dragged on, hours after polls closed, more and more too-close-to-calls went blue. Virtually every single one of them IIRC.

    It’s something I need to dig into more deeply. In the 2018 mid-terms, the early results showed Republicans retaining control of the House, and then as the night dragged on, hours after polls closed, more and more too-close-to-calls went blue. Virtually every single one of them IIRC.

    I think the single best place to start digging is CA 39, in which all the circumstantial evidence points to vote fraud. The Republican, Young Kim, was actually pronounced the winner when the polls closed and was up by like 2%. But an inexplicable surge of votes postmarked on the day of the election suddenly showed up. And — surprise, surprise — they were 90% for the Dem who ended up winning by about 2%.

    California, of course, has zero voter integrity. Any alleged human being can register on line without ID. And third parties are allowed to hand deliver or mail in other people’s ballots form wherever they can generate them.

    A vote surge that late, and that lopsided, in a 50/50 district is simply not plausible on its face. Combined with the easy opportunity for fraud in CA, it’s not hard to connect the dots. Amazingly, however, no one seems the least bit interested in probing the 10 or 12 races that followed this exact pattern.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Relatedly, this is why getting rid of the electoral college and switching to a national popular vote would doom the GOP's presidential chances indefinitely. Think of how many manufactured votes would come out of single-party urban areas all over the country without any oversight or pushback at all.
  80. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Which is why those voters are reached better by the economic/took mah jobs argument.
    In other areas, crime argument will be made. The few based/lightskin non-whites may join this latter group.
    Also the anticommie argument always helps, but to reach the current youth the Reaganomics has to be toned down quite some; the tax cut was okay but go no further.
    Don't go full Strasserist either, as the white youth has enough nonwhite friends and family whom they will want to give healthcare; so money can be offered but not wasted.

    So with the wall and the moratorium (which will make lots leave already with their illegal relatives) and some tariffs, also offer cheap limited "public options" that scare medically-limited immigrants away; some limited student loan/cheaper college deal that discourages international students; monetary reform that erases interest slavery while keeping dollar afloat (hard trick, I recommend going back to the US Bank system and maybe even gold); and labor laws that boost wage and protections a little but limited to Americans; maybe even offer a bit more to those with longer ancestry here, adjusted for present wealth levels, perhaps excused on "accumulated worker rights over the generations"; that way both "American descendants of slaves" and whites (some descendants of indentured servitude too) have a small reparation of sorts (that rule change may need an amendment though, blessed be the Holy Book I mean the Constitution that allows us so much personal salvation I mean freedom...).
    Ohhhh and yeah, Hungary style pronatalist policies... sorry wasps, but you sorely need them; perhaps however also penalize people with 4+ children, so Irish-inspired nightmares do not haunt your dreams either... and if on welfare, no breaks at all, in fact more than 2 kids should cancel welfare eligibility. Relatedly, impose pro-male headship policies to discourage divorcees/baby mamas living off alimony... again, sorry wasps lol, but you are devolving into female-led tribal mating too... look up The Garbage Generation, a little old but still valid.

    Anyway, with these ideas or similar, those currently Marxoid idealistic young whites may not struggle carrying the world on their shoulders as those in the present do. Perhaps they will then not hate heritage America like their current poc friends tell them. These poc will also be fewer in percentage and relatively more mixed, more English speaking, and less useless, which (if 1920-65 moratorium was any indication) will keep them from radicalizing as antiwhite commies any further. Though again, just 1 out of 3 at most will respond, the others will have to either bow their heads or get sent back. Maybe bringing back loyalty oaths, reinstating a draft or civil service of sorts, and raising the right hand during a daily sung anthem in school, will help scare a lot into obedience or "back to where they came from".

    Thus these future whites will also still get to cut off tons of grifters, specially those least racially related to them. Maybe then the racial balance will be peaceful enough, or not; the h1b sellout to richer elite Asiatic minorities is indeed going on while Trump is praised for tweets. These Asiatics you should fear more, they have the money to fund the rest; Mexico, Latam, Africa can be toyed with and cowed in comparison ("no trade deals until you cease emigrating"). If they and other pocs still get above the 10-15% threshold and influence politics and culture, then at least the future generations will have a better excuse to do the job of separating the wheat from the chaff... "we gave you all this socialdemocracy that even we wanted, but you still don't fit in". "You have to go back" might then finally be a viable campaign slogan.

    Whatever the measures, the Reagan GOP stance of making everything expensive (except land for Boomers with savings) so the young and minorities bow their heads and keep working, got turned on its head by richer and/or more easily hired minorities coming in and pushing lower whites down, while taking over all the disordered Dem-created programs of gibs (started by WASP progressives, mind you, FDR's blood came in the Mayflower) and increasing debt thanks to Dubya's mortgage giveaway. Thus Trump showed this GOP platform as an untenable position; but he still has to replace it with another one though.

    But again, a mass pro-ethnostate insurrection will only come with blood and authoritarian leaders in both sides. Think the Draft Riots, but obviously much wider contrast and scope. And even then, again, current Americans white or not prefer to Netflix (which indoctrinates even more) or are too busy overworked for (((interest money)))... so I think my silly outer hajnal proposals at least get the ball rolling somewhere, we are more used to dealing with browns and (((financiers))) after all...

    Finally, and most importantly, I've noticed white American pop culture is near dead. Perhaps that revival needs to happen first. Youtubers and memes is not enough. Aesthetic expressions of whiteness that support it without falling too much into older forms, but without the formless post 60s pomo worldview. For example, in music, I recommend a punk and alt-rock revival - but based. Idk but the Limp Bizkit dude liked to wear red hats and cause whites (and based friends) to riot harder than Richard Spencer ever could dream.

    Finally, and most importantly, I’ve noticed white American pop culture is near dead.

    Aren’t superhero movies an example of white American pop culture? Of course, like comic books, they’re white liberal pop culture. And, like comic books, they’re complete trash. But they are white pop culture.

    Perhaps that’s the problem. White American pop culture has always been liberal and it’s always been trash.

    Look at Hollywood. Hollywood has been monolithically liberal since the 1920s. American television has been monolithically liberal since it began.

  81. @dfordoom


    So tell me again how the young are the hope for the future.
     
    They age.
     
    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.

    But no generations in human history have ever been as thoroughly and effectively indoctrinated as the Millennials and Zoomers. The Boomers may have done crazy stuff and believed crazy stuff but they were able to return to some kind of sanity when they got older because they weren't thoroughly brainwashed when young. They were exposed to liberal propaganda, but it was nothing like the relentless brainwashing that recent generations have experienced.

    Boomers were accustomed to the idea that not everybody thought the same. They might not have liked it but they could deal with it.

    In some ways it's an interesting (if cruel) experiment. If you subject people to relentless indoctrination from birth and that indoctrination continues without a break throughout their schooling and throughout college and then continues when they enter the workforce, is it possible for them ever to overcome that brainwashing? We don't know the answer to that question.

    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.

    What good did it do? America has been objectively declining on almost every conceivable measure (mental health, industrial capacity, immigrant vetting, obesity levels etc.) since the mid-late 70’s, coinciding with the turn toward “get the damn gubmint out of everything” ideology being embraced by young adults and middle-aged people. AKA, do whatever you feel like regardless of the long-term consequences. Your average Milllennial would kill to get the mid-20th century back; why don’t you ask people born after 1975 how they feel about the American family being destroyed, and the middle class being gutted? Younger generations have no memory of anything every working. The Reaganites pushed drug use down moderately, but never even tried to reverse the disastrous changes to divorce laws made in the 70’s. The Reaganites never even argued that society should encourage responsible pet ownership; dog bite fatalities surged in the 1980’s. The Reaganites looked the other way as we got much fatter in the 80’s. The Reaganites pushed for de-industrialization in order to get back at the dastardly unions who kept FDR in power for ages.

    Millennials like the pop culture of the 80’s, but don’t insult our intelligence by suggesting that the 1980’s were, socially and politically, even 1/10 as wholesome as the 1930’s-1950’s. Or even the 60’s, for that matter (the average American was fitter, happier, better employed, and more stable in the 60’s than he was in the 80’s). And Saint Ronnie, in his 2nd term, allowed immigration to reach it’s highest levels since the mid-1920’s; furthermore, we were now letting in lots of non-whites, whereas in the Ellis Island days it was mostly European immigrants that we got. The Reaganites never wanted order or stability; if they did, they would’ve kept common sense regulation (on financial markets, and certainly on immigration) intact. The Reaganite fantasy is a mirage seen by partisans wandering the wastelands of self-delusion. BTW, how was “de-regulation” supposed to not apply to the borders? You tell everybody that the government is stupid and good for nothing, and naturally, people will figure that applies to the government’s ability to control who enters our turf. So why even try to stop anyone from entering*? The libertarian wing, since the mid-70’s, never shuts it gulldarn mouth for 5 seconds to stop the juvenile bashing of authority, when we’d be better to acknowledge that we are better off entrusting the government (and any sort of authority or collective body, up to and including the church and the local community) to protect us and restrain Man’s base impulses, rather than letting society descend into a anarchic free for all. Which is exactly what’s happened over the last 45 years.

    *Conservative leaning small businesses, who covet cheap labor, were the first to heavily lobby for open borders in the 70’s and 80’s (even though the public face of immigration de-regulation was often sentimental do-gooder liberals), after having the common decency to be quiet and let society be demographically stabilized from the 1920’s-1960’s. As usual though, the Reaganites pretend that small(er) business owners are an oppressed minority, rather than the treasonous rats who helped turn America into a dystopia by 1990).

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    BTW, how was “de-regulation” supposed to not apply to the borders? You tell everybody that the government is stupid and good for nothing, and naturally, people will figure that applies to the government’s ability to control who enters our turf.

    That makes sense intuitively but for some reason the military has remained nearly completely immune from this. Why?
    , @dfordoom


    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.
     
    What good did it do?
     
    Voting for Reagan did no good at all. People thought at the time that it would do some good, but they were wrong. The fact that so many Boomers voted for Reagan does indicate that on some level they were aware that something was wrong. But Reagan was a disaster in every way.
    , @dfordoom

    Conservative leaning small businesses, who covet cheap labor, were the first to heavily lobby for open borders in the 70’s and 80’s (even though the public face of immigration de-regulation was often sentimental do-gooder liberals), after having the common decency to be quiet and let society be demographically stabilized from the 1920’s-1960’s. As usual though, the Reaganites pretend that small(er) business owners are an oppressed minority, rather than the treasonous rats who helped turn America into a dystopia by 1990).
     
    Yes, there's a lot of truth in that.
  82. @dfordoom

    My generation, the older Gen Xers, were one of the few that weren’t liberal while young. Reagan was very popular with my peers and I remember my classmates criticizing liberalism.
     
    Late Boomers (born 1955-64) were less liberal than either early Boomers or the Silent Generation. That was partly fuelled by the disgust that we late Boomers felt for dirty stinking hippies. We were also more sceptical about the whole peace and love thing. We were too young for the Summer of Love or Woodstock. We regarded the Beatles with contempt and cringed when we heard Imagine.

    For early Boomers youth culture was Easy Rider, acid rock and the hippie thing. For late Boomers youth culture had started to fragment. There were different youth subcultures. We were left-leaning when young but with an edge of scepticism. Late Boomers were inclined to admire Thatcher or Reagan, partly because it was a style thing. Thatcher and Reagan had more style than their more overtly liberal opponents. They weren't as creepy and clammy. And there was a very satisfying shock value in announcing one's admiration for Thatcher.

    I think there's a large overlap in attitudes between the late Boomers and the early Gen Xers. Both were inclined to drift towards the right to a much greater extent than the Early Boomers.

    Late Boomers (born 1955-64) were less liberal than either early Boomers or the Silent Generation. That was partly fuelled by the disgust that we late Boomers felt for dirty stinking hippies.

    Your generation did more drugs than other generations. Sorry. Some people dabbled with pot and mushrooms in the late 60’s, but a lot of teens and young adults were doing serious levels of drugs (including stuff like cocaine) in the late 70’s and early 80’s, and alcohol abuse was really awful by 1980, among teenagers and college kids. Strauss and Howe say that the earlier you were born in the Baby Boom, the healthier and more successful you tend to be. This is likely because people who went to high school in the mid-late 70’s were absolutely beaten to a pulp by that era’s notoriously excessive “party” culture. A lot of the late Boomers I see look like zombie apocalypse extras, having a 75 year old person’s wrinkles at age 55 (and have become the fattest middle-aged generation ever), and this seems to be very common with them, unlike other generations.

    If you’re suggesting that brain-dead “party” culture is cooler when not practiced by politically active liberals, well, uh, whatever. The youth culture of the late 70’s (and to a certain degree, even the 80’s) was often harrowingly dangerous and often borderline nihilistic, which is backed up by stats and anecdotes related to violence, car crashes, drug abuse, teen runaways, family infighting, and so forth.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Strauss and Howe say that the earlier you were born in the Baby Boom, the healthier and more successful you tend to be.
     
    Well duh. They were born into a more stable world and they were born into a booming economy.

    The generations thing is extremely interesting when it comes to charting pop culture trends. You can see dramatic and obvious differences in pop culture influences on groups born at different times.

    That's the only use for theories of generations.

    If you want to understand society you need to look at class and ideological divides. People who obsess over generations seem unwilling to face the fact that what has happened to society is a result of ideological and class warfare. Like the example you gave earlier, of small businesses pushing for mass immigration to get cheap labour. That's class warfare. Everything that matters comes down to class warfare.
  83. @Mark G.
    Late Boomers and early Gen Xers, like you say, are distinct from early Boomers. The early Boomers first memories were the quiet fifties. They were ready for some excitement by the time they became teenagers. The late Boomers first memories were late sixties urban rioting, King and Kennedy getting shot, Charles Manson, Altamont and numerous early Boomer musical icons like Hendrix, Jones, Morrison and Joplin dying of drug overdoses. Eisenhower had kept the FDR style New Deal liberalism in place and the early Boomers grew up under that but the late Boomers grew up under a more radical LBJ Great Society style liberalism which had much more in the way of negative effects and the late Boomers could see that. Steve Sailer on this site is a late Boomer and a lot of late Boomers like me have at least a tinge of Sailerite conservatism.

    Partsian loyalty can be hardened by whatever is in or out of fashion when you are circa 18 years old. So early Boomers are idealists informed by the “true” 60’s (e.g., 1963-1967, before The Tet Offensive, Altamont, and Charlie Manson). Late Boomers are cynics informed by Watergate, the “iconic” series of criminals produced by the 1970’s (many of whom were serial killers, though some like D.B. Cooper weren’t), New York being told “to drop dead”, and so froth. A lot of X-ers, including early X-ers, have just never been very interested in picking a side in the “culture war” between GIs, Silents, early Boomers, and Late Boomers. Remember that the 80’s, and to some extent the 90’s, were decades where teenagers often felt pressure to not have a strong opinion on politics or culture. Hey, shit happens, some of it good, some bad, some not quite either. Life goes on.

  84. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Oakland County MI has 1.25 million, second largest in MI and the key GOP county.
     
    Oakland is not GOP. Hasn't voted GOP since '92. You may be thinking of Macomb Co., the working class white suburb of Detroit. Look up the number of "white" Muslims in metro Detroit. It's a dumping ground too.

    The more prosperous parts of the Midwest are getting deluged, especially the ag belt
     
    What kind of immigrants? Hispanic farm workers? Or Indians for tech?

    random towns targeted as refugee dumping grounds.
     
    Any examples of this? I thought Trump cut back the refugee program substantially too.

    “Any examples of this? I thought Trump cut back the refugee program substantially too.”

    https://www.fairus.org/iowa

    https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-u-s-refugee-resettlement/

    https://cis.org/Rush/Somali-Refugees-US

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The GOP blew the borders wide open in the 80's and early 90's; this didn't stop them from gaining a large number of Me Generation followers/votes, so why would the GOP change it's tune now? Back in the 80's, they were still a little hesitant to fully admit their designs on demolishing New Deal regulation, so in '85 they pretended that Reagan's amnesty would punish law breaking employers. But the punishment never really materialized, and since then the GOP scarcely ever even pretends that it wants to punish wayward elites/near elites. Some Republicans treat (some) of the immigrants as a nuisance, and maybe even a threat, but God forbid they blaspheme the sacred small business owner who relies on cheap foreign labor.
  85. @EliteCommInc.
    I certainly hope there's something more than


    "I am white, here me roar," on the table. The reality is that millions of whites have found the measure bankrupt and not workable even them as whites.

    I am concerned that some of you don't get it. Millions of whites lost out because of the behavior of a small number of whites. Identity politics against those realities may reign a while longer, but eventually --- you have to offer something resembling results.

    Millions of whites lost out because of the behavior of a small number of whites.

    It may make you feel better to single out a “few bad apples” for corruption, but sheeitt, the average American house has been getting bigger since 1983. We all have blood on our hands.

  86. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Any examples of this? I thought Trump cut back the refugee program substantially too."

    https://www.fairus.org/iowa

    https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-u-s-refugee-resettlement/

    https://cis.org/Rush/Somali-Refugees-US

    The GOP blew the borders wide open in the 80’s and early 90’s; this didn’t stop them from gaining a large number of Me Generation followers/votes, so why would the GOP change it’s tune now? Back in the 80’s, they were still a little hesitant to fully admit their designs on demolishing New Deal regulation, so in ’85 they pretended that Reagan’s amnesty would punish law breaking employers. But the punishment never really materialized, and since then the GOP scarcely ever even pretends that it wants to punish wayward elites/near elites. Some Republicans treat (some) of the immigrants as a nuisance, and maybe even a threat, but God forbid they blaspheme the sacred small business owner who relies on cheap foreign labor.

  87. @Audacious Epigone
    If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they'd dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.

    I don't disagree with the main thrust of your post, though.

    I heard someone recently point out that since at least the Obama era, there’s been a big rise in the rhetorical tactic of focusing on your opponents lousy character/track record, instead of highlighting your own side’s successes. But as the neo-liberal era slouches onward, there’s less and less for either side to brag about. Neo-liberalism, for at least 80% of society, has sucked, and keeps sucking harder and harder every year that goes by.

    People know, either conciously or unconsiously, that the GOP got the ball rolling on the chaos of sweeping de-regulation back in the 70’s and 80’s, as the New Deal became vilified and Reagan’s esteem rose as the 70’s and 80’s went on. Back then, the GOP’s efforts at de-regulation generally were premised on economic issues, with “liberals” taking the blame for cultural issues even though any form of “de-regulation” was going to ultimately f**k everything up, at any rate. Both sides began to push for de-regulation around 1970, but Americans were more readily accepting of the GOP’s econ. de-regulation* so they got anointed as the “reform” party who would completely leave the New Deal behind in the 1980’s.

    *Cultural de-regulation would not full began until the late 1990’s, which is when dickhead Boomers became powerful enough to drown out the voices of GIs and Silents who didn’t want “motherfucker” being spoken on daytime cable TV.

    Point is that you can’t expect that many people to be that enthused about the GOP when they were the chief annihilators of domestic manufacturing, labor unions, and border security, during the libertarian turn of the 1970’s and 80’s. GOP figures openly denouncing this shameful past, while taking clear steps to reverse these mistakes, would make people more excited about the GOP. Trump got elected precisely by not being a Republican to begin with, something which strangely has been forgotten by not just the Reaganites, but even many on the Alt-Right too (way too many people on the Alt-Right now reflexively defend Trump on the grounds that he just happens to annoy your typical Democrat; we need to have higher standards than this).

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I heard someone recently point out that since at least the Obama era, there’s been a big rise in the rhetorical tactic of focusing on your opponents lousy character/track record, instead of highlighting your own side’s successes.

    Is that an inevitable consequence of social media creating a huge glass house and giving every person a basket full of rocks to hurl? I hope not and that there is some way out of it, but I think the only avenue for exit will be a large percentage of the population deciding to ignore it. Jordan Peterson has the right idea with the coming social media platform--if it's not illegal, it's allowed.
    , @dfordoom

    Cultural de-regulation would not full began until the late 1990’s, which is when dickhead Boomers became powerful enough to drown out the voices of GIs and Silents who didn’t want “motherfucker” being spoken on daytime cable TV.
     
    Cultural de-regulation was driven by the elites. The elites always wanted cultural de-regulation. The process really got going in a big way when Hollywood scrapped the Production Code in the early 60s. It was also driven by a very strong push to remove censorship in every form to allow an avalanche of sex and violence. The entertainment industry and cultural elites wanted that as far back as the late 50s. It took them quite a while to achieve it, but they did achieve it.

    It had nothing whatever to do with GIs or Silents or Boomers. It was pushed by cultural elites. The objective was to achieve social, cultural and political changes that would benefit the elites.

    You're right about a lot of things but your obsession with dubious theories about generations blinds you to the class warfare issues which are the real key to understanding what happened. Ordinary people, whether GIs or Silents or Boomers, played no part in the process whatsoever. It was a Cultural Revolution instigated by the elites to serve their own class interests.
  88. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Which is why those voters are reached better by the economic/took mah jobs argument.
    In other areas, crime argument will be made. The few based/lightskin non-whites may join this latter group.
    Also the anticommie argument always helps, but to reach the current youth the Reaganomics has to be toned down quite some; the tax cut was okay but go no further.
    Don't go full Strasserist either, as the white youth has enough nonwhite friends and family whom they will want to give healthcare; so money can be offered but not wasted.

    So with the wall and the moratorium (which will make lots leave already with their illegal relatives) and some tariffs, also offer cheap limited "public options" that scare medically-limited immigrants away; some limited student loan/cheaper college deal that discourages international students; monetary reform that erases interest slavery while keeping dollar afloat (hard trick, I recommend going back to the US Bank system and maybe even gold); and labor laws that boost wage and protections a little but limited to Americans; maybe even offer a bit more to those with longer ancestry here, adjusted for present wealth levels, perhaps excused on "accumulated worker rights over the generations"; that way both "American descendants of slaves" and whites (some descendants of indentured servitude too) have a small reparation of sorts (that rule change may need an amendment though, blessed be the Holy Book I mean the Constitution that allows us so much personal salvation I mean freedom...).
    Ohhhh and yeah, Hungary style pronatalist policies... sorry wasps, but you sorely need them; perhaps however also penalize people with 4+ children, so Irish-inspired nightmares do not haunt your dreams either... and if on welfare, no breaks at all, in fact more than 2 kids should cancel welfare eligibility. Relatedly, impose pro-male headship policies to discourage divorcees/baby mamas living off alimony... again, sorry wasps lol, but you are devolving into female-led tribal mating too... look up The Garbage Generation, a little old but still valid.

    Anyway, with these ideas or similar, those currently Marxoid idealistic young whites may not struggle carrying the world on their shoulders as those in the present do. Perhaps they will then not hate heritage America like their current poc friends tell them. These poc will also be fewer in percentage and relatively more mixed, more English speaking, and less useless, which (if 1920-65 moratorium was any indication) will keep them from radicalizing as antiwhite commies any further. Though again, just 1 out of 3 at most will respond, the others will have to either bow their heads or get sent back. Maybe bringing back loyalty oaths, reinstating a draft or civil service of sorts, and raising the right hand during a daily sung anthem in school, will help scare a lot into obedience or "back to where they came from".

    Thus these future whites will also still get to cut off tons of grifters, specially those least racially related to them. Maybe then the racial balance will be peaceful enough, or not; the h1b sellout to richer elite Asiatic minorities is indeed going on while Trump is praised for tweets. These Asiatics you should fear more, they have the money to fund the rest; Mexico, Latam, Africa can be toyed with and cowed in comparison ("no trade deals until you cease emigrating"). If they and other pocs still get above the 10-15% threshold and influence politics and culture, then at least the future generations will have a better excuse to do the job of separating the wheat from the chaff... "we gave you all this socialdemocracy that even we wanted, but you still don't fit in". "You have to go back" might then finally be a viable campaign slogan.

    Whatever the measures, the Reagan GOP stance of making everything expensive (except land for Boomers with savings) so the young and minorities bow their heads and keep working, got turned on its head by richer and/or more easily hired minorities coming in and pushing lower whites down, while taking over all the disordered Dem-created programs of gibs (started by WASP progressives, mind you, FDR's blood came in the Mayflower) and increasing debt thanks to Dubya's mortgage giveaway. Thus Trump showed this GOP platform as an untenable position; but he still has to replace it with another one though.

    But again, a mass pro-ethnostate insurrection will only come with blood and authoritarian leaders in both sides. Think the Draft Riots, but obviously much wider contrast and scope. And even then, again, current Americans white or not prefer to Netflix (which indoctrinates even more) or are too busy overworked for (((interest money)))... so I think my silly outer hajnal proposals at least get the ball rolling somewhere, we are more used to dealing with browns and (((financiers))) after all...

    Finally, and most importantly, I've noticed white American pop culture is near dead. Perhaps that revival needs to happen first. Youtubers and memes is not enough. Aesthetic expressions of whiteness that support it without falling too much into older forms, but without the formless post 60s pomo worldview. For example, in music, I recommend a punk and alt-rock revival - but based. Idk but the Limp Bizkit dude liked to wear red hats and cause whites (and based friends) to riot harder than Richard Spencer ever could dream.

    These poc will also be fewer in percentage and relatively more mixed, more English speaking, and less useless, which (if 1920-65 moratorium was any indication)

    Recorded immigration levels didn’t fully collapse until the Great Depression, when elites realized how idiotic it was to import more hands to toil (and mouths to feed) during a time of widespread poverty. Immigration levels rose moderately in the late 40’s-early 60’s, though still well below the levels of the early 20th century. In Nixon’s first term, immigration went up considerably, though it actually went back down and stayed fairly low in the early 70’s. Under Carter, immigration began to near early 20th century levels, and by Reagan’s 2nd term we were back to circa 1920 levels. Then GHW Bush and Clinton pushed levels of immigration up to Social Darwinist late 19th century levels, which subsequent presidents emulated, even Trump. Since 1975, the only two periods of relatively reduced immigration have been 1993-1995 (due to a backlash caused by the moronic 1990 immigration act and the early 90’s recession) and 2002-2003 (9/11, duh). In other words, take out 9/11 and every Republican since Reagan would’ve totally failed to halt the entry of aliens into America.

  89. @Diversity Heretic
    Voters increasingly make their decisions based not on policies advocated by the candidate, but rather by the candidate's identity. The demographic changes make Trump's reelection in 2020 unlikely and the prospects of a Republican candidate winning in 2024 are virtually nil.

    Francis Parker Yockey spelled this out three quarters of a century ago. Needless to say, next-to-no-one listened.

  90. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Which is why those voters are reached better by the economic/took mah jobs argument.
    In other areas, crime argument will be made. The few based/lightskin non-whites may join this latter group.
    Also the anticommie argument always helps, but to reach the current youth the Reaganomics has to be toned down quite some; the tax cut was okay but go no further.
    Don't go full Strasserist either, as the white youth has enough nonwhite friends and family whom they will want to give healthcare; so money can be offered but not wasted.

    So with the wall and the moratorium (which will make lots leave already with their illegal relatives) and some tariffs, also offer cheap limited "public options" that scare medically-limited immigrants away; some limited student loan/cheaper college deal that discourages international students; monetary reform that erases interest slavery while keeping dollar afloat (hard trick, I recommend going back to the US Bank system and maybe even gold); and labor laws that boost wage and protections a little but limited to Americans; maybe even offer a bit more to those with longer ancestry here, adjusted for present wealth levels, perhaps excused on "accumulated worker rights over the generations"; that way both "American descendants of slaves" and whites (some descendants of indentured servitude too) have a small reparation of sorts (that rule change may need an amendment though, blessed be the Holy Book I mean the Constitution that allows us so much personal salvation I mean freedom...).
    Ohhhh and yeah, Hungary style pronatalist policies... sorry wasps, but you sorely need them; perhaps however also penalize people with 4+ children, so Irish-inspired nightmares do not haunt your dreams either... and if on welfare, no breaks at all, in fact more than 2 kids should cancel welfare eligibility. Relatedly, impose pro-male headship policies to discourage divorcees/baby mamas living off alimony... again, sorry wasps lol, but you are devolving into female-led tribal mating too... look up The Garbage Generation, a little old but still valid.

    Anyway, with these ideas or similar, those currently Marxoid idealistic young whites may not struggle carrying the world on their shoulders as those in the present do. Perhaps they will then not hate heritage America like their current poc friends tell them. These poc will also be fewer in percentage and relatively more mixed, more English speaking, and less useless, which (if 1920-65 moratorium was any indication) will keep them from radicalizing as antiwhite commies any further. Though again, just 1 out of 3 at most will respond, the others will have to either bow their heads or get sent back. Maybe bringing back loyalty oaths, reinstating a draft or civil service of sorts, and raising the right hand during a daily sung anthem in school, will help scare a lot into obedience or "back to where they came from".

    Thus these future whites will also still get to cut off tons of grifters, specially those least racially related to them. Maybe then the racial balance will be peaceful enough, or not; the h1b sellout to richer elite Asiatic minorities is indeed going on while Trump is praised for tweets. These Asiatics you should fear more, they have the money to fund the rest; Mexico, Latam, Africa can be toyed with and cowed in comparison ("no trade deals until you cease emigrating"). If they and other pocs still get above the 10-15% threshold and influence politics and culture, then at least the future generations will have a better excuse to do the job of separating the wheat from the chaff... "we gave you all this socialdemocracy that even we wanted, but you still don't fit in". "You have to go back" might then finally be a viable campaign slogan.

    Whatever the measures, the Reagan GOP stance of making everything expensive (except land for Boomers with savings) so the young and minorities bow their heads and keep working, got turned on its head by richer and/or more easily hired minorities coming in and pushing lower whites down, while taking over all the disordered Dem-created programs of gibs (started by WASP progressives, mind you, FDR's blood came in the Mayflower) and increasing debt thanks to Dubya's mortgage giveaway. Thus Trump showed this GOP platform as an untenable position; but he still has to replace it with another one though.

    But again, a mass pro-ethnostate insurrection will only come with blood and authoritarian leaders in both sides. Think the Draft Riots, but obviously much wider contrast and scope. And even then, again, current Americans white or not prefer to Netflix (which indoctrinates even more) or are too busy overworked for (((interest money)))... so I think my silly outer hajnal proposals at least get the ball rolling somewhere, we are more used to dealing with browns and (((financiers))) after all...

    Finally, and most importantly, I've noticed white American pop culture is near dead. Perhaps that revival needs to happen first. Youtubers and memes is not enough. Aesthetic expressions of whiteness that support it without falling too much into older forms, but without the formless post 60s pomo worldview. For example, in music, I recommend a punk and alt-rock revival - but based. Idk but the Limp Bizkit dude liked to wear red hats and cause whites (and based friends) to riot harder than Richard Spencer ever could dream.

    Whatever the measures, the Reagan GOP stance of making everything expensive

    Shush, you’re not supposed to complain about this, you’re supposed to “work harder” to make a go of it. What kind of whiner dislikes the massive rise in basic living expenses since the late 80’s?

    Saying that “hard work” is the solution to everything, that tired cliche ain’t gonna work like it used to.

  91. @SafeNow
    Willam Buckley once asked, regarding invading migrants, “What will you do? Will you shoot them? Will you starve them?” To that I would add: “Will you allow them to be untreated when ill or injured?” These questions are rhetorical.

    Buckley also observed that immigration laws seem too harsh or inhumane when applied to palpable, specific people.

    Thus, there must somehow exist free medical treatment. Treatment will increasingly land in the emergency rooms. Here in S. California, the ER waiting time is already out of control; don’t get me started. At some point, waiting time will become utterly third-world. At that point, even Republicans will reluctantly endorse free outpatient non-ER care.

    Willam Buckley once asked, regarding invading migrants, “What will you do? Will you shoot them? Will you starve them?” To that I would add: “Will you allow them to be untreated when ill or injured?” These questions are rhetorical.

    Do you feed people after they break into your house? With “conservatives” like this, who needs liberals? And what was Cuckley doing in his spare time, anyway? Was he down at the border rendering aid to the po migrants? And we all know how the story goes, in the last 50 years of ever growing cowardice and standard slippage; Cuckley, with each passing year, professes more and more embarrassment at being associated with nationalists and cultural conservatives, with only his discomfort with ghey buggery remaining intact for the long-haul, though as I understand even he was slipping on this issue by circa 2000. Da Fuq were these “conservatives” doing, or thinking, anyway? Your average Detroit factory worker circa 1965 had a better moral compass and sense of worthwhile goals then yer typical Beltway ghoul of the last 50 years.

  92. @The Alarmist
    Texas and Florida are so close to flipping that it is foreseeable they can be stolen, yet still no serious investigation of 2018.

    As per usual, as long as the donor checks clear why should the G(ghey)O(old)P(priss) party regret their disembowling of America’s economic future and demographics (and thus, their own electoral future)?

  93. @Mark G.
    The problem with the Republicans supporting things like student debt reform and single payer healthcare is that to pay for it they have to go where the money is and that means going to the white middle class. The top twenty percent of income earners already pay ninety percent of all income taxes. The bottom fifty percent pay almost nothing and already receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. Since there are only so many rich white people, you will eventually run out of rich white people to tax. You will then have to increase taxes on the white middle class and then these programs will end up being income transfers from whites to nonwhites. You aren't going to be able to put a fence around these government benefit programs and put a sign on the fence saying "white people only" so you are better off not supporting them at all.

    The top twenty percent of income earners already pay ninety percent of all income taxes. The bottom fifty percent pay almost nothing and already receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.

    Perhaps they “pay nothing” because they have nothing. Jeebus, it’s not 1980 anymore. Today’s broke as hell young adults aren’t 30 year olds in 1980 who buy the idea that the wealthy are “unfairly penalized” by progressive tax rates. Since the early 80’s, each upturn in the economy has increasingly gone to the already wealthy.

    Yeah, I get it; people who graduated from high school before 1990 want to keep Uncle Sam out of their bank account. Those of us born later, well, we don’t have anything to be “confiscated” in the first place.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    And cripes, what have the wealthy done since the early 80's with their increasing resources? Not a damn useful thing. America used to make a lot of useful things, and innovate a lot*, and provide a lot of good jobs to a lot of people. Nowadays our elites feed off of stock market booms, record high corporate profits, and so forth, all so that they can fatten up their accounts and buy 3rd (or 4th, or 5th) homes and more luxury cars.

    And there are too many people in the 50-80% range who don't do enough to shame the rich or UMC into being more pro-social.

    *true breakthrough innovations were much more common in early-mid 20th century America.

    , @Mr. Rational

    Since the early 80’s, each upturn in the economy has increasingly gone to the already wealthy.
     
    This corresponds to the growth of unproductive FIRE-sector (finance, insurance & real estate) activity and the decline of actual physical production (manufacturing and construction).  As more of all profit goes to those who make "deals", the money heads towards not just the 1% but the 0.01%.

    I don't have a prescription for this problem, but recognizing it is esssential to coming up with one.
  94. @Feryl

    The top twenty percent of income earners already pay ninety percent of all income taxes. The bottom fifty percent pay almost nothing and already receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.
     
    Perhaps they "pay nothing" because they have nothing. Jeebus, it's not 1980 anymore. Today's broke as hell young adults aren't 30 year olds in 1980 who buy the idea that the wealthy are "unfairly penalized" by progressive tax rates. Since the early 80's, each upturn in the economy has increasingly gone to the already wealthy.

    Yeah, I get it; people who graduated from high school before 1990 want to keep Uncle Sam out of their bank account. Those of us born later, well, we don't have anything to be "confiscated" in the first place.

    And cripes, what have the wealthy done since the early 80’s with their increasing resources? Not a damn useful thing. America used to make a lot of useful things, and innovate a lot*, and provide a lot of good jobs to a lot of people. Nowadays our elites feed off of stock market booms, record high corporate profits, and so forth, all so that they can fatten up their accounts and buy 3rd (or 4th, or 5th) homes and more luxury cars.

    And there are too many people in the 50-80% range who don’t do enough to shame the rich or UMC into being more pro-social.

    *true breakthrough innovations were much more common in early-mid 20th century America.

  95. o/t

    My girl

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The "DSA" thing is a big frikken' joke. They are yet another group of socio-cultural Reaganites* who LARP as "Leftists" by promoting diversity and atheism. News flash: the original yuppie Reaganites (and whack job Libertarians from the South and West) were never really supporters of mono-culturalism or religious conservatism, either. So the only difference between the "Right" Reaganites of the past and the "Left" Reaganites of the present is the degree to which they admit their cultural inclinations; the early Reaganites bloviated about patriotism and God but did virtually nothing to restore the wholesome values of the 50's, while the current Left Reaganites have the decency to admit that they don't care about cultural conservatism.

    *The foundation of Reaganism is hostility toward economic progressivism and localism; thus, the Reaganites gave us tax cuts for the wealthy, attempts to repeal the Capital Gains tax, etc., while also promoting off-shoring/free-trade/high immigration levels.
    , @Feryl
    New Deal Dem elites, and mid-century Rockefeller Republicans, seldom masqueraded as having any "working class" origins or affect. Back in the straight-forward, no-nonsense mid-20th century people didn't affect bogus identities.
  96. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Herro! Mao izz da famoss leada!

    More proof that Twink isn't a true American, at heart he is still an Asian communist. Never trust an Asian. Time to go back home.

    at heart he is still an Asian communist.

    I know this is a big LARPing joke to you, but half of my mother’s family was murdered by communists. So, no, not only am I not a communist, I detest communists and their fellow-travelers and apologists.

    That doesn’t change the fact that Mao overcame huge odds and won, and there are lessons to be learned there (one’s enemies often teach one the best lessons, often painfully).

    You are unfortunately too dim-witted to understand this and just had to jump in with your inane net WN slogans and personal attacks.

    Come out of mom’s basement and do something real and productive… in real life.

  97. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I'm also thinking about Friends. I think that show really indoctrinated alot of young white people at the time.

    It gave off the idea that it's totally cool to live with some roomates as adults. Just live the easy life, no kids, no personal space. Casual sex and drinking is normal. I believe Jennifer Aniston had a baby in the show, eventually. So a fertility rate of 1/3. (Real Aniston is barren).

    This kind of deracinated sloth really hurt whites' ideas of how they should act as adults.

    Since X-ers in the 90’s often struggled to start families, well, of course that’s why TV shows like Friends could be popular. Attacking Reagan era “family values” culture was popular in the mid-late 90’s, because people by then were beginning to understand that failure to maintain broadly shared prosperity in the 80’s and 90’s meant that young adults increasingly could not even start a family in the first place. And Boomers, who did start families in the 70’s and 80’s, often could not stay married or even stay on good terms with their kids.

    The libertarian turn of the 70’s and 80’s first tainted people’s ability to rein in reckless and selfish behavior, which damaged families, and then by the late 90’s the libertarian turn had created lots of greedy people and elitist policy that were making it harder and harder to form a family.

  98. @216
    o/t

    My girl

    https://twitter.com/CityBureaucrat/status/1152179530993414150

    The “DSA” thing is a big frikken’ joke. They are yet another group of socio-cultural Reaganites* who LARP as “Leftists” by promoting diversity and atheism. News flash: the original yuppie Reaganites (and whack job Libertarians from the South and West) were never really supporters of mono-culturalism or religious conservatism, either. So the only difference between the “Right” Reaganites of the past and the “Left” Reaganites of the present is the degree to which they admit their cultural inclinations; the early Reaganites bloviated about patriotism and God but did virtually nothing to restore the wholesome values of the 50’s, while the current Left Reaganites have the decency to admit that they don’t care about cultural conservatism.

    *The foundation of Reaganism is hostility toward economic progressivism and localism; thus, the Reaganites gave us tax cuts for the wealthy, attempts to repeal the Capital Gains tax, etc., while also promoting off-shoring/free-trade/high immigration levels.

    • Replies: @216
    $10 million could buy a very nice kitchen
  99. @216
    o/t

    My girl

    https://twitter.com/CityBureaucrat/status/1152179530993414150

    New Deal Dem elites, and mid-century Rockefeller Republicans, seldom masqueraded as having any “working class” origins or affect. Back in the straight-forward, no-nonsense mid-20th century people didn’t affect bogus identities.

  100. @Feryl
    The "DSA" thing is a big frikken' joke. They are yet another group of socio-cultural Reaganites* who LARP as "Leftists" by promoting diversity and atheism. News flash: the original yuppie Reaganites (and whack job Libertarians from the South and West) were never really supporters of mono-culturalism or religious conservatism, either. So the only difference between the "Right" Reaganites of the past and the "Left" Reaganites of the present is the degree to which they admit their cultural inclinations; the early Reaganites bloviated about patriotism and God but did virtually nothing to restore the wholesome values of the 50's, while the current Left Reaganites have the decency to admit that they don't care about cultural conservatism.

    *The foundation of Reaganism is hostility toward economic progressivism and localism; thus, the Reaganites gave us tax cuts for the wealthy, attempts to repeal the Capital Gains tax, etc., while also promoting off-shoring/free-trade/high immigration levels.

    $10 million could buy a very nice kitchen

  101. @WorkingClass
    The majority of Democrats voted against impeachment. The so called left now looks even stupider and uglier. What does Nadler do now? Does he still want to grill St. Mueller? Major scandals are on the horizon for Obama Admin Officials. Trump's chances for re-election look good.

    But. In my very humble opinion the economic reset has begun. Election day could look nothing like today.

    Emphatically agree.

    It is weird that while things seem to change in many ways they basically stay the same–the 2020 election could very well come down to GDP figures. If the economy is officially in recession, Trump’s toast. If he can keep air in the bubble for another 15 months, he gets a second term.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    This bubble is begging to be popped. I'd lay odds they are going to do a Hoover on Trump in the near future. Excuse me, but I have a drawbridge that needs a little work.
  102. @Twinkie

    Mao was able to take the peasants because Chiang was a Westernizer, and between a left and right Westernizer, the peasants chose the one closer to them.
     
    Chiang was not a rightist and enjoyed Soviet support for a while. He was a corrupt warlord more than anything else and was responsible for losing China. He was also not a Westernizer, a reputation he may have acquired due to his Western-oriented fourth wife, “Madame Chiang” who hailed from the wealthy mercantile Soong family.

    Chiang was not a rightist and enjoyed Soviet support for a while. He was a corrupt warlord more than anything else and was responsible for losing China.

    The KMT enjoyed Soviet support, because it was thoroughly infiltrated with Communists. Chiang played along, until he could muster sufficient backing within the KMT for a thorough purge. Then he acted. He sent his son to the Soviet Union because Stalin demanded a hostage in return for financial support. Chiang obliged, not because he was a fellow traveler, but because he needed the resources. And what he did was well within the mainstream of the Chinese historical tradition of the hostage prince, dating back to the time of the First Emperor, and before. The problem with a lot of the standard commentary about Chiang is that it is infested by calumnies from left-wingers and fellow travelers. The following excerpt, from a review on the book Generalissimo by Jay Taylor, talks about some of these issues:

    https://lists.h-net.org/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-diplo&month=1112&week=c&msg=CCpvwM3jw2gvHHWs1N8ZEw&user=&pw=

    Jay Taylor’s authoritative and indispensable biography of one of modern China’s towering political figures is sympathetic in tone yet critical in judgment. He has managed to do what no one else has, namely, to restore Chiang Kai-shek to the position in history his accomplishments merit without, however, engaging in apotheosis. Taylor makes meticulous use of a broad array of written and oral sources in Chinese and Western languages, in particular the private diaries that the Chinese leader kept throughout his life. He dispels many of the persistent myths that have shrouded Chiang’s career as political and military leader, including the false charges that he was a political reactionary, an instrument of landlords and capitalists, that he failed to fight the Japanese, and that he was later a puppet of American imperialism. These calumnies, which originated in Chinese Communist propaganda, unfortunately found their way into much Western academic as well as popular literature on China after World War II and became the conventional wisdom. Some among us will likely be reluctant to reassess what were long considered verities, yet we must in light of the evidence. As Taylor ably demonstrates, Chiang was in essence a revolutionary nationalist who sought to dominate, not serve, the landlords and corporate capitalists. He fought hard against the Japanese and asserted Chinese interests vis-à-vis the Americans as much as circumstances allowed.

    It is true that in the twentieth century competition to unify China, restore China’s sovereignty, and establish a modern developmental state, Chiang Kai-shek finished second, a respectable showing but not enough to win the gold. Yet it might well have been otherwise. By the eve of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, under extremely difficult domestic and international conditions, Chiang had gone far to achieve those goals. Although the vagaries of history only permit a counter factual supposition, it seems very likely that absent Japan’s imperial ambitions in China, Chiang might well have succeeded in marginalizing, if not totally eliminating, the Chinese Communists and other domestic enemies and setting China firmly on a moderate, internationally-oriented, state capitalist development trajectory. Instead, the primary contagion of Japanese aggression fatally weakened the Chinese body politic making it susceptible to the secondary infection of communism, an opportunistic disease that killed any hope of establishing a progressive, pluralist, and democratic polity. These ideals remain unfulfilled to this day except in that part of the Chinese cultural sphere that is contemporary Taiwan. In this sense, the greatest crime that Japanese imperialism committed against China was not the Nanjing Massacre or even the Imperial Army’s responsibility for the deaths of many millions of Chinese victims, but rather opening the floodgates to Chinese communism and the murderous dictatorship of Mao Zedong that claimed tens of millions of lives in the process of constructing what purported to be socialism.

  103. @The Alarmist
    Texas and Florida are so close to flipping that it is foreseeable they can be stolen, yet still no serious investigation of 2018.

    Game Over Party.

  104. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I am a Franco Ontarian - meaning somebody whose ancestors hail from France, but who has lived in Ontario and effectively overcome the WASP/Zionist assimilation attempts.

    That’s funny … I thought the rest of Canada was steadfastly resisting assimilation by Franco Ontario.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    Whites outside of Quebec hate Quebec. Everybody hates those snotty bastards. The polls seem to reflect that. In fact, the province that seems to show the most love for Quebec is the ultra-brown Ontario. The province that hates it the most is Alberta. With or without oil. Talk to some Albertans like I have. We've all had bad experiences in Quebec. Especially the whites.
  105. @Audacious Epigone
    Emphatically agree.

    It is weird that while things seem to change in many ways they basically stay the same--the 2020 election could very well come down to GDP figures. If the economy is officially in recession, Trump's toast. If he can keep air in the bubble for another 15 months, he gets a second term.

    This bubble is begging to be popped. I’d lay odds they are going to do a Hoover on Trump in the near future. Excuse me, but I have a drawbridge that needs a little work.

  106. @dfordoom


    But it’s hard to see how success can ever be achieved without leadership and discipline and organisation.
     
    Duh.
     
    Well there are alt-rightists who do actually believe that leadership, discipline and organisation are unnecessary. Vox Day, for instance.

    It’s hard for me to visualize how anything could get accomplished without it. But then I keep saying that I don’t know what will work. It seems self-evident that political organization would be required to effect a change in the political direction.

    I don’t spend any time in the alt-right arena. I think that a large part of it is MSM created. As for the personalities, I don’t have any use for them and don’t believe that they accomplish much of anything worthwile, except self-aggrandizement.The UR without the anti-Semitism and overt racism would be nice. I would like to know how many people take one look and then move on because of it.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Neutered content has its place to get people on the treadmill, but for that you can go to the City Journal. Or on a lower level, Breitbart.

    The Unz Review is wonderful precisely because antisemitism and overt racism, both of which are objectively correct, are welcome.

    People who take a look and move on aren't ready. Many will never be ready--too difficult to overcome decades of conditioning.
    , @dfordoom

    I don’t spend any time in the alt-right arena.
     
    You're very wise. There's a lot of craziness. A lot of wishful thinking. A lot of magical thinking. Lots of conspiracy theory lunacy. And quite a bit of real viciousness which would be scary except for the overwhelming atmosphere of incompetence and deluded thinking.

    The UR without the anti-Semitism and overt racism would be nice. I would like to know how many people take one look and then move on because of it.
     
    Every movement has its lunatic fringe but it's unfortunate that the dissident right's lunatic fringe is particularly loony and particularly unpleasant, and they make things very easy for their political enemies.

    And there's no sign that the dissident right is slowly getting its act together.
  107. @Feryl

    The top twenty percent of income earners already pay ninety percent of all income taxes. The bottom fifty percent pay almost nothing and already receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.
     
    Perhaps they "pay nothing" because they have nothing. Jeebus, it's not 1980 anymore. Today's broke as hell young adults aren't 30 year olds in 1980 who buy the idea that the wealthy are "unfairly penalized" by progressive tax rates. Since the early 80's, each upturn in the economy has increasingly gone to the already wealthy.

    Yeah, I get it; people who graduated from high school before 1990 want to keep Uncle Sam out of their bank account. Those of us born later, well, we don't have anything to be "confiscated" in the first place.

    Since the early 80’s, each upturn in the economy has increasingly gone to the already wealthy.

    This corresponds to the growth of unproductive FIRE-sector (finance, insurance & real estate) activity and the decline of actual physical production (manufacturing and construction).  As more of all profit goes to those who make “deals”, the money heads towards not just the 1% but the 0.01%.

    I don’t have a prescription for this problem, but recognizing it is esssential to coming up with one.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    The decline of manufacturing is the big problem. Most people don't have a problem with someone becoming wealthy by offering goods desired by consumers. Someone like a Henry Ford producing inexpensive cars was widely admired. When the rich gain their wealth through rent seeking behavior, though, it's a different story. Manufacturing started it's decline with the high inflation policies of the Fed. The inflation boosted the wages of American workers and made them unable to compete with lower wage foreign workers. The low interest rates discouraged saving and investment. Since good paying future jobs come from investment in capital goods, it killed high wage job growth. Benefiting were stock owners, mainly the top ten percent of the population, as the inflation raised stock prices. Also benefiting was anyone receiving money from the government. The low interest rates enabled the politicians to borrow more money, which they could then pass out to political supporters.
  108. @Lot
    “If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they’d dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.”

    Trump barely won in 2016 with about 63%, and those votes were distributed just right for him. Dominate 2028 with only 3.67% more?

    I think the next few cycles are going to be narrow wins for both sides.

    Trump got between 56%-59% of the white vote in 2016 depending on which source is being used. I’ve not seen a source showing him getting 63%. Do you know where that one is coming from?

  109. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Yep. 2/3 of whites is not enough, if whites do not vote together. Will they ever?
    Relatedly, Hispanics vote in similar proportions for Democrats. Don't know if Dems will reach the elusive Whispanic third either, or if it matters.

    Clannish Scots-Irish whites will. We know this because they already in do. In Alabama and Mississippi, whites vote more than 80% Republican in presidential elections.

    Albion’s other seeds aren’t clannish enough to do so for the same reasons, but that doesn’t mean they won’t do so for other reasons. Appeals to fairness is the way that seems most obvious (and it has the added bonus of being true!) to me.

    “Dems are the real racists!” comes in for plenty of deserved mockery as it’s currently expressed. Trying to claim that Robert Byrd is controlling the Democrat party from the grave or that the squad hates brown people is stupid, futile, and untrue. But claiming that Republicans want fairness while Democrat policies are racist against whites could reach them because it’s both true and appeals to a moral foundation–fairness–that is very important to them.

    • Replies: @iffen
    In Alabama and Mississippi, whites vote more than 80% Republican in presidential elections.

    The non-cau in the woodpile here is that I grew up in Alabama when most blacks were not allowed to vote. Not only that, many prole whites were disenfrachised. So "white" people have been running Alabama for a very long time and prole whites eat dirt everyday. So what exactly is going to change when "white" people start voting their race?
    , @martin2
    Yes I have often had the same thought. Whites are principled and therefore one cannot appeal to what's good for white people's interests, as one could if the group in question were, say Asians, or indeed any non-white group. With white people one must appeal to what is fair, and they must be brought to realise that the present dispensation is not fair to them.
  110. @Thomm
    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz ply his trade. He singlehandedly ties up hundreds if not thousands of WNs at once. His strategy is particularly elegant when one observes the chess pieces that Ron advances in the correct sequence.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to bad at making money, so that they write for very little payment.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion, and then someone like Philip Giraldi to make anti-Semites feel at ease about saying anything.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew. Remember, he got handed an unprestigious assignment from Jewish central command. Harvey Weinstein got to have sex with the prettiest actresses for 30 years, George Soros gets to be a billionaire, etc. But someone has to do the less glamorous work, and Runzie Baby is equal to the task.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated on TUR, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally, even as any and all anti-Israel content is fully welcome.

    Why?

    It is because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess from the perception of a 70-IQ WN. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron’s plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring out that they are the frog and the temperature is already up to about 160 degrees F.

    I am strongly in favor of what Ron Unz is doing. His recent ‘An Open Letter….’ article was a trial balloon through which he tested the speed at which the temperature can be increased under the immerse-in-water frog. I look forward to seeing him go for the kill (i.e. 212 degrees F) by around 2023 or so.

    Thanks,
    -Ira Rabinowitz

    When the high-IQ brain train takes a corner too fast and flies off the rails…

    • LOL: iffen
  111. @AaronB
    One thing is for sure - this site is not what it seems. You have to be an idiot not to realize that.

    Ron has his motives lol.

    Ron is concerned about free expression over everything else. It is his highest value. If you are able to find something that contradicts that, I’d be interested to hear it.

    Parenthetically, the schoolmarm is entirely my creation. I think he’s a little naive in thinking he won’t be a target because he allows the full range of opinions just because he hasn’t been targeted yet.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I personally suspect Thom is at least somewhat correct.

    Earlier writings by Ron have expressed deep concern over social break down and resurgent white nationalism in America, and I think Ron is providing this site as a place where these types can blow off steam at least a little bit, and take the pressure off.

    And gathering so many if these types in one place can also make it easier for the authorities to monitor.

    It is highly significant that perhaps the most anti-Semitic and racist site in the Web has not come under any kind of serious attack by the Left - and remember, Ron has many high profile friends and acquaintances among the elite, and there has been no public disavowal or condemnation.

    I don't think you fully appreciate how remarkable this is. If you do a Google search on Ron anti-Semite, or unz, very little of interest comes up.

    That we can occasionally have intelligent conversations among a few eccentric commenters is just a happy byproduct :)
  112. @Audacious Epigone
    Clannish Scots-Irish whites will. We know this because they already in do. In Alabama and Mississippi, whites vote more than 80% Republican in presidential elections.

    Albion's other seeds aren't clannish enough to do so for the same reasons, but that doesn't mean they won't do so for other reasons. Appeals to fairness is the way that seems most obvious (and it has the added bonus of being true!) to me.

    "Dems are the real racists!" comes in for plenty of deserved mockery as it's currently expressed. Trying to claim that Robert Byrd is controlling the Democrat party from the grave or that the squad hates brown people is stupid, futile, and untrue. But claiming that Republicans want fairness while Democrat policies are racist against whites could reach them because it's both true and appeals to a moral foundation--fairness--that is very important to them.

    In Alabama and Mississippi, whites vote more than 80% Republican in presidential elections.

    The non-cau in the woodpile here is that I grew up in Alabama when most blacks were not allowed to vote. Not only that, many prole whites were disenfrachised. So “white” people have been running Alabama for a very long time and prole whites eat dirt everyday. So what exactly is going to change when “white” people start voting their race?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    My sense is that many whites in the Deep South don't actually like each other very much*, so it's not like they grieve over the white "losers" in the region. The Deep South was the first of the well-populated regions to leave the New Deal/Dem coalition in the 1960's. The Deep South and interior West were always the regions most at odds with the Progressive spirit of the New Deal era (Deep South tends to have a feudalist, not populist, mentality, while the interior West has often been a bastion of cranky libertarians).

    *Compared to the pro-social whites of the Northeast, Midwest, and to a lesser extent the Pacific states.
  113. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Actually, when the Nazis moved towards a more statist-totalitarian direction at the end of the Four Year Plan, their popularity had to be kept with higher numbers of SS guards. And with patriotism of course; race/ethnic/filial politics are naturally more binding than inorganic soviets, which however do have a function at times... the fewer times the better.

    In effect, you are saying that we can’t govern ourselves using political ideas and ideals, instead, we must use race, ethnicity, religion, language, etc. as the controls. What’s the point? We’ve done that for millennia.

  114. @Audacious Epigone
    Ron is concerned about free expression over everything else. It is his highest value. If you are able to find something that contradicts that, I'd be interested to hear it.

    Parenthetically, the schoolmarm is entirely my creation. I think he's a little naive in thinking he won't be a target because he allows the full range of opinions just because he hasn't been targeted yet.

    I personally suspect Thom is at least somewhat correct.

    Earlier writings by Ron have expressed deep concern over social break down and resurgent white nationalism in America, and I think Ron is providing this site as a place where these types can blow off steam at least a little bit, and take the pressure off.

    And gathering so many if these types in one place can also make it easier for the authorities to monitor.

    It is highly significant that perhaps the most anti-Semitic and racist site in the Web has not come under any kind of serious attack by the Left – and remember, Ron has many high profile friends and acquaintances among the elite, and there has been no public disavowal or condemnation.

    I don’t think you fully appreciate how remarkable this is. If you do a Google search on Ron anti-Semite, or unz, very little of interest comes up.

    That we can occasionally have intelligent conversations among a few eccentric commenters is just a happy byproduct 🙂

    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I personally suspect Thom is at least somewhat correct.
     
    More than somewhat, I feel.

    ...gathering so many if these types in one place can also make it easier for the authorities to monitor.
     
    Hehe....don't say.

    I'd just change this

    That we can occasionally have intelligent conversations among a few eccentric commenters is just a happy byproduct
     
    into

    That we can occasionally have conversations about certain topics is just a happy byproduct. For now.
     
    , @iffen
    among a few eccentric commenters

    We?

    Speak for yourself, Kemo Sabe.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    If you think Unz is "the most anti-Semitic and racist site in the Web" there is a ton of web space you may be unaware of!

    Conversely, what I've found many people are unaware of is how the bulk of Ron's time with the site is devoted to digitally archiving old periodicals and magazines. The novel content that is being created is sort of a sideshow for him.
  115. @AaronB
    I personally suspect Thom is at least somewhat correct.

    Earlier writings by Ron have expressed deep concern over social break down and resurgent white nationalism in America, and I think Ron is providing this site as a place where these types can blow off steam at least a little bit, and take the pressure off.

    And gathering so many if these types in one place can also make it easier for the authorities to monitor.

    It is highly significant that perhaps the most anti-Semitic and racist site in the Web has not come under any kind of serious attack by the Left - and remember, Ron has many high profile friends and acquaintances among the elite, and there has been no public disavowal or condemnation.

    I don't think you fully appreciate how remarkable this is. If you do a Google search on Ron anti-Semite, or unz, very little of interest comes up.

    That we can occasionally have intelligent conversations among a few eccentric commenters is just a happy byproduct :)

    I personally suspect Thom is at least somewhat correct.

    More than somewhat, I feel.

    …gathering so many if these types in one place can also make it easier for the authorities to monitor.

    Hehe….don’t say.

    I’d just change this

    That we can occasionally have intelligent conversations among a few eccentric commenters is just a happy byproduct

    into

    That we can occasionally have conversations about certain topics is just a happy byproduct. For now.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Lol, agree.

    I sometimes feel that my comments throw a wrench unto his plans, because I am on the opposite "side" lol.

    This site really isn't for people with my opinions, truth be told.
  116. @peterAUS

    I personally suspect Thom is at least somewhat correct.
     
    More than somewhat, I feel.

    ...gathering so many if these types in one place can also make it easier for the authorities to monitor.
     
    Hehe....don't say.

    I'd just change this

    That we can occasionally have intelligent conversations among a few eccentric commenters is just a happy byproduct
     
    into

    That we can occasionally have conversations about certain topics is just a happy byproduct. For now.
     

    Lol, agree.

    I sometimes feel that my comments throw a wrench unto his plans, because I am on the opposite “side” lol.

    This site really isn’t for people with my opinions, truth be told.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    How much of a presence would you expect practicing Jews living in Israel to have on an American site? Obviously a lot of the columnists do focus on Israel, though.
  117. @AaronB
    I personally suspect Thom is at least somewhat correct.

    Earlier writings by Ron have expressed deep concern over social break down and resurgent white nationalism in America, and I think Ron is providing this site as a place where these types can blow off steam at least a little bit, and take the pressure off.

    And gathering so many if these types in one place can also make it easier for the authorities to monitor.

    It is highly significant that perhaps the most anti-Semitic and racist site in the Web has not come under any kind of serious attack by the Left - and remember, Ron has many high profile friends and acquaintances among the elite, and there has been no public disavowal or condemnation.

    I don't think you fully appreciate how remarkable this is. If you do a Google search on Ron anti-Semite, or unz, very little of interest comes up.

    That we can occasionally have intelligent conversations among a few eccentric commenters is just a happy byproduct :)

    among a few eccentric commenters

    We?

    Speak for yourself, Kemo Sabe.

  118. @Audacious Epigone
    Clannish Scots-Irish whites will. We know this because they already in do. In Alabama and Mississippi, whites vote more than 80% Republican in presidential elections.

    Albion's other seeds aren't clannish enough to do so for the same reasons, but that doesn't mean they won't do so for other reasons. Appeals to fairness is the way that seems most obvious (and it has the added bonus of being true!) to me.

    "Dems are the real racists!" comes in for plenty of deserved mockery as it's currently expressed. Trying to claim that Robert Byrd is controlling the Democrat party from the grave or that the squad hates brown people is stupid, futile, and untrue. But claiming that Republicans want fairness while Democrat policies are racist against whites could reach them because it's both true and appeals to a moral foundation--fairness--that is very important to them.

    Yes I have often had the same thought. Whites are principled and therefore one cannot appeal to what’s good for white people’s interests, as one could if the group in question were, say Asians, or indeed any non-white group. With white people one must appeal to what is fair, and they must be brought to realise that the present dispensation is not fair to them.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Whites are principled and therefore one cannot appeal to what’s good for white people’s interests, as one could if the group in question were, say Asians, or indeed any non-white group. With white people one must appeal to what is fair, and they must be brought to realise that the present dispensation is not fair to them.
     
    I'm sorry but I think that's absolute nonsense. White people do vote for their own interests, but they don't define their own interests in racial terms. Mostly they define their interests in class terms. Or gender terms. Or in terms of membership of sub-groups like homosexuals. But in all these cases white people vote such as selfishly and just as cynically for what they perceive to be their group interests as any other group.

    Do you honestly think that wealthy white liberals give a damn about fairness? They care about preserving their own wealth, their own comfort, their own security.
  119. @iffen
    It's hard for me to visualize how anything could get accomplished without it. But then I keep saying that I don't know what will work. It seems self-evident that political organization would be required to effect a change in the political direction.

    I don't spend any time in the alt-right arena. I think that a large part of it is MSM created. As for the personalities, I don't have any use for them and don't believe that they accomplish much of anything worthwile, except self-aggrandizement.The UR without the anti-Semitism and overt racism would be nice. I would like to know how many people take one look and then move on because of it.

    Neutered content has its place to get people on the treadmill, but for that you can go to the City Journal. Or on a lower level, Breitbart.

    The Unz Review is wonderful precisely because antisemitism and overt racism, both of which are objectively correct, are welcome.

    People who take a look and move on aren’t ready. Many will never be ready–too difficult to overcome decades of conditioning.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    antisemitism and overt racism, both of which are objectively correct

    How can the category of "overt racism" be "objectively correct"? That doesn't make sense.
    , @iffen
    Discussion of the JQ is not required to be anti-Semitic. Discussion of the RQ is not required to be overtly and obnoxiously racist.

    People who take a look and move on aren’t ready.

    Birds of a feather - guilt by association

    Why fight uphill unless you have no other choice?

    Why not fight downhill?
  120. @Mr. Rational

    Since the early 80’s, each upturn in the economy has increasingly gone to the already wealthy.
     
    This corresponds to the growth of unproductive FIRE-sector (finance, insurance & real estate) activity and the decline of actual physical production (manufacturing and construction).  As more of all profit goes to those who make "deals", the money heads towards not just the 1% but the 0.01%.

    I don't have a prescription for this problem, but recognizing it is esssential to coming up with one.

    The decline of manufacturing is the big problem. Most people don’t have a problem with someone becoming wealthy by offering goods desired by consumers. Someone like a Henry Ford producing inexpensive cars was widely admired. When the rich gain their wealth through rent seeking behavior, though, it’s a different story. Manufacturing started it’s decline with the high inflation policies of the Fed. The inflation boosted the wages of American workers and made them unable to compete with lower wage foreign workers. The low interest rates discouraged saving and investment. Since good paying future jobs come from investment in capital goods, it killed high wage job growth. Benefiting were stock owners, mainly the top ten percent of the population, as the inflation raised stock prices. Also benefiting was anyone receiving money from the government. The low interest rates enabled the politicians to borrow more money, which they could then pass out to political supporters.

  121. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Herro! Mao izz da famoss leada!

    More proof that Twink isn't a true American, at heart he is still an Asian communist. Never trust an Asian. Time to go back home.

    You realize this rhetorical approach is going to turn off everyone who has an Asian in their personal lives who they trust, right? Because that’s obviously bad advice, it’s going to in turn cause people to tune you out.

    This comment is a microcosm for why the alt right is doomed to failure, I think.

  122. “It may make you feel better to single out a “few bad apples” for corruption, but sheeitt, the average American house has been getting bigger since 1983.”

    I am unclear how this relates or even if it is accurate. But the point remains an increasing number of whites look to whose holding the cards and what whites see is other whites. Home size increase is great in my view, if and only if more people can afford them and that is where the game is up, perhaps.

    Home ownership is 64% — 4% drop since 2010.

    Larger home fewer owners —-

    https://www.getrichslowly.org/homeownership/

    • Replies: @Feryl
    There are records of housing size in America, you know. Once the economy took off again in mid-late 1983, people began building houses that were bigger than the generally modest ones build from 1940-1980.

    House size is a useful measure of how status conscious people are; when status consciousness plummeted in the 1940's and 50's, people didn't feel much of a desire to splurge on housing in order to stand out from other people. Compare that to the McMansion arms race of the last 35 years.
  123. @The Alarmist
    That's funny ... I thought the rest of Canada was steadfastly resisting assimilation by Franco Ontario.

    Whites outside of Quebec hate Quebec. Everybody hates those snotty bastards. The polls seem to reflect that. In fact, the province that seems to show the most love for Quebec is the ultra-brown Ontario. The province that hates it the most is Alberta. With or without oil. Talk to some Albertans like I have. We’ve all had bad experiences in Quebec. Especially the whites.

  124. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Herro! Mao izz da famoss leada!

    More proof that Twink isn't a true American, at heart he is still an Asian communist. Never trust an Asian. Time to go back home.

    What?! But I’m a good guy 🙁

    Most of us are decent people anyways.

  125. @Hypnotoad666

    “Health care for illegals” polls badly, but healthcare overall is the best issue for the Dems. Best tactic for the GOP to not bring it up at all.
     
    I wonder if it could be possible for Trump or the GOP to come up with a health care plan that: (a) actually made sense; (b) wasn't a complete fiscal debacle, and (c) could at least establish their bona fides on the issue enough to steal the Dems' thunder.

    It's not like our current healthcare system is so great or somehow embodies important conservative or nationalist principles. In fact, it's an inefficient, bastardized combination of centrally-planned socialism and privatized price-gouging. The worst of all worlds, really.

    As a political reality, however, the right is probably too divided on the issue and has probably dug itself in too deep about the evils Obamacare to ever come up with anything coherent to propose. It's a pity, because you're right, it's the biggest winning issue for the Dems among middle class swing voters. If they didn't totally own the bread and butter healthcare issue they really would be written off as the kook party of Free Stuff for Foreigners.

    Medicare for all is pretty popular across party lines, even a lot of Republicans support it. It feels like an inevitability, so it seems to me that a GOP plan essentially mirroring that of the Democrats but excluding eligibility for non-citizens would be an electoral coup–so we can be sure it won’t happen.

  126. @Hypnotoad666

    It’s something I need to dig into more deeply. In the 2018 mid-terms, the early results showed Republicans retaining control of the House, and then as the night dragged on, hours after polls closed, more and more too-close-to-calls went blue. Virtually every single one of them IIRC.
     
    I think the single best place to start digging is CA 39, in which all the circumstantial evidence points to vote fraud. The Republican, Young Kim, was actually pronounced the winner when the polls closed and was up by like 2%. But an inexplicable surge of votes postmarked on the day of the election suddenly showed up. And -- surprise, surprise -- they were 90% for the Dem who ended up winning by about 2%.

    California, of course, has zero voter integrity. Any alleged human being can register on line without ID. And third parties are allowed to hand deliver or mail in other people's ballots form wherever they can generate them.

    A vote surge that late, and that lopsided, in a 50/50 district is simply not plausible on its face. Combined with the easy opportunity for fraud in CA, it's not hard to connect the dots. Amazingly, however, no one seems the least bit interested in probing the 10 or 12 races that followed this exact pattern.

    Relatedly, this is why getting rid of the electoral college and switching to a national popular vote would doom the GOP’s presidential chances indefinitely. Think of how many manufactured votes would come out of single-party urban areas all over the country without any oversight or pushback at all.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Feryl
    9D Chess: the electoral college has inadvertently led to the GOP greatly subsidizing smaller/more rural states, which further alienates them from other types of places. Discarding the EC would lead to the GOP making greater efforts to appeal to the large cities and more liberal suburbs of the Northeast, West Coast, and Midwest*.

    The GOP's post-1980 emphasis on the Pentagon, agribusiness, and the oil industry has allowed them to do well in the Plains and much of the South, but standard issue Rebublicans in other regions face a big up-hill battle after GW Bush discredited the GOP.

    All this being said, the SJW Left tainting the Democrats in national elections might allow the GOP to continue to get away with the same old same old.

    *Trump defenders often pointed out, post-victory, that Trump made minimal efforts to win the West Coast and much of the Northeast, since the EC makes it pointless to bother campaigning in the most blue and red states, further reinforcing to many voters in these places that it's not even worth voting if you vote out of alignment with your state. Remember, one of the last stops he made was to MN, which his campaign accurately judged to be the one true blue state most up for grabs; get rid of the EC, and Republicans would spend a lot more resources in CA and NY trying to motivate people to vote for them, while Democrats would make more stops in the South and the Plains.

    Lastly, the Electoral College does look more and more unfair because population growth since the Ellis Island days has increasingly been concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic, the SE Coast of New England, The West Coast, and Texas. The Upper Northeast, some of the South, much of the Midwest, and much of the interior West have seen relatively little population growth compared to California, the coastal PNW, Texas, Florida, Bos-Wash, and Georgia.

    So much of the population in the growing regions has a right to feel annoyed that voters in Iowa and Idaho have votes that are basically worth more.
    , @Feryl
    Ya know, "they" could actually do something for a change instead of whining that the game is rigged. But what do you expect from nihilists-and-defeatists-in-disguise Reaganites, and their ideological descendants in the Modern Right and Modern Left?

    Actually fixing serious problems, on a macro society wide level, requires a willingness and ability to legit believe that a better society for all is possible and worth the effort. Reaganite defeatism that nothing can fix the corrupt and stupid nature of human collective effort* becomes an excuse to withdraw from any meaningful and larger scale reform (reform in the true sense, not the sort of "market" or "social" reform that creates oligarchy and a dystopian free for all)

    *Conservatives saying that the slightest bit of socialism creates Venezuela (a country wracked by economic attacks from other countries), is not too different from Leftists claiming that the slightest bit of cultural conservatism leads to Nazi Germany. Besides, shit for brains Reaganites apparently can't do the math that the crony capitalism they ushered in is one side of the economic coin, while crony communism** is on the other side; it's all just semantics, corruption is corruption no matter how you label it.

    **Amusingly, once the crony communist Soviet Union crumbled, the US accelerated it's turn toward crony capitalism; even more ironically, Russians in the 90's were demoralized to find that the crony capitalists did more to uravel their society than the crony communists of the 70's and 80's ever did.
  127. @Lot
    “If Republicans could get two-thirds of the white vote, they’d dominate nationally through at least the mid-2030s.”

    Trump barely won in 2016 with about 63%, and those votes were distributed just right for him. Dominate 2028 with only 3.67% more?

    I think the next few cycles are going to be narrow wins for both sides.

    Trump did not get that much of the white vote

  128. @Feryl

    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.
     
    What good did it do? America has been objectively declining on almost every conceivable measure (mental health, industrial capacity, immigrant vetting, obesity levels etc.) since the mid-late 70's, coinciding with the turn toward "get the damn gubmint out of everything" ideology being embraced by young adults and middle-aged people. AKA, do whatever you feel like regardless of the long-term consequences. Your average Milllennial would kill to get the mid-20th century back; why don't you ask people born after 1975 how they feel about the American family being destroyed, and the middle class being gutted? Younger generations have no memory of anything every working. The Reaganites pushed drug use down moderately, but never even tried to reverse the disastrous changes to divorce laws made in the 70's. The Reaganites never even argued that society should encourage responsible pet ownership; dog bite fatalities surged in the 1980's. The Reaganites looked the other way as we got much fatter in the 80's. The Reaganites pushed for de-industrialization in order to get back at the dastardly unions who kept FDR in power for ages.

    Millennials like the pop culture of the 80's, but don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that the 1980's were, socially and politically, even 1/10 as wholesome as the 1930's-1950's. Or even the 60's, for that matter (the average American was fitter, happier, better employed, and more stable in the 60's than he was in the 80's). And Saint Ronnie, in his 2nd term, allowed immigration to reach it's highest levels since the mid-1920's; furthermore, we were now letting in lots of non-whites, whereas in the Ellis Island days it was mostly European immigrants that we got. The Reaganites never wanted order or stability; if they did, they would've kept common sense regulation (on financial markets, and certainly on immigration) intact. The Reaganite fantasy is a mirage seen by partisans wandering the wastelands of self-delusion. BTW, how was "de-regulation" supposed to not apply to the borders? You tell everybody that the government is stupid and good for nothing, and naturally, people will figure that applies to the government's ability to control who enters our turf. So why even try to stop anyone from entering*? The libertarian wing, since the mid-70's, never shuts it gulldarn mouth for 5 seconds to stop the juvenile bashing of authority, when we'd be better to acknowledge that we are better off entrusting the government (and any sort of authority or collective body, up to and including the church and the local community) to protect us and restrain Man's base impulses, rather than letting society descend into a anarchic free for all. Which is exactly what's happened over the last 45 years.

    *Conservative leaning small businesses, who covet cheap labor, were the first to heavily lobby for open borders in the 70's and 80's (even though the public face of immigration de-regulation was often sentimental do-gooder liberals), after having the common decency to be quiet and let society be demographically stabilized from the 1920's-1960's. As usual though, the Reaganites pretend that small(er) business owners are an oppressed minority, rather than the treasonous rats who helped turn America into a dystopia by 1990).

    BTW, how was “de-regulation” supposed to not apply to the borders? You tell everybody that the government is stupid and good for nothing, and naturally, people will figure that applies to the government’s ability to control who enters our turf.

    That makes sense intuitively but for some reason the military has remained nearly completely immune from this. Why?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    There was a major cultural shift in America toward favoring the South and West in the 1970's. The Reaganites sensed this, and made the Pentagon (who are in important player in most of the Southern and Western states that were major supporters of Republicans in the 70's and 80's) the dominant player in the modern Right coalition. Bitter Democrats got back at the Pentagon in the 90's, post-Cold War, by gutting the "defense" budget, which is the best thing that happened politically in the 90's. But the Neo-Cons were just biding their time; no matter what happened in the 2000's, A Republican president was going to revive the nation bankrupting military spending that Reagan used to fully capture the Pentagon for the GOP (I once read that before Reagan, a much larger chunk of career military personnel voted Democrat).

    I think the rise of "conservative strong men" in scary places like modern Russia has spooked most of the so-called Left into running far away from Dove style military spending. After GW Bush left office, the mainstream Anti-war Left totally collapsed and has never come back.

    Keep in mind that before Pearl Harbor, Americans were broadly skeptical of investing too much in the military.

    That makes sense intuitively but for some reason the military has remained nearly completely immune from this. Why?
     
    People, starting in the 80's, felt so ashamed of how America treated Vietnam vets that it's led to an over-correction of supporting the military in general in order to avoid accusations that you are a traitor who "doesn't support the troops". Plus, starting with the Reaganite era, there never has been much apparent public effort by made by the elites/the UMC to sound the alarm regarding how expensive military expenditures are. The 70's would be the last decade of earnest attempts made to expose all forms of waste and corruption in the government; subsequent decades have been plagued by obvious partisan bias (e.g., Republicans who claim that food stamps are bankrupting us never acknowledge Pentagon and Agribusiness subsidies).
  129. @Feryl
    I heard someone recently point out that since at least the Obama era, there's been a big rise in the rhetorical tactic of focusing on your opponents lousy character/track record, instead of highlighting your own side's successes. But as the neo-liberal era slouches onward, there's less and less for either side to brag about. Neo-liberalism, for at least 80% of society, has sucked, and keeps sucking harder and harder every year that goes by.

    People know, either conciously or unconsiously, that the GOP got the ball rolling on the chaos of sweeping de-regulation back in the 70's and 80's, as the New Deal became vilified and Reagan's esteem rose as the 70's and 80's went on. Back then, the GOP's efforts at de-regulation generally were premised on economic issues, with "liberals" taking the blame for cultural issues even though any form of "de-regulation" was going to ultimately f**k everything up, at any rate. Both sides began to push for de-regulation around 1970, but Americans were more readily accepting of the GOP's econ. de-regulation* so they got anointed as the "reform" party who would completely leave the New Deal behind in the 1980's.

    *Cultural de-regulation would not full began until the late 1990's, which is when dickhead Boomers became powerful enough to drown out the voices of GIs and Silents who didn't want "motherfucker" being spoken on daytime cable TV.

    Point is that you can't expect that many people to be that enthused about the GOP when they were the chief annihilators of domestic manufacturing, labor unions, and border security, during the libertarian turn of the 1970's and 80's. GOP figures openly denouncing this shameful past, while taking clear steps to reverse these mistakes, would make people more excited about the GOP. Trump got elected precisely by not being a Republican to begin with, something which strangely has been forgotten by not just the Reaganites, but even many on the Alt-Right too (way too many people on the Alt-Right now reflexively defend Trump on the grounds that he just happens to annoy your typical Democrat; we need to have higher standards than this).

    I heard someone recently point out that since at least the Obama era, there’s been a big rise in the rhetorical tactic of focusing on your opponents lousy character/track record, instead of highlighting your own side’s successes.

    Is that an inevitable consequence of social media creating a huge glass house and giving every person a basket full of rocks to hurl? I hope not and that there is some way out of it, but I think the only avenue for exit will be a large percentage of the population deciding to ignore it. Jordan Peterson has the right idea with the coming social media platform–if it’s not illegal, it’s allowed.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    It's bad faith arguing/rhetoric, I think. Respect for "the other side" has been declining since the late 80's (according to the GSS, people were more likely to self-ID as moderates rather than being "very" conservative or liberal before the late 80's). What is telling, to me, is that as the GSS updates continue, I would expect that people born in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's will probably register as being more and more likely to ID as "very liberal" (e.g. pro fairness), as a sign of a cultural shift. In the 80's and 90's, many Silents and Boomers began to self-ID as "very conservative"* (e.g. pro-deregulation), as we entered the neo-lib era.

    *Most "conservative" Silents and Boomers have always had a serious case of denial about the fact that the New Deal era, due to being tightly regulated, was much more culturally conservative and stable than the Reagan and Bush era. It wasn't the Prog. New Dealers, but rather, the neo-lib modern conservatives (and airhead SJW Left) who gave us high divorce rates, more legalized gambling, more porno culture, a decline in religiosity, and sex reassignment surgeries becoming more common).
  130. @AaronB
    I personally suspect Thom is at least somewhat correct.

    Earlier writings by Ron have expressed deep concern over social break down and resurgent white nationalism in America, and I think Ron is providing this site as a place where these types can blow off steam at least a little bit, and take the pressure off.

    And gathering so many if these types in one place can also make it easier for the authorities to monitor.

    It is highly significant that perhaps the most anti-Semitic and racist site in the Web has not come under any kind of serious attack by the Left - and remember, Ron has many high profile friends and acquaintances among the elite, and there has been no public disavowal or condemnation.

    I don't think you fully appreciate how remarkable this is. If you do a Google search on Ron anti-Semite, or unz, very little of interest comes up.

    That we can occasionally have intelligent conversations among a few eccentric commenters is just a happy byproduct :)

    If you think Unz is “the most anti-Semitic and racist site in the Web” there is a ton of web space you may be unaware of!

    Conversely, what I’ve found many people are unaware of is how the bulk of Ron’s time with the site is devoted to digitally archiving old periodicals and magazines. The novel content that is being created is sort of a sideshow for him.

  131. @AaronB
    Lol, agree.

    I sometimes feel that my comments throw a wrench unto his plans, because I am on the opposite "side" lol.

    This site really isn't for people with my opinions, truth be told.

    How much of a presence would you expect practicing Jews living in Israel to have on an American site? Obviously a lot of the columnists do focus on Israel, though.

  132. @Feryl

    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.
     
    What good did it do? America has been objectively declining on almost every conceivable measure (mental health, industrial capacity, immigrant vetting, obesity levels etc.) since the mid-late 70's, coinciding with the turn toward "get the damn gubmint out of everything" ideology being embraced by young adults and middle-aged people. AKA, do whatever you feel like regardless of the long-term consequences. Your average Milllennial would kill to get the mid-20th century back; why don't you ask people born after 1975 how they feel about the American family being destroyed, and the middle class being gutted? Younger generations have no memory of anything every working. The Reaganites pushed drug use down moderately, but never even tried to reverse the disastrous changes to divorce laws made in the 70's. The Reaganites never even argued that society should encourage responsible pet ownership; dog bite fatalities surged in the 1980's. The Reaganites looked the other way as we got much fatter in the 80's. The Reaganites pushed for de-industrialization in order to get back at the dastardly unions who kept FDR in power for ages.

    Millennials like the pop culture of the 80's, but don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that the 1980's were, socially and politically, even 1/10 as wholesome as the 1930's-1950's. Or even the 60's, for that matter (the average American was fitter, happier, better employed, and more stable in the 60's than he was in the 80's). And Saint Ronnie, in his 2nd term, allowed immigration to reach it's highest levels since the mid-1920's; furthermore, we were now letting in lots of non-whites, whereas in the Ellis Island days it was mostly European immigrants that we got. The Reaganites never wanted order or stability; if they did, they would've kept common sense regulation (on financial markets, and certainly on immigration) intact. The Reaganite fantasy is a mirage seen by partisans wandering the wastelands of self-delusion. BTW, how was "de-regulation" supposed to not apply to the borders? You tell everybody that the government is stupid and good for nothing, and naturally, people will figure that applies to the government's ability to control who enters our turf. So why even try to stop anyone from entering*? The libertarian wing, since the mid-70's, never shuts it gulldarn mouth for 5 seconds to stop the juvenile bashing of authority, when we'd be better to acknowledge that we are better off entrusting the government (and any sort of authority or collective body, up to and including the church and the local community) to protect us and restrain Man's base impulses, rather than letting society descend into a anarchic free for all. Which is exactly what's happened over the last 45 years.

    *Conservative leaning small businesses, who covet cheap labor, were the first to heavily lobby for open borders in the 70's and 80's (even though the public face of immigration de-regulation was often sentimental do-gooder liberals), after having the common decency to be quiet and let society be demographically stabilized from the 1920's-1960's. As usual though, the Reaganites pretend that small(er) business owners are an oppressed minority, rather than the treasonous rats who helped turn America into a dystopia by 1990).

    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.

    What good did it do?

    Voting for Reagan did no good at all. People thought at the time that it would do some good, but they were wrong. The fact that so many Boomers voted for Reagan does indicate that on some level they were aware that something was wrong. But Reagan was a disaster in every way.

  133. @Feryl

    There is that. A lot of the Boomers who voted for McGovern in 1972 voted for Reagan in 1980.
     
    What good did it do? America has been objectively declining on almost every conceivable measure (mental health, industrial capacity, immigrant vetting, obesity levels etc.) since the mid-late 70's, coinciding with the turn toward "get the damn gubmint out of everything" ideology being embraced by young adults and middle-aged people. AKA, do whatever you feel like regardless of the long-term consequences. Your average Milllennial would kill to get the mid-20th century back; why don't you ask people born after 1975 how they feel about the American family being destroyed, and the middle class being gutted? Younger generations have no memory of anything every working. The Reaganites pushed drug use down moderately, but never even tried to reverse the disastrous changes to divorce laws made in the 70's. The Reaganites never even argued that society should encourage responsible pet ownership; dog bite fatalities surged in the 1980's. The Reaganites looked the other way as we got much fatter in the 80's. The Reaganites pushed for de-industrialization in order to get back at the dastardly unions who kept FDR in power for ages.

    Millennials like the pop culture of the 80's, but don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that the 1980's were, socially and politically, even 1/10 as wholesome as the 1930's-1950's. Or even the 60's, for that matter (the average American was fitter, happier, better employed, and more stable in the 60's than he was in the 80's). And Saint Ronnie, in his 2nd term, allowed immigration to reach it's highest levels since the mid-1920's; furthermore, we were now letting in lots of non-whites, whereas in the Ellis Island days it was mostly European immigrants that we got. The Reaganites never wanted order or stability; if they did, they would've kept common sense regulation (on financial markets, and certainly on immigration) intact. The Reaganite fantasy is a mirage seen by partisans wandering the wastelands of self-delusion. BTW, how was "de-regulation" supposed to not apply to the borders? You tell everybody that the government is stupid and good for nothing, and naturally, people will figure that applies to the government's ability to control who enters our turf. So why even try to stop anyone from entering*? The libertarian wing, since the mid-70's, never shuts it gulldarn mouth for 5 seconds to stop the juvenile bashing of authority, when we'd be better to acknowledge that we are better off entrusting the government (and any sort of authority or collective body, up to and including the church and the local community) to protect us and restrain Man's base impulses, rather than letting society descend into a anarchic free for all. Which is exactly what's happened over the last 45 years.

    *Conservative leaning small businesses, who covet cheap labor, were the first to heavily lobby for open borders in the 70's and 80's (even though the public face of immigration de-regulation was often sentimental do-gooder liberals), after having the common decency to be quiet and let society be demographically stabilized from the 1920's-1960's. As usual though, the Reaganites pretend that small(er) business owners are an oppressed minority, rather than the treasonous rats who helped turn America into a dystopia by 1990).

    Conservative leaning small businesses, who covet cheap labor, were the first to heavily lobby for open borders in the 70’s and 80’s (even though the public face of immigration de-regulation was often sentimental do-gooder liberals), after having the common decency to be quiet and let society be demographically stabilized from the 1920’s-1960’s. As usual though, the Reaganites pretend that small(er) business owners are an oppressed minority, rather than the treasonous rats who helped turn America into a dystopia by 1990).

    Yes, there’s a lot of truth in that.

  134. @Feryl

    Late Boomers (born 1955-64) were less liberal than either early Boomers or the Silent Generation. That was partly fuelled by the disgust that we late Boomers felt for dirty stinking hippies.
     
    Your generation did more drugs than other generations. Sorry. Some people dabbled with pot and mushrooms in the late 60's, but a lot of teens and young adults were doing serious levels of drugs (including stuff like cocaine) in the late 70's and early 80's, and alcohol abuse was really awful by 1980, among teenagers and college kids. Strauss and Howe say that the earlier you were born in the Baby Boom, the healthier and more successful you tend to be. This is likely because people who went to high school in the mid-late 70's were absolutely beaten to a pulp by that era's notoriously excessive "party" culture. A lot of the late Boomers I see look like zombie apocalypse extras, having a 75 year old person's wrinkles at age 55 (and have become the fattest middle-aged generation ever), and this seems to be very common with them, unlike other generations.

    If you're suggesting that brain-dead "party" culture is cooler when not practiced by politically active liberals, well, uh, whatever. The youth culture of the late 70's (and to a certain degree, even the 80's) was often harrowingly dangerous and often borderline nihilistic, which is backed up by stats and anecdotes related to violence, car crashes, drug abuse, teen runaways, family infighting, and so forth.

    Strauss and Howe say that the earlier you were born in the Baby Boom, the healthier and more successful you tend to be.

    Well duh. They were born into a more stable world and they were born into a booming economy.

    The generations thing is extremely interesting when it comes to charting pop culture trends. You can see dramatic and obvious differences in pop culture influences on groups born at different times.

    That’s the only use for theories of generations.

    If you want to understand society you need to look at class and ideological divides. People who obsess over generations seem unwilling to face the fact that what has happened to society is a result of ideological and class warfare. Like the example you gave earlier, of small businesses pushing for mass immigration to get cheap labour. That’s class warfare. Everything that matters comes down to class warfare.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Do you think that you and I are the only dissident leftists?
  135. @Feryl
    I heard someone recently point out that since at least the Obama era, there's been a big rise in the rhetorical tactic of focusing on your opponents lousy character/track record, instead of highlighting your own side's successes. But as the neo-liberal era slouches onward, there's less and less for either side to brag about. Neo-liberalism, for at least 80% of society, has sucked, and keeps sucking harder and harder every year that goes by.

    People know, either conciously or unconsiously, that the GOP got the ball rolling on the chaos of sweeping de-regulation back in the 70's and 80's, as the New Deal became vilified and Reagan's esteem rose as the 70's and 80's went on. Back then, the GOP's efforts at de-regulation generally were premised on economic issues, with "liberals" taking the blame for cultural issues even though any form of "de-regulation" was going to ultimately f**k everything up, at any rate. Both sides began to push for de-regulation around 1970, but Americans were more readily accepting of the GOP's econ. de-regulation* so they got anointed as the "reform" party who would completely leave the New Deal behind in the 1980's.

    *Cultural de-regulation would not full began until the late 1990's, which is when dickhead Boomers became powerful enough to drown out the voices of GIs and Silents who didn't want "motherfucker" being spoken on daytime cable TV.

    Point is that you can't expect that many people to be that enthused about the GOP when they were the chief annihilators of domestic manufacturing, labor unions, and border security, during the libertarian turn of the 1970's and 80's. GOP figures openly denouncing this shameful past, while taking clear steps to reverse these mistakes, would make people more excited about the GOP. Trump got elected precisely by not being a Republican to begin with, something which strangely has been forgotten by not just the Reaganites, but even many on the Alt-Right too (way too many people on the Alt-Right now reflexively defend Trump on the grounds that he just happens to annoy your typical Democrat; we need to have higher standards than this).

    Cultural de-regulation would not full began until the late 1990’s, which is when dickhead Boomers became powerful enough to drown out the voices of GIs and Silents who didn’t want “motherfucker” being spoken on daytime cable TV.

    Cultural de-regulation was driven by the elites. The elites always wanted cultural de-regulation. The process really got going in a big way when Hollywood scrapped the Production Code in the early 60s. It was also driven by a very strong push to remove censorship in every form to allow an avalanche of sex and violence. The entertainment industry and cultural elites wanted that as far back as the late 50s. It took them quite a while to achieve it, but they did achieve it.

    It had nothing whatever to do with GIs or Silents or Boomers. It was pushed by cultural elites. The objective was to achieve social, cultural and political changes that would benefit the elites.

    You’re right about a lot of things but your obsession with dubious theories about generations blinds you to the class warfare issues which are the real key to understanding what happened. Ordinary people, whether GIs or Silents or Boomers, played no part in the process whatsoever. It was a Cultural Revolution instigated by the elites to serve their own class interests.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Cultural de-regulation was driven by the elites. The elites always wanted cultural de-regulation.
     
    Things like the Catholic Legion of Decency exercised a fair amount of power in the early-mid 20th century. The Social Darwinist impulse that strengthened from about 1850-1900 was responsible for a growing elite attitude of "what me worry", and indifference to various socially corrosive things (like get rich quick schemes, gambling, use of child labor, tolerance of seedy red light districts, and so forth). But then the Progressive era took off circa 1900, which led to increasing calls for social, cultural, and even ethnic purity. "The roaring 20's" became known for various excesses, but there also was growing embarrassment regarding these things, and efforts to curb crime, substance abuse, gambling etc. were all growing. The New Deal era was full of all kinds of social and economic regulations, many of which were in still in place as late as the early 80's* (most states didn't have a public lottery until the late 80's or early 90's). The neo-liberal "de-regulation" impulse has weakened these things over the last 40 years in particular.

    *A California Democrat, in the early 80's, suggested banning homosexuals from entry into the US after he learned about the growing concern regarding HIV

    The process really got going in a big way when Hollywood scrapped the Production Code in the early 60s. It was also driven by a very strong push to remove censorship in every form to allow an avalanche of sex and violence. The entertainment industry and cultural elites wanted that as far back as the late 50s. It took them quite a while to achieve it, but they did achieve it.
     
    Silents and Boomers resented authority ("the rules") from day one, with this impulse rising from being moderate in early Silents to being much heavier in late Boomers. Those who continued to preach against gambling, promiscuity, drugs, speculative investments, excessive spending/shopping etc. were blasted as annoying prudes and killjoys who needed to get out more often. It may have been a certain vanguard in the late 60's who said "fuck you" to all rules and regulations, but by 1980 many commoners were saying the same thing. And these commoners were generally people too young to remember the first Gilded Age and it's Social Darwinist norms.

    It had nothing whatever to do with GIs or Silents or Boomers. It was pushed by cultural elites. The objective was to achieve social, cultural and political changes that would benefit the elites.
     
    I would argue that the cultural changes of the last 40-50 years have been primarily beneficial to the social status of weirdos and degenerates, who in the New Deal era were kept in the shadows but now are free to grab the megaphone, and advise us how to live our lives. Ultimately this degeneracy could provoke a major backlash against the elites, to their detriment; why don't they read some history about Hoover's reputation in the 1930's?

    You’re right about a lot of things but your obsession with dubious theories about generations blinds you to the class warfare issues which are the real key to understanding what happened. Ordinary people, whether GIs or Silents or Boomers, played no part in the process whatsoever. It was a Cultural Revolution instigated by the elites to serve their own class interests.
     
    It's not "dubious" in the sense that the GSS shows that the GIs never bought into supply side economics like Silents and Boomers did (Silents are the generation most opposed to Progressive wealth re-distribution, Boomers the 2nd most opposed; GIs and Gen X are fairly similar in their views, while Millennials are the most supportive of re-distribution from the top to the bottom.

    Silents re-made our political culture in the 70's and 80's to be more about elevating "minorities", and attacking Progressive econ policies. And most Boomers went along for the ride. Generation X and Millennials are the primary reasons why trust in modern institutions has completely collapsed; we mostly never fully bought into what the older generations told us about off-shoring, special interest pork, supply side econ., and so forth** (Partisan loyalty, and it's accompanying servicing of each party's coalition of interests, is strongest with Boomers, 2nd strongest with Silents, 3rd strongest with early X-ers, and becomes much weaker with Late X-ers and Early Millennials).

    **Even if later generations had done so, X-ers are the most politically weak generation in American history; they have neither sought nor received the leadership positions that Silents and Boomers have held for the last 40 years.
    , @Mark G.
    The Hollywood push to scrap the production code in the late fifties was related to the increasing cultural decadence of that period. Increased wealth leads to increased decadence and the fifties was the first era of American history when the country was really wealthy. There had been a foretaste of this during the stock market boom of the late twenties when increasing wealth led to flappers and a widespread loosening of sexual morality and alcohol abuse. In the fifties, the wealth increase led to the beatniks. You had Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg et al. encouraging drug and alcohol use and sexual experimentation, including homosexuality. The hippies were an extension of the beatniks. When the twenties was followed by the Great Depression, you saw a swing to a more conservative morality and there were increased calls to regulate movies. This resulted in Will Hays being brought in to supervise things. When the swinging sixties turned into the stagflation seventies, the country again became more culturally conservative. You saw the rise of the religious right with its Falwell and Robertson types and the election of Reagan. Even the Democrats became more culturally conservative. Carter was culturally conservative and Al Gore's wife, Tipper, crusaded for more stringent regulations on the movie, television and recording industries. This later social conservatism, though, was weaker than the earlier social conservatism of the thirties through fifties and was less effective.
  136. @iffen
    It's hard for me to visualize how anything could get accomplished without it. But then I keep saying that I don't know what will work. It seems self-evident that political organization would be required to effect a change in the political direction.

    I don't spend any time in the alt-right arena. I think that a large part of it is MSM created. As for the personalities, I don't have any use for them and don't believe that they accomplish much of anything worthwile, except self-aggrandizement.The UR without the anti-Semitism and overt racism would be nice. I would like to know how many people take one look and then move on because of it.

    I don’t spend any time in the alt-right arena.

    You’re very wise. There’s a lot of craziness. A lot of wishful thinking. A lot of magical thinking. Lots of conspiracy theory lunacy. And quite a bit of real viciousness which would be scary except for the overwhelming atmosphere of incompetence and deluded thinking.

    The UR without the anti-Semitism and overt racism would be nice. I would like to know how many people take one look and then move on because of it.

    Every movement has its lunatic fringe but it’s unfortunate that the dissident right’s lunatic fringe is particularly loony and particularly unpleasant, and they make things very easy for their political enemies.

    And there’s no sign that the dissident right is slowly getting its act together.

  137. @martin2
    Yes I have often had the same thought. Whites are principled and therefore one cannot appeal to what's good for white people's interests, as one could if the group in question were, say Asians, or indeed any non-white group. With white people one must appeal to what is fair, and they must be brought to realise that the present dispensation is not fair to them.

    Whites are principled and therefore one cannot appeal to what’s good for white people’s interests, as one could if the group in question were, say Asians, or indeed any non-white group. With white people one must appeal to what is fair, and they must be brought to realise that the present dispensation is not fair to them.

    I’m sorry but I think that’s absolute nonsense. White people do vote for their own interests, but they don’t define their own interests in racial terms. Mostly they define their interests in class terms. Or gender terms. Or in terms of membership of sub-groups like homosexuals. But in all these cases white people vote such as selfishly and just as cynically for what they perceive to be their group interests as any other group.

    Do you honestly think that wealthy white liberals give a damn about fairness? They care about preserving their own wealth, their own comfort, their own security.

  138. @dfordoom

    Strauss and Howe say that the earlier you were born in the Baby Boom, the healthier and more successful you tend to be.
     
    Well duh. They were born into a more stable world and they were born into a booming economy.

    The generations thing is extremely interesting when it comes to charting pop culture trends. You can see dramatic and obvious differences in pop culture influences on groups born at different times.

    That's the only use for theories of generations.

    If you want to understand society you need to look at class and ideological divides. People who obsess over generations seem unwilling to face the fact that what has happened to society is a result of ideological and class warfare. Like the example you gave earlier, of small businesses pushing for mass immigration to get cheap labour. That's class warfare. Everything that matters comes down to class warfare.

    Do you think that you and I are the only dissident leftists?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Do you think that you and I are the only dissident leftists?
     
    I think there are a lot of dissident leftists who have not yet come out of the closet. I think there are quite a few who have not even come out to themselves.
  139. RE: Reelection

    If Trump is reelected despite the all hands on deck opposition, it could break the back of the Borg. Crying wolf has a limited life.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I think that if RadLeft controlled candidates lose the general election in 2020, and perhaps 2024, it's going to have two possible results:
    1) The Left realizes that it needs to tone down the anti-populist SJW culture in order to win, and does so in order to win elections and stabilize the culture. Or:

    2) The SJW Left deepens their culture of terrorism and harassment of "racists" and conservatives, possibly to the point of instigating Civil War 2.0 (or instead, we could see courageous authority figures finally cracking down on Leftist subversives, to help keep society from falling apart).
  140. @iffen
    Do you think that you and I are the only dissident leftists?

    Do you think that you and I are the only dissident leftists?

    I think there are a lot of dissident leftists who have not yet come out of the closet. I think there are quite a few who have not even come out to themselves.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I think there are a lot of dissident leftists who have not yet come out of the closet.

    It seems that only an economic upheaval or catastrophe can shake the tree. I wish that we could create an alternative by reason and discussion, but I don't believe that will work.
  141. @dfordoom

    Do you think that you and I are the only dissident leftists?
     
    I think there are a lot of dissident leftists who have not yet come out of the closet. I think there are quite a few who have not even come out to themselves.

    I think there are a lot of dissident leftists who have not yet come out of the closet.

    It seems that only an economic upheaval or catastrophe can shake the tree. I wish that we could create an alternative by reason and discussion, but I don’t believe that will work.

  142. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    "Asians" being on your side is just a cope by weaker whites. They don't like to admit that whites are on their own. It's more of the same "we're all in this together bullshit".

    The elusive "whites and asians" category does not exist. Sure, whites and asians can make deals when there is a mutually beneficial cause. But you have to look after your people first.

    What about the “white and Irish” category?

    This picture shows the English had a high opinion of Germans at the time, but then came the WWI and they instantly turned into barbaric Asian Huns in war propaganda. The image of Russians in mass culture switched from “people like us and maybe even more beautiful” to “bear-like monsters definitely alien to us” several times. All those racial categories depend on current politics and little else.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Amusingly, in a recent article here by Ron Unz, he says that his study of several books dedicated to 20th century American organized crime reveal that both Germans and Slavs are largely absent from this sort of activity, while the criminals bearing "British" surnames often turn out to be Jews with altered names. One could conclude that nearly all Northern European ethnic groups (save for perhaps the infamous Scots-Irish) essentially "turn out" the same if they grow up in a high(ish) trust culture like the US. However, Mediterraneans and European Jews are another story.

    All those racial categories depend on current politics and little else.
     
    The Brits, The Germans, and The Russians have of course butted heads quite a few times throughout history. Ultimately, they are fairly similar, genetically, but culture and ethnic allegiance is determined by which nation you grow up in.
  143. @Jay Fink
    There was a #1 hit in 1966 called "96 Tears" from Question Mark and the Mysterians. They were a garage band and some call it early punk rock. I found it interesting that this was an all Hispanic band from Michigan (Saginaw-Bay City). I wouldn't have guessed Michigan had a sizeable Hispanic population in the 60s.

    Another Hispanic from Michigan, Under recognized musician Jessica Hernandez. She sings about the decay of the culture and elusiveness of the American dream. Any rust belt working class guy could relate,

  144. @Lot
    Wow, I can hardly believe the RNC made a video that darn good. More please.

    Just posted this earlier today. Happy to see the GOP establishment is getting the message.

    “Hate to say it so often here but: there is no single better political issue for the GOP than crime. Not even mass migration.

    Crime is the issue the GOP used to win big in high crime 1994 and hold the mayorship of 10% Republican NYC for 20 straight years.

    My advice to any republican running in a competitive election: hit on BLM, Soros, and “anti-police liberals who want to abolish ICE, put cops in jail for split-second mistakes made under pressure, and free criminals everywhere under the Soros-funded “de-incarceration movement.”

    The more the election is about crime, the better the GOP does.”

    Crime isn’t that high yet.

    Sure, a repeat of the 60s would deliver 70s crime rates and help the Republicans, but it takes a few years to kick in.

  145. @Audacious Epigone
    BTW, how was “de-regulation” supposed to not apply to the borders? You tell everybody that the government is stupid and good for nothing, and naturally, people will figure that applies to the government’s ability to control who enters our turf.

    That makes sense intuitively but for some reason the military has remained nearly completely immune from this. Why?

    There was a major cultural shift in America toward favoring the South and West in the 1970’s. The Reaganites sensed this, and made the Pentagon (who are in important player in most of the Southern and Western states that were major supporters of Republicans in the 70’s and 80’s) the dominant player in the modern Right coalition. Bitter Democrats got back at the Pentagon in the 90’s, post-Cold War, by gutting the “defense” budget, which is the best thing that happened politically in the 90’s. But the Neo-Cons were just biding their time; no matter what happened in the 2000’s, A Republican president was going to revive the nation bankrupting military spending that Reagan used to fully capture the Pentagon for the GOP (I once read that before Reagan, a much larger chunk of career military personnel voted Democrat).

    I think the rise of “conservative strong men” in scary places like modern Russia has spooked most of the so-called Left into running far away from Dove style military spending. After GW Bush left office, the mainstream Anti-war Left totally collapsed and has never come back.

    Keep in mind that before Pearl Harbor, Americans were broadly skeptical of investing too much in the military.

    That makes sense intuitively but for some reason the military has remained nearly completely immune from this. Why?

    People, starting in the 80’s, felt so ashamed of how America treated Vietnam vets that it’s led to an over-correction of supporting the military in general in order to avoid accusations that you are a traitor who “doesn’t support the troops”. Plus, starting with the Reaganite era, there never has been much apparent public effort by made by the elites/the UMC to sound the alarm regarding how expensive military expenditures are. The 70’s would be the last decade of earnest attempts made to expose all forms of waste and corruption in the government; subsequent decades have been plagued by obvious partisan bias (e.g., Republicans who claim that food stamps are bankrupting us never acknowledge Pentagon and Agribusiness subsidies).

  146. @Toronto Russian
    What about the "white and Irish" category?

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Scientific_racism_irish.jpg

    This picture shows the English had a high opinion of Germans at the time, but then came the WWI and they instantly turned into barbaric Asian Huns in war propaganda. The image of Russians in mass culture switched from "people like us and maybe even more beautiful" to "bear-like monsters definitely alien to us" several times. All those racial categories depend on current politics and little else.

    Amusingly, in a recent article here by Ron Unz, he says that his study of several books dedicated to 20th century American organized crime reveal that both Germans and Slavs are largely absent from this sort of activity, while the criminals bearing “British” surnames often turn out to be Jews with altered names. One could conclude that nearly all Northern European ethnic groups (save for perhaps the infamous Scots-Irish) essentially “turn out” the same if they grow up in a high(ish) trust culture like the US. However, Mediterraneans and European Jews are another story.

    All those racial categories depend on current politics and little else.

    The Brits, The Germans, and The Russians have of course butted heads quite a few times throughout history. Ultimately, they are fairly similar, genetically, but culture and ethnic allegiance is determined by which nation you grow up in.

  147. @iffen
    RE: Reelection

    If Trump is reelected despite the all hands on deck opposition, it could break the back of the Borg. Crying wolf has a limited life.

    I think that if RadLeft controlled candidates lose the general election in 2020, and perhaps 2024, it’s going to have two possible results:
    1) The Left realizes that it needs to tone down the anti-populist SJW culture in order to win, and does so in order to win elections and stabilize the culture. Or:

    2) The SJW Left deepens their culture of terrorism and harassment of “racists” and conservatives, possibly to the point of instigating Civil War 2.0 (or instead, we could see courageous authority figures finally cracking down on Leftist subversives, to help keep society from falling apart).

  148. @dfordoom

    Cultural de-regulation would not full began until the late 1990’s, which is when dickhead Boomers became powerful enough to drown out the voices of GIs and Silents who didn’t want “motherfucker” being spoken on daytime cable TV.
     
    Cultural de-regulation was driven by the elites. The elites always wanted cultural de-regulation. The process really got going in a big way when Hollywood scrapped the Production Code in the early 60s. It was also driven by a very strong push to remove censorship in every form to allow an avalanche of sex and violence. The entertainment industry and cultural elites wanted that as far back as the late 50s. It took them quite a while to achieve it, but they did achieve it.

    It had nothing whatever to do with GIs or Silents or Boomers. It was pushed by cultural elites. The objective was to achieve social, cultural and political changes that would benefit the elites.

    You're right about a lot of things but your obsession with dubious theories about generations blinds you to the class warfare issues which are the real key to understanding what happened. Ordinary people, whether GIs or Silents or Boomers, played no part in the process whatsoever. It was a Cultural Revolution instigated by the elites to serve their own class interests.

    Cultural de-regulation was driven by the elites. The elites always wanted cultural de-regulation.

    Things like the Catholic Legion of Decency exercised a fair amount of power in the early-mid 20th century. The Social Darwinist impulse that strengthened from about 1850-1900 was responsible for a growing elite attitude of “what me worry”, and indifference to various socially corrosive things (like get rich quick schemes, gambling, use of child labor, tolerance of seedy red light districts, and so forth). But then the Progressive era took off circa 1900, which led to increasing calls for social, cultural, and even ethnic purity. “The roaring 20’s” became known for various excesses, but there also was growing embarrassment regarding these things, and efforts to curb crime, substance abuse, gambling etc. were all growing. The New Deal era was full of all kinds of social and economic regulations, many of which were in still in place as late as the early 80’s* (most states didn’t have a public lottery until the late 80’s or early 90’s). The neo-liberal “de-regulation” impulse has weakened these things over the last 40 years in particular.

    *A California Democrat, in the early 80’s, suggested banning homosexuals from entry into the US after he learned about the growing concern regarding HIV

    The process really got going in a big way when Hollywood scrapped the Production Code in the early 60s. It was also driven by a very strong push to remove censorship in every form to allow an avalanche of sex and violence. The entertainment industry and cultural elites wanted that as far back as the late 50s. It took them quite a while to achieve it, but they did achieve it.

    Silents and Boomers resented authority (“the rules”) from day one, with this impulse rising from being moderate in early Silents to being much heavier in late Boomers. Those who continued to preach against gambling, promiscuity, drugs, speculative investments, excessive spending/shopping etc. were blasted as annoying prudes and killjoys who needed to get out more often. It may have been a certain vanguard in the late 60’s who said “fuck you” to all rules and regulations, but by 1980 many commoners were saying the same thing. And these commoners were generally people too young to remember the first Gilded Age and it’s Social Darwinist norms.

    It had nothing whatever to do with GIs or Silents or Boomers. It was pushed by cultural elites. The objective was to achieve social, cultural and political changes that would benefit the elites.

    I would argue that the cultural changes of the last 40-50 years have been primarily beneficial to the social status of weirdos and degenerates, who in the New Deal era were kept in the shadows but now are free to grab the megaphone, and advise us how to live our lives. Ultimately this degeneracy could provoke a major backlash against the elites, to their detriment; why don’t they read some history about Hoover’s reputation in the 1930’s?

    You’re right about a lot of things but your obsession with dubious theories about generations blinds you to the class warfare issues which are the real key to understanding what happened. Ordinary people, whether GIs or Silents or Boomers, played no part in the process whatsoever. It was a Cultural Revolution instigated by the elites to serve their own class interests.

    It’s not “dubious” in the sense that the GSS shows that the GIs never bought into supply side economics like Silents and Boomers did (Silents are the generation most opposed to Progressive wealth re-distribution, Boomers the 2nd most opposed; GIs and Gen X are fairly similar in their views, while Millennials are the most supportive of re-distribution from the top to the bottom.

    Silents re-made our political culture in the 70’s and 80’s to be more about elevating “minorities”, and attacking Progressive econ policies. And most Boomers went along for the ride. Generation X and Millennials are the primary reasons why trust in modern institutions has completely collapsed; we mostly never fully bought into what the older generations told us about off-shoring, special interest pork, supply side econ., and so forth** (Partisan loyalty, and it’s accompanying servicing of each party’s coalition of interests, is strongest with Boomers, 2nd strongest with Silents, 3rd strongest with early X-ers, and becomes much weaker with Late X-ers and Early Millennials).

    **Even if later generations had done so, X-ers are the most politically weak generation in American history; they have neither sought nor received the leadership positions that Silents and Boomers have held for the last 40 years.

  149. @Audacious Epigone
    I heard someone recently point out that since at least the Obama era, there’s been a big rise in the rhetorical tactic of focusing on your opponents lousy character/track record, instead of highlighting your own side’s successes.

    Is that an inevitable consequence of social media creating a huge glass house and giving every person a basket full of rocks to hurl? I hope not and that there is some way out of it, but I think the only avenue for exit will be a large percentage of the population deciding to ignore it. Jordan Peterson has the right idea with the coming social media platform--if it's not illegal, it's allowed.

    It’s bad faith arguing/rhetoric, I think. Respect for “the other side” has been declining since the late 80’s (according to the GSS, people were more likely to self-ID as moderates rather than being “very” conservative or liberal before the late 80’s). What is telling, to me, is that as the GSS updates continue, I would expect that people born in the 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s will probably register as being more and more likely to ID as “very liberal” (e.g. pro fairness), as a sign of a cultural shift. In the 80’s and 90’s, many Silents and Boomers began to self-ID as “very conservative”* (e.g. pro-deregulation), as we entered the neo-lib era.

    *Most “conservative” Silents and Boomers have always had a serious case of denial about the fact that the New Deal era, due to being tightly regulated, was much more culturally conservative and stable than the Reagan and Bush era. It wasn’t the Prog. New Dealers, but rather, the neo-lib modern conservatives (and airhead SJW Left) who gave us high divorce rates, more legalized gambling, more porno culture, a decline in religiosity, and sex reassignment surgeries becoming more common).

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Most “conservative” Silents and Boomers have always had a serious case of denial about the fact that the New Deal era, due to being tightly regulated, was much more culturally conservative and stable than the Reagan and Bush era.

     

    Most "conservatives" are in fact liberals.

    It wasn’t the Prog. New Dealers, but rather, the neo-lib modern conservatives (and airhead SJW Left) who gave us high divorce rates, more legalized gambling, more porno culture, a decline in religiosity, and sex reassignment surgeries becoming more common).
     
    Yeah, pretty much. Modern "conservatives" serve the same masters as the SJWs - both are tools of Woke Capital.
  150. @Audacious Epigone
    Relatedly, this is why getting rid of the electoral college and switching to a national popular vote would doom the GOP's presidential chances indefinitely. Think of how many manufactured votes would come out of single-party urban areas all over the country without any oversight or pushback at all.

    9D Chess: the electoral college has inadvertently led to the GOP greatly subsidizing smaller/more rural states, which further alienates them from other types of places. Discarding the EC would lead to the GOP making greater efforts to appeal to the large cities and more liberal suburbs of the Northeast, West Coast, and Midwest*.

    The GOP’s post-1980 emphasis on the Pentagon, agribusiness, and the oil industry has allowed them to do well in the Plains and much of the South, but standard issue Rebublicans in other regions face a big up-hill battle after GW Bush discredited the GOP.

    All this being said, the SJW Left tainting the Democrats in national elections might allow the GOP to continue to get away with the same old same old.

    *Trump defenders often pointed out, post-victory, that Trump made minimal efforts to win the West Coast and much of the Northeast, since the EC makes it pointless to bother campaigning in the most blue and red states, further reinforcing to many voters in these places that it’s not even worth voting if you vote out of alignment with your state. Remember, one of the last stops he made was to MN, which his campaign accurately judged to be the one true blue state most up for grabs; get rid of the EC, and Republicans would spend a lot more resources in CA and NY trying to motivate people to vote for them, while Democrats would make more stops in the South and the Plains.

    Lastly, the Electoral College does look more and more unfair because population growth since the Ellis Island days has increasingly been concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic, the SE Coast of New England, The West Coast, and Texas. The Upper Northeast, some of the South, much of the Midwest, and much of the interior West have seen relatively little population growth compared to California, the coastal PNW, Texas, Florida, Bos-Wash, and Georgia.

    So much of the population in the growing regions has a right to feel annoyed that voters in Iowa and Idaho have votes that are basically worth more.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    Idaho has a small population but in percentage terms is currently one of the fastest growing states. Lots of white Californians are moving there.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    So much of the population in the growing regions has a right to feel annoyed that voters in Iowa and Idaho have votes that are basically worth more.

    Is that fundamentally changing now, though? That the baseline is 3 EVs rather than 1 EV means lower population states have the lower per capita per EV--IOW, the smaller your population, the greater your population's electoral clout. The correlation isn't perfect because of rounding, but without that it would be.

    Otoh, states with lots of illegal aliens push back in the other direction. Right now, the illegal number is a moderate advantage for Dems. Once Texas flips, though, the illegal advantage will dwarf the small state advantage in terms of influencing the electoral college.
  151. @EliteCommInc.
    "It may make you feel better to single out a “few bad apples” for corruption, but sheeitt, the average American house has been getting bigger since 1983."


    I am unclear how this relates or even if it is accurate. But the point remains an increasing number of whites look to whose holding the cards and what whites see is other whites. Home size increase is great in my view, if and only if more people can afford them and that is where the game is up, perhaps.

    Home ownership is 64% -- 4% drop since 2010.

    Larger home fewer owners ----

    https://www.getrichslowly.org/homeownership/

    There are records of housing size in America, you know. Once the economy took off again in mid-late 1983, people began building houses that were bigger than the generally modest ones build from 1940-1980.

    House size is a useful measure of how status conscious people are; when status consciousness plummeted in the 1940’s and 50’s, people didn’t feel much of a desire to splurge on housing in order to stand out from other people. Compare that to the McMansion arms race of the last 35 years.

  152. @Audacious Epigone
    Relatedly, this is why getting rid of the electoral college and switching to a national popular vote would doom the GOP's presidential chances indefinitely. Think of how many manufactured votes would come out of single-party urban areas all over the country without any oversight or pushback at all.

    Ya know, “they” could actually do something for a change instead of whining that the game is rigged. But what do you expect from nihilists-and-defeatists-in-disguise Reaganites, and their ideological descendants in the Modern Right and Modern Left?

    Actually fixing serious problems, on a macro society wide level, requires a willingness and ability to legit believe that a better society for all is possible and worth the effort. Reaganite defeatism that nothing can fix the corrupt and stupid nature of human collective effort* becomes an excuse to withdraw from any meaningful and larger scale reform (reform in the true sense, not the sort of “market” or “social” reform that creates oligarchy and a dystopian free for all)

    *Conservatives saying that the slightest bit of socialism creates Venezuela (a country wracked by economic attacks from other countries), is not too different from Leftists claiming that the slightest bit of cultural conservatism leads to Nazi Germany. Besides, shit for brains Reaganites apparently can’t do the math that the crony capitalism they ushered in is one side of the economic coin, while crony communism** is on the other side; it’s all just semantics, corruption is corruption no matter how you label it.

    **Amusingly, once the crony communist Soviet Union crumbled, the US accelerated it’s turn toward crony capitalism; even more ironically, Russians in the 90’s were demoralized to find that the crony capitalists did more to uravel their society than the crony communists of the 70’s and 80’s ever did.

  153. @iffen
    In Alabama and Mississippi, whites vote more than 80% Republican in presidential elections.

    The non-cau in the woodpile here is that I grew up in Alabama when most blacks were not allowed to vote. Not only that, many prole whites were disenfrachised. So "white" people have been running Alabama for a very long time and prole whites eat dirt everyday. So what exactly is going to change when "white" people start voting their race?

    My sense is that many whites in the Deep South don’t actually like each other very much*, so it’s not like they grieve over the white “losers” in the region. The Deep South was the first of the well-populated regions to leave the New Deal/Dem coalition in the 1960’s. The Deep South and interior West were always the regions most at odds with the Progressive spirit of the New Deal era (Deep South tends to have a feudalist, not populist, mentality, while the interior West has often been a bastion of cranky libertarians).

    *Compared to the pro-social whites of the Northeast, Midwest, and to a lesser extent the Pacific states.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The Deep South was the first of the well-populated regions to leave the New Deal/Dem coalition in the 1960’s.

    Yes, but race was the primary driver. The "real" New Dealers were the last to leave the Democratic Party.

    My sense is that many whites in the Deep South don’t actually like each other very much*

    The Scotch-Irish had (have) an individualist bent second to none.

  154. @Feryl
    It's bad faith arguing/rhetoric, I think. Respect for "the other side" has been declining since the late 80's (according to the GSS, people were more likely to self-ID as moderates rather than being "very" conservative or liberal before the late 80's). What is telling, to me, is that as the GSS updates continue, I would expect that people born in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's will probably register as being more and more likely to ID as "very liberal" (e.g. pro fairness), as a sign of a cultural shift. In the 80's and 90's, many Silents and Boomers began to self-ID as "very conservative"* (e.g. pro-deregulation), as we entered the neo-lib era.

    *Most "conservative" Silents and Boomers have always had a serious case of denial about the fact that the New Deal era, due to being tightly regulated, was much more culturally conservative and stable than the Reagan and Bush era. It wasn't the Prog. New Dealers, but rather, the neo-lib modern conservatives (and airhead SJW Left) who gave us high divorce rates, more legalized gambling, more porno culture, a decline in religiosity, and sex reassignment surgeries becoming more common).

    Most “conservative” Silents and Boomers have always had a serious case of denial about the fact that the New Deal era, due to being tightly regulated, was much more culturally conservative and stable than the Reagan and Bush era.

    Most “conservatives” are in fact liberals.

    It wasn’t the Prog. New Dealers, but rather, the neo-lib modern conservatives (and airhead SJW Left) who gave us high divorce rates, more legalized gambling, more porno culture, a decline in religiosity, and sex reassignment surgeries becoming more common).

    Yeah, pretty much. Modern “conservatives” serve the same masters as the SJWs – both are tools of Woke Capital.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Most “conservatives” are in fact liberals.
     
    What's sad is that most middle class people are to some extent culturally conservative, it's just that Reaganite conditioning renders them delusional and impotent.

    Restoring stability and normality to society entails restoring respecting for institutions and rules, including the government and regulations. But the Reaganites are brainwashed to succumb to an immature hostility towards authority, and this weakens our ability to follow a certain set of rules designed to insure the common well-being. Plus, the Reaganites are taught to believe that any sort of collective effort is doomed to failure because Man is sinful and destructive when put to collective use; ergo, the key to a virtuous society is deliberately fragmenting everyone apart, encouraging withdrawal.

    Reaganism is mostly just a form of chaotic libertarian wishful thinking, that will tear society apart in the end.
  155. @dfordoom

    Most “conservative” Silents and Boomers have always had a serious case of denial about the fact that the New Deal era, due to being tightly regulated, was much more culturally conservative and stable than the Reagan and Bush era.

     

    Most "conservatives" are in fact liberals.

    It wasn’t the Prog. New Dealers, but rather, the neo-lib modern conservatives (and airhead SJW Left) who gave us high divorce rates, more legalized gambling, more porno culture, a decline in religiosity, and sex reassignment surgeries becoming more common).
     
    Yeah, pretty much. Modern "conservatives" serve the same masters as the SJWs - both are tools of Woke Capital.

    Most “conservatives” are in fact liberals.

    What’s sad is that most middle class people are to some extent culturally conservative, it’s just that Reaganite conditioning renders them delusional and impotent.

    Restoring stability and normality to society entails restoring respecting for institutions and rules, including the government and regulations. But the Reaganites are brainwashed to succumb to an immature hostility towards authority, and this weakens our ability to follow a certain set of rules designed to insure the common well-being. Plus, the Reaganites are taught to believe that any sort of collective effort is doomed to failure because Man is sinful and destructive when put to collective use; ergo, the key to a virtuous society is deliberately fragmenting everyone apart, encouraging withdrawal.

    Reaganism is mostly just a form of chaotic libertarian wishful thinking, that will tear society apart in the end.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    What’s sad is that most middle class people are to some extent culturally conservative
     
    But if you look at all the Anglosphere countries you find that they get two political choices - one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Republicans, the Tories, the LNP in Australia) and one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party). Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

    Reaganism is mostly just a form of chaotic libertarian wishful thinking, that will tear society apart in the end.
     
    But in the short term it's good for the corporate bottom line. And nothing else matters.
  156. @Feryl

    Most “conservatives” are in fact liberals.
     
    What's sad is that most middle class people are to some extent culturally conservative, it's just that Reaganite conditioning renders them delusional and impotent.

    Restoring stability and normality to society entails restoring respecting for institutions and rules, including the government and regulations. But the Reaganites are brainwashed to succumb to an immature hostility towards authority, and this weakens our ability to follow a certain set of rules designed to insure the common well-being. Plus, the Reaganites are taught to believe that any sort of collective effort is doomed to failure because Man is sinful and destructive when put to collective use; ergo, the key to a virtuous society is deliberately fragmenting everyone apart, encouraging withdrawal.

    Reaganism is mostly just a form of chaotic libertarian wishful thinking, that will tear society apart in the end.

    What’s sad is that most middle class people are to some extent culturally conservative

    But if you look at all the Anglosphere countries you find that they get two political choices – one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Republicans, the Tories, the LNP in Australia) and one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party). Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

    Reaganism is mostly just a form of chaotic libertarian wishful thinking, that will tear society apart in the end.

    But in the short term it’s good for the corporate bottom line. And nothing else matters.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    But if you look at all the Anglosphere countries you find that they get two political choices – one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Republicans, the Tories, the LNP in Australia) and one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party). Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
     
    I find myself tired of the notion that both parties are interchangeable. They are not. Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990's; no Republican since 1980 is capable of such a thing, because they must jack up Pentagon spending to utterly ridiculous levels. From the stand-point of responsible economic and foreign policy choices, America would've been much better off electing Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and (maybe....) Kerry.

    The Republicans, against anything resembling responsible care-taking, were the primary champions of de-regulation, "nation-building", and union busting. To the extent that the Dems got in the act, it was only because Americans demanded it from them (after all, if American's didn't want this nation wrecking crap they wouldn't have given Reagan or Bush 2 8 years to fuck everything up).
  157. @Feryl
    My sense is that many whites in the Deep South don't actually like each other very much*, so it's not like they grieve over the white "losers" in the region. The Deep South was the first of the well-populated regions to leave the New Deal/Dem coalition in the 1960's. The Deep South and interior West were always the regions most at odds with the Progressive spirit of the New Deal era (Deep South tends to have a feudalist, not populist, mentality, while the interior West has often been a bastion of cranky libertarians).

    *Compared to the pro-social whites of the Northeast, Midwest, and to a lesser extent the Pacific states.

    The Deep South was the first of the well-populated regions to leave the New Deal/Dem coalition in the 1960’s.

    Yes, but race was the primary driver. The “real” New Dealers were the last to leave the Democratic Party.

    My sense is that many whites in the Deep South don’t actually like each other very much*

    The Scotch-Irish had (have) an individualist bent second to none.

  158. @Feryl
    9D Chess: the electoral college has inadvertently led to the GOP greatly subsidizing smaller/more rural states, which further alienates them from other types of places. Discarding the EC would lead to the GOP making greater efforts to appeal to the large cities and more liberal suburbs of the Northeast, West Coast, and Midwest*.

    The GOP's post-1980 emphasis on the Pentagon, agribusiness, and the oil industry has allowed them to do well in the Plains and much of the South, but standard issue Rebublicans in other regions face a big up-hill battle after GW Bush discredited the GOP.

    All this being said, the SJW Left tainting the Democrats in national elections might allow the GOP to continue to get away with the same old same old.

    *Trump defenders often pointed out, post-victory, that Trump made minimal efforts to win the West Coast and much of the Northeast, since the EC makes it pointless to bother campaigning in the most blue and red states, further reinforcing to many voters in these places that it's not even worth voting if you vote out of alignment with your state. Remember, one of the last stops he made was to MN, which his campaign accurately judged to be the one true blue state most up for grabs; get rid of the EC, and Republicans would spend a lot more resources in CA and NY trying to motivate people to vote for them, while Democrats would make more stops in the South and the Plains.

    Lastly, the Electoral College does look more and more unfair because population growth since the Ellis Island days has increasingly been concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic, the SE Coast of New England, The West Coast, and Texas. The Upper Northeast, some of the South, much of the Midwest, and much of the interior West have seen relatively little population growth compared to California, the coastal PNW, Texas, Florida, Bos-Wash, and Georgia.

    So much of the population in the growing regions has a right to feel annoyed that voters in Iowa and Idaho have votes that are basically worth more.

    Idaho has a small population but in percentage terms is currently one of the fastest growing states. Lots of white Californians are moving there.

  159. @Thorfinnsson
    Neutered content has its place to get people on the treadmill, but for that you can go to the City Journal. Or on a lower level, Breitbart.

    The Unz Review is wonderful precisely because antisemitism and overt racism, both of which are objectively correct, are welcome.

    People who take a look and move on aren't ready. Many will never be ready--too difficult to overcome decades of conditioning.

    antisemitism and overt racism, both of which are objectively correct

    How can the category of “overt racism” be “objectively correct”? That doesn’t make sense.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    How can the category of “overt racism” be “objectively correct”? That doesn’t make sense.
     
    HTF, AE, how can you even THINK this question?  Truth bends toward racism.  It IS objectively correct; "blank slatism" is not just wrong, but insanely so.
  160. @Feryl
    9D Chess: the electoral college has inadvertently led to the GOP greatly subsidizing smaller/more rural states, which further alienates them from other types of places. Discarding the EC would lead to the GOP making greater efforts to appeal to the large cities and more liberal suburbs of the Northeast, West Coast, and Midwest*.

    The GOP's post-1980 emphasis on the Pentagon, agribusiness, and the oil industry has allowed them to do well in the Plains and much of the South, but standard issue Rebublicans in other regions face a big up-hill battle after GW Bush discredited the GOP.

    All this being said, the SJW Left tainting the Democrats in national elections might allow the GOP to continue to get away with the same old same old.

    *Trump defenders often pointed out, post-victory, that Trump made minimal efforts to win the West Coast and much of the Northeast, since the EC makes it pointless to bother campaigning in the most blue and red states, further reinforcing to many voters in these places that it's not even worth voting if you vote out of alignment with your state. Remember, one of the last stops he made was to MN, which his campaign accurately judged to be the one true blue state most up for grabs; get rid of the EC, and Republicans would spend a lot more resources in CA and NY trying to motivate people to vote for them, while Democrats would make more stops in the South and the Plains.

    Lastly, the Electoral College does look more and more unfair because population growth since the Ellis Island days has increasingly been concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic, the SE Coast of New England, The West Coast, and Texas. The Upper Northeast, some of the South, much of the Midwest, and much of the interior West have seen relatively little population growth compared to California, the coastal PNW, Texas, Florida, Bos-Wash, and Georgia.

    So much of the population in the growing regions has a right to feel annoyed that voters in Iowa and Idaho have votes that are basically worth more.

    So much of the population in the growing regions has a right to feel annoyed that voters in Iowa and Idaho have votes that are basically worth more.

    Is that fundamentally changing now, though? That the baseline is 3 EVs rather than 1 EV means lower population states have the lower per capita per EV–IOW, the smaller your population, the greater your population’s electoral clout. The correlation isn’t perfect because of rounding, but without that it would be.

    Otoh, states with lots of illegal aliens push back in the other direction. Right now, the illegal number is a moderate advantage for Dems. Once Texas flips, though, the illegal advantage will dwarf the small state advantage in terms of influencing the electoral college.

  161. @dfordoom

    What’s sad is that most middle class people are to some extent culturally conservative
     
    But if you look at all the Anglosphere countries you find that they get two political choices - one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Republicans, the Tories, the LNP in Australia) and one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party). Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

    Reaganism is mostly just a form of chaotic libertarian wishful thinking, that will tear society apart in the end.
     
    But in the short term it's good for the corporate bottom line. And nothing else matters.

    But if you look at all the Anglosphere countries you find that they get two political choices – one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Republicans, the Tories, the LNP in Australia) and one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party). Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

    I find myself tired of the notion that both parties are interchangeable. They are not. Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990’s; no Republican since 1980 is capable of such a thing, because they must jack up Pentagon spending to utterly ridiculous levels. From the stand-point of responsible economic and foreign policy choices, America would’ve been much better off electing Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and (maybe….) Kerry.

    The Republicans, against anything resembling responsible care-taking, were the primary champions of de-regulation, “nation-building”, and union busting. To the extent that the Dems got in the act, it was only because Americans demanded it from them (after all, if American’s didn’t want this nation wrecking crap they wouldn’t have given Reagan or Bush 2 8 years to fuck everything up).

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I find myself tired of the notion that both parties are interchangeable. They are not. Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990’s; no Republican since 1980 is capable of such a thing, because they must jack up Pentagon spending to utterly ridiculous levels. From the stand-point of responsible economic and foreign policy choices, America would’ve been much better off electing Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and (maybe….) Kerry.
     
    They've been moving closer together for several decades. Are any of the current Democrat presidential candidates suggesting that military spending needs to be slashed?

    On foreign policy you may have a point. Obama's foreign policy was marginally better than Bush 2's, and probably better than Trump's. Obama thought the best way to solve America's problems with Iran was by negotiation which was clearly far more sensible than Trump's policy of provoking war. But then Obama was slightly less of an Israel Firster than Trump.

    In Britain at the moment there's no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn would pursue a more sensible foreign policy than any of the current Tory scum. But on the other hand Tony Blair was a foreign policy disaster.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990’s; "

    Making a statement like this reconfirms the idea that a majority of what you have to say isn't to be taken seriously.
  162. @Audacious Epigone
    antisemitism and overt racism, both of which are objectively correct

    How can the category of "overt racism" be "objectively correct"? That doesn't make sense.

    How can the category of “overt racism” be “objectively correct”? That doesn’t make sense.

    HTF, AE, how can you even THINK this question?  Truth bends toward racism.  It IS objectively correct; “blank slatism” is not just wrong, but insanely so.

    • Replies: @iffen
    “blank slatism” is not just wrong, but insanely so.

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Because overt racism can tend towards truth (high Ashkenazi IQ and Nobel prizes) or away from truth (white man's greed runs a world in need).
  163. @Mr. Rational

    How can the category of “overt racism” be “objectively correct”? That doesn’t make sense.
     
    HTF, AE, how can you even THINK this question?  Truth bends toward racism.  It IS objectively correct; "blank slatism" is not just wrong, but insanely so.

    “blank slatism” is not just wrong, but insanely so.

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.
     
    Agreed. But nobody seems to want to pursue a sensible rational alternative to blank slatism.
    , @Mr. Rational

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.
     
    Any and all opposition to blank-slatism has already been defined as racism.  Might as well own it:  "No, different racial groups are not equal and interchangeable, and demanding equal outcomes for them is futile for the targets and abusive toward those charged with the task."
  164. @Thorfinnsson
    Neutered content has its place to get people on the treadmill, but for that you can go to the City Journal. Or on a lower level, Breitbart.

    The Unz Review is wonderful precisely because antisemitism and overt racism, both of which are objectively correct, are welcome.

    People who take a look and move on aren't ready. Many will never be ready--too difficult to overcome decades of conditioning.

    Discussion of the JQ is not required to be anti-Semitic. Discussion of the RQ is not required to be overtly and obnoxiously racist.

    People who take a look and move on aren’t ready.

    Birds of a feather – guilt by association

    Why fight uphill unless you have no other choice?

    Why not fight downhill?

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  165. @Feryl

    But if you look at all the Anglosphere countries you find that they get two political choices – one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Republicans, the Tories, the LNP in Australia) and one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party). Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
     
    I find myself tired of the notion that both parties are interchangeable. They are not. Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990's; no Republican since 1980 is capable of such a thing, because they must jack up Pentagon spending to utterly ridiculous levels. From the stand-point of responsible economic and foreign policy choices, America would've been much better off electing Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and (maybe....) Kerry.

    The Republicans, against anything resembling responsible care-taking, were the primary champions of de-regulation, "nation-building", and union busting. To the extent that the Dems got in the act, it was only because Americans demanded it from them (after all, if American's didn't want this nation wrecking crap they wouldn't have given Reagan or Bush 2 8 years to fuck everything up).

    I find myself tired of the notion that both parties are interchangeable. They are not. Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990’s; no Republican since 1980 is capable of such a thing, because they must jack up Pentagon spending to utterly ridiculous levels. From the stand-point of responsible economic and foreign policy choices, America would’ve been much better off electing Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and (maybe….) Kerry.

    They’ve been moving closer together for several decades. Are any of the current Democrat presidential candidates suggesting that military spending needs to be slashed?

    On foreign policy you may have a point. Obama’s foreign policy was marginally better than Bush 2’s, and probably better than Trump’s. Obama thought the best way to solve America’s problems with Iran was by negotiation which was clearly far more sensible than Trump’s policy of provoking war. But then Obama was slightly less of an Israel Firster than Trump.

    In Britain at the moment there’s no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn would pursue a more sensible foreign policy than any of the current Tory scum. But on the other hand Tony Blair was a foreign policy disaster.

  166. @iffen
    “blank slatism” is not just wrong, but insanely so.

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.

    Agreed. But nobody seems to want to pursue a sensible rational alternative to blank slatism.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Agreed. But nobody seems to want to pursue a sensible rational alternative to blank slatism.

    You don't have to make it explicit. Support policies that "work" even though the blank slate has been falsified. For example, Head Start for all children because all children deserve a head start. All children deserve a quality play-care. UBI instead of "means testing" because every citizen deserves the rudiments of life in our country.
  167. @dfordoom

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.
     
    Agreed. But nobody seems to want to pursue a sensible rational alternative to blank slatism.

    Agreed. But nobody seems to want to pursue a sensible rational alternative to blank slatism.

    You don’t have to make it explicit. Support policies that “work” even though the blank slate has been falsified. For example, Head Start for all children because all children deserve a head start. All children deserve a quality play-care. UBI instead of “means testing” because every citizen deserves the rudiments of life in our country.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    You don’t have to make it explicit. Support policies that “work” even though the blank slate has been falsified. For example, Head Start for all children because all children deserve a head start.
     
    Head Start doesn't work, period.  The gains vanish before high school.  It's another make-work program paying AA hires to bulk up the fake NAM middle class, and it needs to be terminated.

    Ditto day care.  Children do better with their mothers.

    And UBI?  $12k times 327 million is $3.9 TRILLION.  Where would you GET it?  And don't forget that pumping money into the economy like that is inherently inflationary.
  168. @dfordoom

    Cultural de-regulation would not full began until the late 1990’s, which is when dickhead Boomers became powerful enough to drown out the voices of GIs and Silents who didn’t want “motherfucker” being spoken on daytime cable TV.
     
    Cultural de-regulation was driven by the elites. The elites always wanted cultural de-regulation. The process really got going in a big way when Hollywood scrapped the Production Code in the early 60s. It was also driven by a very strong push to remove censorship in every form to allow an avalanche of sex and violence. The entertainment industry and cultural elites wanted that as far back as the late 50s. It took them quite a while to achieve it, but they did achieve it.

    It had nothing whatever to do with GIs or Silents or Boomers. It was pushed by cultural elites. The objective was to achieve social, cultural and political changes that would benefit the elites.

    You're right about a lot of things but your obsession with dubious theories about generations blinds you to the class warfare issues which are the real key to understanding what happened. Ordinary people, whether GIs or Silents or Boomers, played no part in the process whatsoever. It was a Cultural Revolution instigated by the elites to serve their own class interests.

    The Hollywood push to scrap the production code in the late fifties was related to the increasing cultural decadence of that period. Increased wealth leads to increased decadence and the fifties was the first era of American history when the country was really wealthy. There had been a foretaste of this during the stock market boom of the late twenties when increasing wealth led to flappers and a widespread loosening of sexual morality and alcohol abuse. In the fifties, the wealth increase led to the beatniks. You had Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg et al. encouraging drug and alcohol use and sexual experimentation, including homosexuality. The hippies were an extension of the beatniks. When the twenties was followed by the Great Depression, you saw a swing to a more conservative morality and there were increased calls to regulate movies. This resulted in Will Hays being brought in to supervise things. When the swinging sixties turned into the stagflation seventies, the country again became more culturally conservative. You saw the rise of the religious right with its Falwell and Robertson types and the election of Reagan. Even the Democrats became more culturally conservative. Carter was culturally conservative and Al Gore’s wife, Tipper, crusaded for more stringent regulations on the movie, television and recording industries. This later social conservatism, though, was weaker than the earlier social conservatism of the thirties through fifties and was less effective.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Here is a video recalling how Brooke Shields was photographed entirely nude for an issue of Playboy.. when she was TEN years old. The video goes on to recall how Shields was later filmed nude for a movie when she was 12.

    Hollywood has been slowly grooming the US to accept child pornography for 100 years.


    https://youtu.be/_oOT2nRYpwc
    , @Feryl

    This resulted in Will Hays being brought in to supervise things. When the swinging sixties turned into the stagflation seventies, the country again became more culturally conservative. You saw the rise of the religious right with its Falwell and Robertson types and the election of Reagan.
     
    Reality is more important than rhetoric. Americans were objectively healthier and happier in the New Deal era. We learned how to do things better as the Progressive and New Deal era went on. Then we hit some snags in the 60's and 70's. But family instability, suicide rates, poor immigration policies, de-industrialization etc. are all much worse now than they were in 1965.

    I don't disagree that media censorship does, at times, coincide with economic down-turns (slasher movies getting heavily censored in the early 80's recession, then horror movies being censored once again in '88-'92, after the giddy period of '83-'87 ended. Then the economy boomed again in the mid-90's, and people became much less interested in censorship (Dennis Franz's bare ass being shown on a late 90's episode of NYPD Blue being an unfortunate side-effect of the era's decreasing censorship.). After 9/11 and that era's down-turn, the WWF got rid of the salacious characters and storylines that the public embraced in the late 90's. And clean-cut super-hero movies started to get popular again; remember that Batman was really popular during the down-turn that the Micheal Keaton movies got released in ('89-'92).
  169. @Feryl

    But if you look at all the Anglosphere countries you find that they get two political choices – one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Republicans, the Tories, the LNP in Australia) and one party that is economically right-wing and socially ultra-liberal (the Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party). Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
     
    I find myself tired of the notion that both parties are interchangeable. They are not. Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990's; no Republican since 1980 is capable of such a thing, because they must jack up Pentagon spending to utterly ridiculous levels. From the stand-point of responsible economic and foreign policy choices, America would've been much better off electing Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and (maybe....) Kerry.

    The Republicans, against anything resembling responsible care-taking, were the primary champions of de-regulation, "nation-building", and union busting. To the extent that the Dems got in the act, it was only because Americans demanded it from them (after all, if American's didn't want this nation wrecking crap they wouldn't have given Reagan or Bush 2 8 years to fuck everything up).

    “Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990’s; ”

    Making a statement like this reconfirms the idea that a majority of what you have to say isn’t to be taken seriously.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Clinton sure as hell didn't go on the Reagan flavored spend tons but don't tax enough to account for said spending rampage that every Republican president has perpetrated since 1981. Like I said, nobody with half a brain would seriously suggest that Mondale, Dukakis, or Gore would've done as much to bankrupt this country as Reagan-the Bush family-Trump did. It's America's duty to go bankrupt on behalf of the Pentagon and Israel. When Omar attack's the Israel lobby, she's doing more to help America than 95% of American "conservatives" ever did since the Reagan era.

    Just like how the Republicans, since the 80's, have completely failed to stabilize America culturally and demographically, they too have failed to be responsible stewards of our finances.

    My whole life, Republicans have blamed "the Left" (that mythical unicorn esque thing) for cultural rot and irresponsible spending. What gall they have! The GOP has been the dominant party, increasingly so as the 80's, 90's, and 2000's went on (what, ya think the Democrats were responsible for our prison population rising like 9,000% since the mid-80's? Put the crack pipe down, bub).
  170. @Mark G.
    The Hollywood push to scrap the production code in the late fifties was related to the increasing cultural decadence of that period. Increased wealth leads to increased decadence and the fifties was the first era of American history when the country was really wealthy. There had been a foretaste of this during the stock market boom of the late twenties when increasing wealth led to flappers and a widespread loosening of sexual morality and alcohol abuse. In the fifties, the wealth increase led to the beatniks. You had Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg et al. encouraging drug and alcohol use and sexual experimentation, including homosexuality. The hippies were an extension of the beatniks. When the twenties was followed by the Great Depression, you saw a swing to a more conservative morality and there were increased calls to regulate movies. This resulted in Will Hays being brought in to supervise things. When the swinging sixties turned into the stagflation seventies, the country again became more culturally conservative. You saw the rise of the religious right with its Falwell and Robertson types and the election of Reagan. Even the Democrats became more culturally conservative. Carter was culturally conservative and Al Gore's wife, Tipper, crusaded for more stringent regulations on the movie, television and recording industries. This later social conservatism, though, was weaker than the earlier social conservatism of the thirties through fifties and was less effective.

    Here is a video recalling how Brooke Shields was photographed entirely nude for an issue of Playboy.. when she was TEN years old. The video goes on to recall how Shields was later filmed nude for a movie when she was 12.

    Hollywood has been slowly grooming the US to accept child pornography for 100 years.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" was around the same time as Jodie Foster as a thirteen year old hooker in "Taxi Driver". Neither one of those, though, would have been possible without the earlier "Lolita". There may have been others, but that was the earliest movie I've seen that started the sexualizing of children. "Lolita" seems pretty tame today but it was shocking when it came out and it led to the later more extreme examples. The old Hollywood code may have been a little too strict at times. Howard Hawks and his screenwriter Faulkner had a lot of trouble getting "The Big Sleep" with its pornographers, homosexuals and drug addicted nymphomaniacs by the censors and ended up with an incomprehensible plotline. It went from being too strict to an anything goes situation. The old Hollywood code was completely abandoned by the late sixties and you ended up with movies like "Deep Throat" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in the seventies. Those types of movies would have never been released in an earlier era.
  171. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Here is a video recalling how Brooke Shields was photographed entirely nude for an issue of Playboy.. when she was TEN years old. The video goes on to recall how Shields was later filmed nude for a movie when she was 12.

    Hollywood has been slowly grooming the US to accept child pornography for 100 years.


    https://youtu.be/_oOT2nRYpwc

    Brooke Shields in “Pretty Baby” was around the same time as Jodie Foster as a thirteen year old hooker in “Taxi Driver”. Neither one of those, though, would have been possible without the earlier “Lolita”. There may have been others, but that was the earliest movie I’ve seen that started the sexualizing of children. “Lolita” seems pretty tame today but it was shocking when it came out and it led to the later more extreme examples. The old Hollywood code may have been a little too strict at times. Howard Hawks and his screenwriter Faulkner had a lot of trouble getting “The Big Sleep” with its pornographers, homosexuals and drug addicted nymphomaniacs by the censors and ended up with an incomprehensible plotline. It went from being too strict to an anything goes situation. The old Hollywood code was completely abandoned by the late sixties and you ended up with movies like “Deep Throat” and “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” in the seventies. Those types of movies would have never been released in an earlier era.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    The difference is while Foster and Lyon were underage and clearly sexualized, Shields was photographed completely nude at 10 and then filmed completely nude at 12.

    My wife read Shields' AB about her postpartum depression years ago. There was no mention of the Playboy shoot and her experience in Pretty Baby is glossed over.
  172. @iffen
    “blank slatism” is not just wrong, but insanely so.

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.

    Any and all opposition to blank-slatism has already been defined as racism.  Might as well own it:  “No, different racial groups are not equal and interchangeable, and demanding equal outcomes for them is futile for the targets and abusive toward those charged with the task.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That's assertive but defensible.

    Calling people monkeys--which is what most people think of when they hear the phrase "overt racism"--is not.

  173. @iffen
    Agreed. But nobody seems to want to pursue a sensible rational alternative to blank slatism.

    You don't have to make it explicit. Support policies that "work" even though the blank slate has been falsified. For example, Head Start for all children because all children deserve a head start. All children deserve a quality play-care. UBI instead of "means testing" because every citizen deserves the rudiments of life in our country.

    You don’t have to make it explicit. Support policies that “work” even though the blank slate has been falsified. For example, Head Start for all children because all children deserve a head start.

    Head Start doesn’t work, period.  The gains vanish before high school.  It’s another make-work program paying AA hires to bulk up the fake NAM middle class, and it needs to be terminated.

    Ditto day care.  Children do better with their mothers.

    And UBI?  $12k times 327 million is $3.9 TRILLION.  Where would you GET it?  And don’t forget that pumping money into the economy like that is inherently inflationary.

    • Replies: @iffen
    And UBI? $12k times 327 million is $3.9 TRILLION. Where would you GET it?

    $12K will not be enough. I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending. I would eliminate some bureaucracies like HUD. How much is the annual budget for HUD? I think that I would have money left over.
  174. @Mr. Rational

    You don’t have to make it explicit. Support policies that “work” even though the blank slate has been falsified. For example, Head Start for all children because all children deserve a head start.
     
    Head Start doesn't work, period.  The gains vanish before high school.  It's another make-work program paying AA hires to bulk up the fake NAM middle class, and it needs to be terminated.

    Ditto day care.  Children do better with their mothers.

    And UBI?  $12k times 327 million is $3.9 TRILLION.  Where would you GET it?  And don't forget that pumping money into the economy like that is inherently inflationary.

    And UBI? $12k times 327 million is $3.9 TRILLION. Where would you GET it?

    $12K will not be enough. I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending. I would eliminate some bureaucracies like HUD. How much is the annual budget for HUD? I think that I would have money left over.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    $12K will not be enough. I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending.
     
    USG FY 2020 spending is about $4.7 trillion and you want to at least DOUBLE that?  Remember, revenues are only about $3.3 trillion.  You're talking about at least 5x as much borrowing.  Who'd lend?  Who HAS that much to lend?  What would they demand as collateral... and they'd foreclose on it soon enough, be certain about that.  Do you want your children and grandchildren to be serfs of the Han?

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

    Rudyard Kipling
    , @dfordoom

    $12K will not be enough.
     
    $12K is just silly. You'd have to make it a realistic amount.

    I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending. I would eliminate some bureaucracies like HUD. How much is the annual budget for HUD? I think that I would have money left over.
     
    The sensible thing would obviously be to have UBI as a replacement for current welfare spending.

    If there's a problem funding it you could always cut the absurdly bloated military budget. Maybe not fight so many dumb wars.
  175. @Mark G.
    Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" was around the same time as Jodie Foster as a thirteen year old hooker in "Taxi Driver". Neither one of those, though, would have been possible without the earlier "Lolita". There may have been others, but that was the earliest movie I've seen that started the sexualizing of children. "Lolita" seems pretty tame today but it was shocking when it came out and it led to the later more extreme examples. The old Hollywood code may have been a little too strict at times. Howard Hawks and his screenwriter Faulkner had a lot of trouble getting "The Big Sleep" with its pornographers, homosexuals and drug addicted nymphomaniacs by the censors and ended up with an incomprehensible plotline. It went from being too strict to an anything goes situation. The old Hollywood code was completely abandoned by the late sixties and you ended up with movies like "Deep Throat" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in the seventies. Those types of movies would have never been released in an earlier era.

    The difference is while Foster and Lyon were underage and clearly sexualized, Shields was photographed completely nude at 10 and then filmed completely nude at 12.

    My wife read Shields’ AB about her postpartum depression years ago. There was no mention of the Playboy shoot and her experience in Pretty Baby is glossed over.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    I came across the poster for "Pretty Baby" a while back.  I found it disturbing on a number of levels, both that a prepubescent girl could act like that and that anyone would find it attractive.

    Now I understand that this perversion of normal sexuality is exactly what the makers were after.
  176. @iffen
    And UBI? $12k times 327 million is $3.9 TRILLION. Where would you GET it?

    $12K will not be enough. I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending. I would eliminate some bureaucracies like HUD. How much is the annual budget for HUD? I think that I would have money left over.

    $12K will not be enough. I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending.

    USG FY 2020 spending is about $4.7 trillion and you want to at least DOUBLE that?  Remember, revenues are only about $3.3 trillion.  You’re talking about at least 5x as much borrowing.  Who’d lend?  Who HAS that much to lend?  What would they demand as collateral… and they’d foreclose on it soon enough, be certain about that.  Do you want your children and grandchildren to be serfs of the Han?

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

    Rudyard Kipling

    • Replies: @iffen
    You forget about trickle up economics. Funding is not a problem. Ideologies, political views and political spoils are the problems.
  177. @MikeatMikedotMike
    The difference is while Foster and Lyon were underage and clearly sexualized, Shields was photographed completely nude at 10 and then filmed completely nude at 12.

    My wife read Shields' AB about her postpartum depression years ago. There was no mention of the Playboy shoot and her experience in Pretty Baby is glossed over.

    I came across the poster for “Pretty Baby” a while back.  I found it disturbing on a number of levels, both that a prepubescent girl could act like that and that anyone would find it attractive.

    Now I understand that this perversion of normal sexuality is exactly what the makers were after.

  178. @Mr. Rational

    How can the category of “overt racism” be “objectively correct”? That doesn’t make sense.
     
    HTF, AE, how can you even THINK this question?  Truth bends toward racism.  It IS objectively correct; "blank slatism" is not just wrong, but insanely so.

    Because overt racism can tend towards truth (high Ashkenazi IQ and Nobel prizes) or away from truth (white man’s greed runs a world in need).

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Because overt racism can tend towards truth (high Ashkenazi IQ and Nobel prizes) or away from truth (white man’s greed runs a world in need).
     
    There's always the minor detail that overt racism gives the PTB a perfect excuse to crush any and all dissident movements. It's not that SJWs will think you're a Nazi. Normies will think you're a Nazi. You end up marginalising yourself even further. It's simply political suicide. Anyone unable to see that has to be living in a fantasy world.
    , @Mr. Rational
    Overt racism only recognizes the contribution of race toward differences.

    Something I had not seen until recently is the claim that all of Einstein's "discoveries", including "e = mc²", were plagiarized from others.  I have not had time to dig into this.  But should it turn out to be supported, would I be wrong to conclude that (((the tribe))) steals credit for everything it claims and contributes nothing of worth?
  179. @Mr. Rational

    The opposite of blank slatism is not overt racism.
     
    Any and all opposition to blank-slatism has already been defined as racism.  Might as well own it:  "No, different racial groups are not equal and interchangeable, and demanding equal outcomes for them is futile for the targets and abusive toward those charged with the task."

    That’s assertive but defensible.

    Calling people monkeys–which is what most people think of when they hear the phrase “overt racism”–is not.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Calling people monkeys–which is what most people think of when they hear the phrase “overt racism”–is not.
     
    "Chimping out" is far too accurate an observation to be dismissed as "dehumanization"; those who do it dehumanize themselves, not the observers.  "M_rd_r m__k__s" is likewise too factual to be dismissed out of hand.
  180. @Mr. Rational

    $12K will not be enough. I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending.
     
    USG FY 2020 spending is about $4.7 trillion and you want to at least DOUBLE that?  Remember, revenues are only about $3.3 trillion.  You're talking about at least 5x as much borrowing.  Who'd lend?  Who HAS that much to lend?  What would they demand as collateral... and they'd foreclose on it soon enough, be certain about that.  Do you want your children and grandchildren to be serfs of the Han?

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

    Rudyard Kipling

    You forget about trickle up economics. Funding is not a problem. Ideologies, political views and political spoils are the problems.

  181. @Thomm
    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz ply his trade. He singlehandedly ties up hundreds if not thousands of WNs at once. His strategy is particularly elegant when one observes the chess pieces that Ron advances in the correct sequence.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to bad at making money, so that they write for very little payment.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion, and then someone like Philip Giraldi to make anti-Semites feel at ease about saying anything.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew. Remember, he got handed an unprestigious assignment from Jewish central command. Harvey Weinstein got to have sex with the prettiest actresses for 30 years, George Soros gets to be a billionaire, etc. But someone has to do the less glamorous work, and Runzie Baby is equal to the task.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated on TUR, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally, even as any and all anti-Israel content is fully welcome.

    Why?

    It is because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess from the perception of a 70-IQ WN. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron’s plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring out that they are the frog and the temperature is already up to about 160 degrees F.

    I am strongly in favor of what Ron Unz is doing. His recent ‘An Open Letter….’ article was a trial balloon through which he tested the speed at which the temperature can be increased under the immerse-in-water frog. I look forward to seeing him go for the kill (i.e. 212 degrees F) by around 2023 or so.

    Thanks,
    -Ira Rabinowitz

    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz ply his trade. He singlehandedly ties up hundreds if not thousands of WNs at once.

    Add me to the list of people who agree with what Thomm has outlined.

    Ron Unz has definitely created this website to advance Jewish interests. The lack of advertisers alone prove that this site has some big-money backers who have a hidden agenda.

    What convinced me was how Chateau Heartiste got deplatformed within a week of tightening on the screws on Ron Unz. Heartiste did not write anything that was any different from his content of five years prior. But when Heartiste pointed out that Ron Unz is the designated Jew representative to mess up WNs, and that Ron Unz’s desire to advocate for Hispanics is because Ron Unz’s Mexican cleaning lady is his only romantic relationship in the 21st century, the deplatforming was swift.

    The timing of all that was suspicious.

  182. @iffen
    And UBI? $12k times 327 million is $3.9 TRILLION. Where would you GET it?

    $12K will not be enough. I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending. I would eliminate some bureaucracies like HUD. How much is the annual budget for HUD? I think that I would have money left over.

    $12K will not be enough.

    $12K is just silly. You’d have to make it a realistic amount.

    I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending. I would eliminate some bureaucracies like HUD. How much is the annual budget for HUD? I think that I would have money left over.

    The sensible thing would obviously be to have UBI as a replacement for current welfare spending.

    If there’s a problem funding it you could always cut the absurdly bloated military budget. Maybe not fight so many dumb wars.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The sensible thing would obviously be to have UBI as a replacement for current welfare spending.

    Yes, but like immigration reform, it is impossible to get the two sides together. Most on the right are opposed to welfare on principle (benefit of the doubt for some), while the left wants to use it as a means to enhance their political power (same for them, no doubt some truly "care"). I don't really like the idea of a completely unrestricted UBI. I would take back a lot of it for health insurance, retirement funding and disability and long-term care insurance.

    If there’s a problem funding it you could always cut the absurdly bloated military budget.

    Disagree

    Maybe not fight so many dumb wars.

    Agree

  183. @Audacious Epigone
    Because overt racism can tend towards truth (high Ashkenazi IQ and Nobel prizes) or away from truth (white man's greed runs a world in need).

    Because overt racism can tend towards truth (high Ashkenazi IQ and Nobel prizes) or away from truth (white man’s greed runs a world in need).

    There’s always the minor detail that overt racism gives the PTB a perfect excuse to crush any and all dissident movements. It’s not that SJWs will think you’re a Nazi. Normies will think you’re a Nazi. You end up marginalising yourself even further. It’s simply political suicide. Anyone unable to see that has to be living in a fantasy world.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Feryl
    I always tend to think that appealing to stability and pragmatism is more important than getting wrapped up in morals or playing "good guys and bad guys". Isolationism, protectionism, and low immigration levels are all associated with political and social tranquility; war, free-trade, and high immigration levels are all associated with dystopian chaos. Furthermore, labels about "left" or "right", or "fascist/socialist", don't accurately capture the spectrum of views that any particular party, country, or person, or era, has; "free-trade" was historically opposed by both American liberals and conservatives to some degree before the 1980's, and then the GOP went all-in on free-trade after 1980, with the Dems joining them in the 90's. And now the Dem rank and file is more pro-free trade than the average Republican or moderate is. So what's promoted by either side can change a lot over time, so "liberal" and "conservative" are just not very useful words, particularly in a historical context (e.g., Hitler's conservatism was basically statist, leading to the refrain among Western libertarians that Hitler "was a Leftist"....Yes, I am serious, that's been a talking point since the 70's among many Western pro-capitalist people).
  184. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990’s; "

    Making a statement like this reconfirms the idea that a majority of what you have to say isn't to be taken seriously.

    Clinton sure as hell didn’t go on the Reagan flavored spend tons but don’t tax enough to account for said spending rampage that every Republican president has perpetrated since 1981. Like I said, nobody with half a brain would seriously suggest that Mondale, Dukakis, or Gore would’ve done as much to bankrupt this country as Reagan-the Bush family-Trump did. It’s America’s duty to go bankrupt on behalf of the Pentagon and Israel. When Omar attack’s the Israel lobby, she’s doing more to help America than 95% of American “conservatives” ever did since the Reagan era.

    Just like how the Republicans, since the 80’s, have completely failed to stabilize America culturally and demographically, they too have failed to be responsible stewards of our finances.

    My whole life, Republicans have blamed “the Left” (that mythical unicorn esque thing) for cultural rot and irresponsible spending. What gall they have! The GOP has been the dominant party, increasingly so as the 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s went on (what, ya think the Democrats were responsible for our prison population rising like 9,000% since the mid-80’s? Put the crack pipe down, bub).

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    When Omar attack’s the Israel lobby, she’s doing more to help America than 95% of American “conservatives” ever did since the Reagan era.
     
    Yes, that's probably true.

    What's happening in the Democratic Party is incredibly interesting. You've got the Old Guard, fossils like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Ageing white liberals with a sprinkling of ageing liberal Jews. There are two things that matter to them - keeping the owners of the party (the donors) happy, and Israel. But mostly Israel. Anything else can be sacrificed, but not Israel.

    But the Old Guard is mostly, well, old. The future of the Democrats is the Coalition of the Fringes that Steve Sailer talks about - blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, South Asians (basically dot Indians), East Asians, hardline feminazis and the LGBT mob. And they don't care very much about Israel.

    So Israel is the issue that is going to cause a huge split in the party, and it's going to cause a split between the owners of the party and the New Guard.

    The hysteria and the hatred directed against people like Ilhan Omar is entirely about Israel.
    , @Mr. Rational

    Clinton sure as hell didn’t go on the Reagan flavored spend tons but don’t tax enough to account for said spending rampage that every Republican president has perpetrated since 1981.
     
    Which party controlled Congress through Reagan's term?  What branch of government writes the budget?

    You are NOT THINKING!
  185. @Mark G.
    The Hollywood push to scrap the production code in the late fifties was related to the increasing cultural decadence of that period. Increased wealth leads to increased decadence and the fifties was the first era of American history when the country was really wealthy. There had been a foretaste of this during the stock market boom of the late twenties when increasing wealth led to flappers and a widespread loosening of sexual morality and alcohol abuse. In the fifties, the wealth increase led to the beatniks. You had Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg et al. encouraging drug and alcohol use and sexual experimentation, including homosexuality. The hippies were an extension of the beatniks. When the twenties was followed by the Great Depression, you saw a swing to a more conservative morality and there were increased calls to regulate movies. This resulted in Will Hays being brought in to supervise things. When the swinging sixties turned into the stagflation seventies, the country again became more culturally conservative. You saw the rise of the religious right with its Falwell and Robertson types and the election of Reagan. Even the Democrats became more culturally conservative. Carter was culturally conservative and Al Gore's wife, Tipper, crusaded for more stringent regulations on the movie, television and recording industries. This later social conservatism, though, was weaker than the earlier social conservatism of the thirties through fifties and was less effective.

    This resulted in Will Hays being brought in to supervise things. When the swinging sixties turned into the stagflation seventies, the country again became more culturally conservative. You saw the rise of the religious right with its Falwell and Robertson types and the election of Reagan.

    Reality is more important than rhetoric. Americans were objectively healthier and happier in the New Deal era. We learned how to do things better as the Progressive and New Deal era went on. Then we hit some snags in the 60’s and 70’s. But family instability, suicide rates, poor immigration policies, de-industrialization etc. are all much worse now than they were in 1965.

    I don’t disagree that media censorship does, at times, coincide with economic down-turns (slasher movies getting heavily censored in the early 80’s recession, then horror movies being censored once again in ’88-’92, after the giddy period of ’83-’87 ended. Then the economy boomed again in the mid-90’s, and people became much less interested in censorship (Dennis Franz’s bare ass being shown on a late 90’s episode of NYPD Blue being an unfortunate side-effect of the era’s decreasing censorship.). After 9/11 and that era’s down-turn, the WWF got rid of the salacious characters and storylines that the public embraced in the late 90’s. And clean-cut super-hero movies started to get popular again; remember that Batman was really popular during the down-turn that the Micheal Keaton movies got released in (’89-’92).

  186. @Feryl
    Clinton sure as hell didn't go on the Reagan flavored spend tons but don't tax enough to account for said spending rampage that every Republican president has perpetrated since 1981. Like I said, nobody with half a brain would seriously suggest that Mondale, Dukakis, or Gore would've done as much to bankrupt this country as Reagan-the Bush family-Trump did. It's America's duty to go bankrupt on behalf of the Pentagon and Israel. When Omar attack's the Israel lobby, she's doing more to help America than 95% of American "conservatives" ever did since the Reagan era.

    Just like how the Republicans, since the 80's, have completely failed to stabilize America culturally and demographically, they too have failed to be responsible stewards of our finances.

    My whole life, Republicans have blamed "the Left" (that mythical unicorn esque thing) for cultural rot and irresponsible spending. What gall they have! The GOP has been the dominant party, increasingly so as the 80's, 90's, and 2000's went on (what, ya think the Democrats were responsible for our prison population rising like 9,000% since the mid-80's? Put the crack pipe down, bub).

    When Omar attack’s the Israel lobby, she’s doing more to help America than 95% of American “conservatives” ever did since the Reagan era.

    Yes, that’s probably true.

    What’s happening in the Democratic Party is incredibly interesting. You’ve got the Old Guard, fossils like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Ageing white liberals with a sprinkling of ageing liberal Jews. There are two things that matter to them – keeping the owners of the party (the donors) happy, and Israel. But mostly Israel. Anything else can be sacrificed, but not Israel.

    But the Old Guard is mostly, well, old. The future of the Democrats is the Coalition of the Fringes that Steve Sailer talks about – blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, South Asians (basically dot Indians), East Asians, hardline feminazis and the LGBT mob. And they don’t care very much about Israel.

    So Israel is the issue that is going to cause a huge split in the party, and it’s going to cause a split between the owners of the party and the New Guard.

    The hysteria and the hatred directed against people like Ilhan Omar is entirely about Israel.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The local MSM rag tries to make Omar look like a lunatic for going off the Reaganite reservation. Kinda like how the establishment GOP howled in outrage when Trump said that Bush's foreign policy was an embarrassing disaster (which about 83% of the American public, and 99% of the rest of the world, agreed with).

    We're aren't supposed to re-write the Reaganite script.

    Non-whites can't be guilt-tripped by the Holocaust. American blacks are almost borderline Islamic in their distaste for Jews, who historically have often been the venal slum lords who take advantage of poor (frequently black) Americans. Nor is it a secret that many black entertainers frequently got taken advantage of by lawyers, agents, and producers in the Jewish dominated entertainment industry.

    What’s happening in the Democratic Party is incredibly interesting. You’ve got the Old Guard, fossils like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.
     
    What's interesting is if younger "radicals" can somehow persuade aging Dem voters that "Centrism" (me-too Reaganism) is a dying credo. Me-thinks that beating Trump with an electable neo-lib conformist is still going to over-rule everything else. Ironically, however, the attempt by all Dem candidates to appeal to Woke Twitter is going to back-fire in the general election; nominally "centrist" candidates (and I would include Kamala in this class; she is a Reaganite prosecutor, not a rabble rousing populist) are going to fall off the tricky tightrope that is connected to Wokeness on one end (during the primary) and to electable "centrism" on the other (during the general).

    If the Dem nominee makes a lot of asinine statements about ID politics during the primary, I could easily see the vast majority of less educated whites (and whites who just plain live in less fashionable areas) deserting the Dems in droves, as Wokeness is going to give the GOP tons of ammo. Some of the whites who stayed home, or voted for Johnson/McMullin, are probably going to be motivated to vote for Trump as a take-that at Woke Leftism. It's worth keeping in mind that what Hilary did in '16, from a Wokeness standpoint, pales in comparison to what we've already seen in the Dem debates. A lot of the anti-Trumpers really did believe that Hilary was the sensible one by comparison; they're not going to be thinking that come 2020.
  187. @Audacious Epigone
    Because overt racism can tend towards truth (high Ashkenazi IQ and Nobel prizes) or away from truth (white man's greed runs a world in need).

    Overt racism only recognizes the contribution of race toward differences.

    Something I had not seen until recently is the claim that all of Einstein’s “discoveries”, including “e = mc²”, were plagiarized from others.  I have not had time to dig into this.  But should it turn out to be supported, would I be wrong to conclude that (((the tribe))) steals credit for everything it claims and contributes nothing of worth?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I think Ron Unz has a pretty neat operation here, so yes, I'd say you'd be wrong.
  188. @Audacious Epigone
    That's assertive but defensible.

    Calling people monkeys--which is what most people think of when they hear the phrase "overt racism"--is not.

    Calling people monkeys–which is what most people think of when they hear the phrase “overt racism”–is not.

    “Chimping out” is far too accurate an observation to be dismissed as “dehumanization”; those who do it dehumanize themselves, not the observers.  “M_rd_r m__k__s” is likewise too factual to be dismissed out of hand.

  189. @Feryl
    Clinton sure as hell didn't go on the Reagan flavored spend tons but don't tax enough to account for said spending rampage that every Republican president has perpetrated since 1981. Like I said, nobody with half a brain would seriously suggest that Mondale, Dukakis, or Gore would've done as much to bankrupt this country as Reagan-the Bush family-Trump did. It's America's duty to go bankrupt on behalf of the Pentagon and Israel. When Omar attack's the Israel lobby, she's doing more to help America than 95% of American "conservatives" ever did since the Reagan era.

    Just like how the Republicans, since the 80's, have completely failed to stabilize America culturally and demographically, they too have failed to be responsible stewards of our finances.

    My whole life, Republicans have blamed "the Left" (that mythical unicorn esque thing) for cultural rot and irresponsible spending. What gall they have! The GOP has been the dominant party, increasingly so as the 80's, 90's, and 2000's went on (what, ya think the Democrats were responsible for our prison population rising like 9,000% since the mid-80's? Put the crack pipe down, bub).

    Clinton sure as hell didn’t go on the Reagan flavored spend tons but don’t tax enough to account for said spending rampage that every Republican president has perpetrated since 1981.

    Which party controlled Congress through Reagan’s term?  What branch of government writes the budget?

    You are NOT THINKING!

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Reagan, Bush 2, and Trump all began their presidencies with "tax reform" that was largely regressive, and certainly irresponsible in light of our spending habits. The Cato institute et al is always pushing for cuts to the income tax, for eliminating the tax on capital gains, and so forth. They also complain that cuts to government spending our seldom made at the federal level. But given that the FedGov has gotten continuously bigger, in every first world nation, since the industrial revolution, perhaps it's time for conservatives to stop irresponsibly gutting income taxes of high earners.

    Also, the Pentagon since the 80's has always been the dominant player in the GOP, which is why military spending is never going to be reduced by the modern GOP even though many conservative think tanks understand that military spending is bankrupting us.

    Fun fact: Reagan cabinet member David Stockman has admitted that Carter and Clinton were much more fiscally responsible presidents than any of the post-Reagan Republican presidents, and this is the case primarily because military spending was kept under control by them. Are you going to suggest that even a Reagan cabinet member is succumbing to blind partisan hatred of Republicans?
  190. @dfordoom

    $12K will not be enough.
     
    $12K is just silly. You'd have to make it a realistic amount.

    I would get it by redirecting all welfare spending and health care spending. I would eliminate some bureaucracies like HUD. How much is the annual budget for HUD? I think that I would have money left over.
     
    The sensible thing would obviously be to have UBI as a replacement for current welfare spending.

    If there's a problem funding it you could always cut the absurdly bloated military budget. Maybe not fight so many dumb wars.

    The sensible thing would obviously be to have UBI as a replacement for current welfare spending.

    Yes, but like immigration reform, it is impossible to get the two sides together. Most on the right are opposed to welfare on principle (benefit of the doubt for some), while the left wants to use it as a means to enhance their political power (same for them, no doubt some truly “care”). I don’t really like the idea of a completely unrestricted UBI. I would take back a lot of it for health insurance, retirement funding and disability and long-term care insurance.

    If there’s a problem funding it you could always cut the absurdly bloated military budget.

    Disagree

    Maybe not fight so many dumb wars.

    Agree

  191. @Mr. Rational

    Clinton sure as hell didn’t go on the Reagan flavored spend tons but don’t tax enough to account for said spending rampage that every Republican president has perpetrated since 1981.
     
    Which party controlled Congress through Reagan's term?  What branch of government writes the budget?

    You are NOT THINKING!

    Reagan, Bush 2, and Trump all began their presidencies with “tax reform” that was largely regressive, and certainly irresponsible in light of our spending habits. The Cato institute et al is always pushing for cuts to the income tax, for eliminating the tax on capital gains, and so forth. They also complain that cuts to government spending our seldom made at the federal level. But given that the FedGov has gotten continuously bigger, in every first world nation, since the industrial revolution, perhaps it’s time for conservatives to stop irresponsibly gutting income taxes of high earners.

    Also, the Pentagon since the 80’s has always been the dominant player in the GOP, which is why military spending is never going to be reduced by the modern GOP even though many conservative think tanks understand that military spending is bankrupting us.

    Fun fact: Reagan cabinet member David Stockman has admitted that Carter and Clinton were much more fiscally responsible presidents than any of the post-Reagan Republican presidents, and this is the case primarily because military spending was kept under control by them. Are you going to suggest that even a Reagan cabinet member is succumbing to blind partisan hatred of Republicans?

  192. @dfordoom

    When Omar attack’s the Israel lobby, she’s doing more to help America than 95% of American “conservatives” ever did since the Reagan era.
     
    Yes, that's probably true.

    What's happening in the Democratic Party is incredibly interesting. You've got the Old Guard, fossils like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Ageing white liberals with a sprinkling of ageing liberal Jews. There are two things that matter to them - keeping the owners of the party (the donors) happy, and Israel. But mostly Israel. Anything else can be sacrificed, but not Israel.

    But the Old Guard is mostly, well, old. The future of the Democrats is the Coalition of the Fringes that Steve Sailer talks about - blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, South Asians (basically dot Indians), East Asians, hardline feminazis and the LGBT mob. And they don't care very much about Israel.

    So Israel is the issue that is going to cause a huge split in the party, and it's going to cause a split between the owners of the party and the New Guard.

    The hysteria and the hatred directed against people like Ilhan Omar is entirely about Israel.

    The local MSM rag tries to make Omar look like a lunatic for going off the Reaganite reservation. Kinda like how the establishment GOP howled in outrage when Trump said that Bush’s foreign policy was an embarrassing disaster (which about 83% of the American public, and 99% of the rest of the world, agreed with).

    We’re aren’t supposed to re-write the Reaganite script.

    Non-whites can’t be guilt-tripped by the Holocaust. American blacks are almost borderline Islamic in their distaste for Jews, who historically have often been the venal slum lords who take advantage of poor (frequently black) Americans. Nor is it a secret that many black entertainers frequently got taken advantage of by lawyers, agents, and producers in the Jewish dominated entertainment industry.

    What’s happening in the Democratic Party is incredibly interesting. You’ve got the Old Guard, fossils like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

    What’s interesting is if younger “radicals” can somehow persuade aging Dem voters that “Centrism” (me-too Reaganism) is a dying credo. Me-thinks that beating Trump with an electable neo-lib conformist is still going to over-rule everything else. Ironically, however, the attempt by all Dem candidates to appeal to Woke Twitter is going to back-fire in the general election; nominally “centrist” candidates (and I would include Kamala in this class; she is a Reaganite prosecutor, not a rabble rousing populist) are going to fall off the tricky tightrope that is connected to Wokeness on one end (during the primary) and to electable “centrism” on the other (during the general).

    If the Dem nominee makes a lot of asinine statements about ID politics during the primary, I could easily see the vast majority of less educated whites (and whites who just plain live in less fashionable areas) deserting the Dems in droves, as Wokeness is going to give the GOP tons of ammo. Some of the whites who stayed home, or voted for Johnson/McMullin, are probably going to be motivated to vote for Trump as a take-that at Woke Leftism. It’s worth keeping in mind that what Hilary did in ’16, from a Wokeness standpoint, pales in comparison to what we’ve already seen in the Dem debates. A lot of the anti-Trumpers really did believe that Hilary was the sensible one by comparison; they’re not going to be thinking that come 2020.

  193. @dfordoom

    Because overt racism can tend towards truth (high Ashkenazi IQ and Nobel prizes) or away from truth (white man’s greed runs a world in need).
     
    There's always the minor detail that overt racism gives the PTB a perfect excuse to crush any and all dissident movements. It's not that SJWs will think you're a Nazi. Normies will think you're a Nazi. You end up marginalising yourself even further. It's simply political suicide. Anyone unable to see that has to be living in a fantasy world.

    I always tend to think that appealing to stability and pragmatism is more important than getting wrapped up in morals or playing “good guys and bad guys”. Isolationism, protectionism, and low immigration levels are all associated with political and social tranquility; war, free-trade, and high immigration levels are all associated with dystopian chaos. Furthermore, labels about “left” or “right”, or “fascist/socialist”, don’t accurately capture the spectrum of views that any particular party, country, or person, or era, has; “free-trade” was historically opposed by both American liberals and conservatives to some degree before the 1980’s, and then the GOP went all-in on free-trade after 1980, with the Dems joining them in the 90’s. And now the Dem rank and file is more pro-free trade than the average Republican or moderate is. So what’s promoted by either side can change a lot over time, so “liberal” and “conservative” are just not very useful words, particularly in a historical context (e.g., Hitler’s conservatism was basically statist, leading to the refrain among Western libertarians that Hitler “was a Leftist”….Yes, I am serious, that’s been a talking point since the 70’s among many Western pro-capitalist people).

  194. @Mr. Rational
    Overt racism only recognizes the contribution of race toward differences.

    Something I had not seen until recently is the claim that all of Einstein's "discoveries", including "e = mc²", were plagiarized from others.  I have not had time to dig into this.  But should it turn out to be supported, would I be wrong to conclude that (((the tribe))) steals credit for everything it claims and contributes nothing of worth?

    I think Ron Unz has a pretty neat operation here, so yes, I’d say you’d be wrong.

  195. Anon[762] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz ply his trade. He singlehandedly ties up hundreds if not thousands of WNs at once. His strategy is particularly elegant when one observes the chess pieces that Ron advances in the correct sequence.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to bad at making money, so that they write for very little payment.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion, and then someone like Philip Giraldi to make anti-Semites feel at ease about saying anything.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew. Remember, he got handed an unprestigious assignment from Jewish central command. Harvey Weinstein got to have sex with the prettiest actresses for 30 years, George Soros gets to be a billionaire, etc. But someone has to do the less glamorous work, and Runzie Baby is equal to the task.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated on TUR, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally, even as any and all anti-Israel content is fully welcome.

    Why?

    It is because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess from the perception of a 70-IQ WN. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron’s plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring out that they are the frog and the temperature is already up to about 160 degrees F.

    I am strongly in favor of what Ron Unz is doing. His recent ‘An Open Letter….’ article was a trial balloon through which he tested the speed at which the temperature can be increased under the immerse-in-water frog. I look forward to seeing him go for the kill (i.e. 212 degrees F) by around 2023 or so.

    Thanks,
    -Ira Rabinowitz

    Your paranoia is that of a jobless drug user, and your theory has obvious flaws in multiple places and a major less-obvious flaw that will always escape all slopes such as yourself.

    Meanwhile, every NAM, including you and your group, still depends on White Nationalists for survival (White Nationalists being the establishment as well as greater society – notice how NAMs are still largely segregated from us except in the largest of metros, to start giving you the first inkling of a clue).

    Your projection in regard to IQ is ironic and painful to watch. You sat in your hovel and crafted a grand theory of an Unzian Jewish spider web meant to ensnare White Nationalists toward their disadvantage if not worse. How long did that take you at which to arrive? If it was more than a day, then you are behind anyone with an IQ above a warm simmer. Everyone else worked through the scenario that you describe, discarding it for its obvious flaws, while you sat and patted yourself on the back for it like the simian that you are. That’s pathetic.

    Have you read the Bible Thomm? How about Jewish apocrypha? Do you understand it? Of course not, on both counts.

    Every day that you live you spend breathing in the spider’s air, wearing his clothes, thinking his thoughts, and using his language as he watches you not even aware of the web that attaches to every particle of your skin. Every moment of your existence is defined by the spider. Which is all contextualized by his civilization defining texts that you misunderstand if not outright ignore.

    When what passes for your “people” finally emerge again in the next age, they will be cave dwellers looking to attack and rape civilized human women. That is how your people began in this age, and that is how they will begin and continue in the next.

    We aren’t worried about Unz. What the Jews do, whether acting as friend or foe, is part and parcel for their role to bring about what is coming.

    You are the prey, Thomm. As you have always been throughout history. On the very low chance that you are actually White and will remain a true self-hater to the end, you and your progeny will not have a future anymore than similar Jews do. Per the texts of Israel.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS