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
Whites in Iowa and New Hampshire Hold Back Racial Progress
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Almost as outrageous as the gross overrepresentation of white men in leadership positions in the Democrat party is the enormous home field advantage white society privileges itself with in the presidential nominating process.

The US is 60.7% white. But Iowa is 85.7% white and New Hampshire a staggering 90.5% white. We have to go all the way back to Bill Clinton in 1992 to find a Democrat nominee who did not win either Iowa or New Hampshire. And that was before the internet, let alone social media. We may as well be talking about the first continental congress. In the new media age it is for all intents and purposes impossible to get the nomination without winning at least one of the two opening contests.

The primary calendar is backwards-looking. The time for a calendar that gives a voice to America’s future instead of clinging desperately to its troubled past is NOW!

It is time for California, the country’s most populous and progressive state, to take its rightful place at the front of the line. As hard as it is to believe, in 2016, in a competitive primary campaign, the nomination was a foregone conclusion before Californians even went to the polls.

The golden state gave the Democrat candidate 13.3% of her votes nationwide yet had no say in who that candidate was. None. More than 1-in-8 Democrat voters–and disproportionately people of color–were effectively disenfranchised by the country’s putatively progressive party.

The tired past pointing towards the vibrant future
The tired past pointing towards the vibrant future

The definitive lily-white states of Iowa and New Hampshire, in contrast? Combined they gave her a mere 1.5%. How is this even possible in [insert current year]?!

Some pale person like Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden is going to try and use those white states to box out candidates of the future. We can’t let this failed strategy fail again. People of color are the future not just of the Democrat party but of the entire country. Obama won easily in 2008 and 2012. Regressing back to a familiar but tired white face at the top of the ticket was what allowed the horror that is the Drumpf presidency to exist at all.

[/s]

This is a point we should put pressure on relentlessly. Ask Democrat politicians (and aspiring politicians) who are white–especially men–why they think they have a right to take a seat away from a POC. Do it at the local level, in news article comments, on call-in shows, at debates, at townhalls, and with white progressives in your social circles.

The tears in the coalition of the fringes are becoming more numerous and more substantive. Grab a piece of it and pull, hard.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 47 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. "This is a point we should put pressure on relentlessly. Ask Democrat politicians (and aspiring politicians) who are white–especially men–why they think they have a right to take a seat away from a POC. Do it at the local level, in news article comments, on call-in shows, at debates, at townhalls, and with white progressives in your social circles."

    And the statement, "I am the most qualified person for the job" is NOT OK. In fact, it's a microaggression, because it implies that all whites are more talented than non-whites.

    If a tech company were 55% white, 40% Asian, and 5% black and Hispanic, it would be problematic if the CEO said the company was what it was because he only hired the best people he could.

    Arguments for meritocracy is white supremacy. We need to stamp it out. White Democrats need to admit that they're the beneficiaries of white privilege. It's time for white Democrats to answer for their white privilege.

  2. Fun fact: According to a recent SSailer post, over 70% of pres. voters in 2016 were…..White!

    It can't be over-emphasized that politicians by and large (with some exceptions like Kobach and Dennis Kucinich) cater to the upper middle class and the rich. Appealing greatly to the working class/underclass is only permitted in so far as nervous elites began to realize that they have to make concessions lest their arrogance sparks a peasant revolt.

    But it's also true that America's upper class has been greying a lot over the last 20-30 years. Most people born after the early 70's haven't come anywhere close to the American dream. As such, more and more candidates are going to realize that it's ok to appeal more to proles since after all, that's what most Gen X-ers and virtually all Millennials are.

    The ideological tint of our leaders and our culture must change…..Because the Me Generation fueled the (mostly negative) trends of the last 40-50 years, but they can't control things forever. As much dread as people have towards Millennials for reasons I can't really understand (the most common criticism being that Millennials are too soft and lazy to succeed in the environment created by "older generations", oddly there's little recognition of the fact that Boomer and Gen X culture/norms are a break from what we saw with GIs and Silents), the reality is that Millennials are inheriting a system they didn't build or ask for, and certainly a system that has increasingly failed the working class of at least three generations (Boomers, X-ers, Millennials). Why defend this system? Anyone who defends the norms of the 1980's-2000's is a doofus and neo-liberal cuck, who needs to be called out as a charlatan and a corporate quisling.

  3. This is contingent on having normie Democrat friends that can still talk politics. And keeping a straight face. With those conditions met, this strategy seems immensely promising.

    My last conversation with a f*ing white male Democrat "friend" ended with him trying to leave me on the shoulder of the highway, miles from the nearest exit ramp.

    But smoke 'em if you got 'em.

  4. Of course, the shitlib response is that it’s terrible – that New Hampshire and Iowa are allowed to even be majority White in The Current Year.

  5. Sid,

    Exactly! It is inexcusable for the supremacist perpetuation of white privilege to be hidden behind thinly-veiled words like "merit", "talent", "ability", and the like. #ObjectivityIsRacist

    Feryl,

    Indeed, electoral participation numbers trail population figures by about a decade. The lag may get even longer in the coming years since Hispanics and Asians (i.e. most of our invaders) are less likely to vote than blacks are, significantly so. I want to rectify that as much as the SJW-left does. The moderate-white-guy strategy that Ds have effectively employed over the last couple of years is, long term, the worst thing for us because it allows the heat to keep turning up slowly.

    Joe,

    Never put your fate into the hands of soi boy. You know better than that!

    Stodgy White Guy,

    Stodgy states full of stodgy white guys. What have stodgy white guys ever done for anyone, anyway?!

  6. "This is contingent on having normie Democrat friends that can still talk politics. And keeping a straight face. With those conditions met, this strategy seems immensely promising."

    A Reuters study done around Jan. 2017 showed that 22% of Hillary voters had stopped talking to a friend or family member because of politics. Fewer Trump voters said the same. The biggest kind of projection is the whole victim angle played by liberals. Since mid-late 2016 Trump supporters are not allowed to express more conservative viewpoints in general conversation that doesn't take place in private with other Trump supporters. I think Breitbart or such has kept a list of violence against conservatives, and there's some real doozies in there. Like people having conversations within earshot of an SJW maniac or black person, who swarm when they hear anything about Trump.

    It's not much of a stretch to say that the MSM, the polite society gate keepers, the PC crowd, corporate culture, etc. has in fact created an atmosphere of terror and repression against conservative populists.

    WRT overall zeal, the hyphenated Puerto Rican chick refused to appear with Ben Shapiro even after he promised to donate money to her. You literally can't buy closer proximity to many Leftists at this point. There maybe a cog. dis. thing going on here. Because so many of them think of conservatism as this dying thing that is propped up by some sinister agenda, they'd just as soon as not deal with anyone who's not on their wavelength. Encountering too much that defies your beliefs, your reality, is too much to bear.

    Then of course there's the monstrous cog. dis. derived from Hilary vis a vis Trump. Every single negative thing about Hilary is placed onto Trump, because the reality of Trump's relative virtue creates massive levels of cog. dis. in liberal sycophants. The fact of Trump's actual drawbacks of which there are many ought to be good enough ammo, yet Hilary's rankness imposes intolerable cog. dis. that has to be relieved by displacing the bad juju onto Trump.

    I would argue that Hilary's artificial elevation is actually more embarrassing and offensive than the demonizing of Trump. Since after all nobody is perfect, it's easier to logically buy into the idea that someone is all bad as opposed to all good.

  7. AE,

    In terms of the liberal religion, we can't be bothered to exist in any form excepting perhaps an unobtrusive Amish minority. There's a solid one-third of us that will vote for dissolution even under the best circumstances for the Right (South Africa 1977, Hungary 2010, 2018), it would probably take Mad Max levels of violence to cause liberals to abandon multikult.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landtagswahl_in_Bayern_2018

    Take a look at the polls, when the CSU started going against Merkelsboner they actually dropped in the polls and the pro-invasion Greens increased. Merkel was the pioneer of the "full cuck" strategy of abandoning your base and pandering hard for the left-of-center vote, but people will only want the light beer for so long before demanding the real thing.

    Rather than offering up financial capital to assuage guilt (which to be fair we've done a lot of), we've been offering up social capital and land area in an effort to make the liberal system work. White liberals aren't really absent from identity politics, they have an identity and it is being a liberal. They think we are the race traitors.

  8. "Indeed, electoral participation numbers trail population figures by about a decade. The lag may get even longer in the coming years since Hispanics and Asians (i.e. most of our invaders) are less likely to vote than blacks are, significantly so. I want to rectify that as much as the SJW-left does. The moderate-white-guy strategy that Ds have effectively employed over the last couple of years is, long term, the worst thing for us because it allows the heat to keep turning up slowly."

    And this should terrify deracinated conservatives. Blacks have an American identity, but one that is clearly at odds with mainstream American tradition. Asians and Hispanics have a hyphenated ID at best, with many of them at heart being more rooted in Asia and Latin America then they are with America.

    As Europe has found out the hard way, MENAs might be the biggest pain in the ass of all, because they have the swaggering hostility towards outgroups that you see with Sub-Saharan blacks, but also are much more disciplined and motivated to impose their vision on others.

    As you mighta heard, recently tons of spooks (the intel kind) have been running for the Dems. As you can imagine, they are largely white (both the military and the verbal professions are obviously dominated by whites). Agnostic says that verbal professions, including Intelligence and Espionage, tend to be very Left-leaning. With Trump's hostility toward the Deep State, and the GOP not doing much to jettison Trump (due to Trump's popularity), it's spurred the spooks to reveal their true colors by becoming Dem candidates (this wasn't really necessary under the reign of say, Reagan or Bush, in addition the Deep State had a "Fight club" style policy of secrecy in the 1950's-2000's; it was this sort of underground cult thing that generally wasn't acknowledged by official organs). Of the many surreal developments, seeing MSNBC become an open front for the military-intelligence complex has to be up high on the list.

    WRT social disharmony, just look at the "boots on the ground" of the military (and those who command them), who tend to very conservative, then compare that to the liberal people who do the charming and the snooping ostensibly on behalf of the military (intel-espionage). Of course the latter group is much more female and homosexual than the former. GHW Bush, who helped invent the CIA, was often considered a "light weight" whose Desert Storm era posturing was rather goofy. And Bush senior was always a wimpy centrist/moderate Republican. That isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, but point being is that Bush is indicative of the type of person who's drawn to Intel-Espionage.

    This has the makings of two groups splintering apart and then clashing against each other. I think that the lion's share of the "real" military still has the GOP's back, while the Intel "community" is distressed by their inability to force Trump out. Eventually we could see a massive purge/overhall of one sector or the other based on frustration at each side's inability to see eye to eye and peacefully rein the other side in.

  9. WRT Law enforcement, there's definitely variation based on niche. As usual, the "boots on the ground" are strictly no-nonsense and tend to be culturally wholesome or perhaps boisterous good 'ole boys. But the further up the status ladder you go, the more effete and SWPLy the personnel gets.

    The FBI has recently exposed itself as being under the influence of anti-Trumpers and SWPLs. Robert Mueller masquerades as a Republican, when in reality he's been involved in numerous dubious cases against conservatives and those disliked by Left elites (TX congressman Louie Gohmert made public his report on Mueller's history of lapses).

    I mean, Mueller was given the green light by Obama to serve the longest term as the FBI director since Hoover!

    Found this at Wikipedia, about FBI director William Sessions:
    "Sessions enjoyed his strongest support among liberal Democrats in Congress.[4][3] Sessions was applauded for pursuing a policy of broadening the FBI to include more women and minorities, efforts which upset the "old boys" at the Bureau.[3]"

    The FBI directorship appears to have been tilting more and more liberal, since the time of Sessions. Louis Freeh in the 1990's oversaw such fiascoes as Ruby Ridge and Waco (during the neo-liberal era of the 1980's-present, elites have been almost 100% laser focused on the "threat" of gun owners and paleo-cons in terms of political violence, at least when they aren't being swamped by the task of dealing with the real terrorists; ya know, Muslims). Comey speaks for itself, of course. Note that when I say "liberal", I'm talking about cultural issues, since obviously 1980-present has been glorious for economic conservatives.

    Looking at the backgrounds of FBI directors, none of them worked as detectives, let alone as street cops. Although some did have brief military service, but it's not always clear what type. Point being is these guys never actually had to really do any face to face police work. Ergo, these guys are likely to be "smooth" talkers, lawyer types, not ass kickers who have no time for bullshit. It follows then that these guys are apt to not be playing on our team. They want a world safe for latte sipping liberals, not a world that wants maximum accountability on traitors, perverts, and decadent elites.

  10. NGramming "gun owner", "gun ownership", "gun lobby", "gun rights" generally shows that it was in the 1990's in particular that a large elite movement to oppose guns was well underway. Which fits right in with the 90's being pro-gay, pro-abortion, etc. While conservatives weren't on board at first, on an elite level there was a huge shift towards modern liberal orthodoxy by 1993. 25 years later, conservatives have totally caved on buggery and affirmative action, but have remained steadfast on abortion and guns. Interestingly, modern conservatives show no guts at remaining opposed to a particular group of people whose identity can't be changed (don't want to be accused of intolerance), but on the other hand are willing to be against a group of people defined by their behavior (criminals, abortion seeking women, forth, people on weflare etc.).

    Conservatives in the neo-liberal era don't believe in judging people based on that which they can't change (nationality, race, sexual identity). But that's a massive transgression against the "bigotry" which even some liberals tolerated in the pre-neo liberal era (Cesar Chavez talking shit about illegal Mexicans and such). FDR for that matter did not think it was the goverment's (or anyone else's) business to tell people how to think about other races. By the 90's women were wearing pants to congress and Senate sessions; what "conservative" tells someone to dress a certain way based on gender? Films in the 1980's sometimes had scenes that used the obviously hetero-normative taunt of "you like girls, don't you?" said to male characters, which was a common norm-enforcement tactic used by young Gen X-ers.

    But since the late 90's "conservatives" have become pathetic cucks in their unwillingness to to be un-PC.

  11. Feryl,

    Unless Mueller's war record was faked, he was a bone fide hero in Vietnam. And as a son of the elite, he did his part for the Empire when many of his peers didn't. I've known no shortage of people that claim to have not voted GOP since 2000 due to the chickenhawk nature of prominent GOP pols (Bush, Romney, Ryan, Trump). The fact that neither of Trump's nor Romney's sons served a tour as an officer is emblematic of the failure of our elites.

    Look at the Kushner family, Jared was exactly of age to have been commissioned right after 9/11, but instead he was larping at his legacy/Jewish spot in Harvard. I've never seen any mention that the elder generation of Kushners did even a perfunctory stint in the military, and if they had we'd have never heard the end of it.

    The current FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich was a street cop. The wiki list of Deputy Directors is Irish/Italian with few exceptions. I actually recall Comey castigating his own agency because the percentage of white Special Agents went from 83% to 84%, arguably the most personally offensive thing I've heard a politician say since Nelson Mandela's Havana speech.

  12. Feryl,

    Having social conservative views, and race realist views as a white person, will get you unpersoned within elite culture. Peter Theil's college friends at Stanford were all realtakers, but everyone of them has disavowed what they said back then. That's an unseen cost of the 1990 Immigration Act, a much whiter tech industry would have indulged the Stanford Review views of its leaders, leading to a very different political climate. Instead those views were thrown overboard as the (low) cost of maintaining labor peace.

    Dissenting from liberal views on social matter is taken personally by liberals, and only the deranged typically enjoy causing this distress to people "that just want to be left alone". I myself disengaged from political campaigning because of this.

  13. O/T

    Getting Alex Jones/PrisonPaul outright banned from twitter, and his hosting pulled would be a tremendous gain for the Right. The backlash against Silicon Valley would be massive, and conservatives would be unironically calling for nationalization. It would be even better if Cernovich and Posobiec were banned. Given the banning of Milo, Jared Taylor and Gavin "Peg" McInnes, there isn't any consistency as to why the entire Dissident Right shouldn't be banned other than fear of a GOP Congress. Convincing the left to jump the gun here would be a great "false flag".

  14. "Having social conservative views, and race realist views as a white person, will get you unpersoned within elite culture."

    On race and gender, that wasn't the case before the 1980's (e.g., pre-Boomer). On buggery, that wasn't the case before 1993 (tolerance of buggery went up at the exact same rate that the crime rate went down).

    It's actually conservatives who spearheaded racial PC in the 80's, mostly for three reasons:

    1)They were tired of liberals calling them racists
    2)They figured that all races can be consumers, so we mustn't tolerate hate speech toward current and future consumers of any race. "Racist" speech (including statements never intended to be publicized or widely heard) was heavily punished by corporate America in the late 70's and esp. early 80's before campuses did so in the late 80's. One of the early notable incidents was an L.A. Dodgers official being forced out of his job in the 80's after he was heard mocking Asians in a bar or restaurant.
    3) The death of tribalism, which was actually more embraced by the Right than the Left. "Focus on the family", right? We could be hear all day talking about the non-stop cucking by the Right that accelerated in the 80's. It's all about ideology and each person's take on things, not about ancestry, right? Asians fleeing communism ought to be more worthy of our respect than lazy ass complaining Americans, right?

    WRT speech codes, they are reflective of each era. In the 1940's and 50's, you didn't speak highly of communism or fascism. Nor did you emphasize your non-Mayflower roots. In the 1960's and 70's, pretty much anything went, peaking around 1972 (when if you so wished you could do or say just about anything with relatively little fear of judgement). Fears of satanism and pedophilia spread throughout America in the late 70's, first biting the Xtian true believers and by the mid-80's being commonplace in middle class suburbs. Conduct considered detrimental to children became heavily taboo in the 80's, but more disturbingly anything seen as threatening to the nascent neo-liberal order also became taboo. And all forms of tribalism (including the racial kind) became so toxic that one was supposed to repress any unkind speech or even thoughts about an out-group. Simultaneously, in-group competition ramped up; people after 1984 became acutely aware of status differences while also going out of their way to not notice national and racial differences. Keep in mind that as late as 1978 the National Lampoon could literally dedicate an issue to national stereotypes.

  15. The intensely moralistic campaigns waged by Boomers in the 80's and subsequent decades have been terribly destructive. We shouldn't treat something like race in moralistic terms. We ought to have a nuanced understanding of tribalism and tribal conflict. Deeming something, anything, to be inherently beneath moral goodness and a sin beyond redemption can be a dubious prospect, esp. when applied to something like race and tribalism. Applying the "evil" label to the reality of racial and national differences leads to naive and often counter-productive efforts to stamp not only such things out, but make taboo their very discussion. One of the reasons people are fond of the 60's and 70's is because you could make a story, talk about an issues etc. without it degenerating into moral preening and really, the whole moralistic she-bang. Things started to get rotten in the 80's because Boomers were practically incapable of discussing an issue without getting on a soap box and lecturing everyone about how something was so abhorrent that is must be stamped out! Without caution! Without "undue" nuance or analysis!

    How the hell are we supposed to accomplish anything, or have a decent discussion and debate, with this self-righteous and childish crap? The Boomers set the parameters of debate in the 80's, and we've not escaped it since. Perhaps things are a bit less annoying than they used to be, given that holier than thou wind bags are not as common in younger generations (and the exceptions seem to be obnoxious status whores). When we can recalibrate society to be more about progress and less about preaching, more about community and less about money and narcissism, things will get better.

  16. N-gram says that "racist" rose sharply in the 60's and early 70's, then dipped from about 1974-1982…But in 1984 it reached record usage and continued to shoot up, peaking in 1997. That would cover the collapse in tribalism that happened from the mid-80's-1990's. And I would bet that the term was used more objectively in the 60's and 70's; only in the 80's did people really become sanctimonious about the term. And also, cynical accusations (including of racism) became more common in the 80's and 90's as a cheap way to advance your career and ruin another person's.

    Remember, folks, doing things out of sincerity actually was the norm in the 1940's-1970's.

  17. Feryl,

    Wrt to tribalism, I've never seen any effort by the cultural elite to chastise non-whites for engaging in tribal behavior, even Mormons seem to get a pass (Prop 8 in California being a rare exception). While there is an occasional wrist slap against Louis Farrakhan or an edgier BLM supporter, black tribalism is the bread and butter of the Dems. How often does Cuck Inc. actually conduct moral shaming on a non-white for being anti-white. Some called for Sarah Jeong to be fired, but no one seemed to suggest that she was a "bad person" that needs to "feel bad" and shouldn't be allowed to work until she atones.

    Corporations fear anti-discrimination lawsuits and boycotts, entering into written/unwritten "consent decrees" for affirmative action/speech codes is an easy way of getting the monkey off their back. Allowing open realtalk would require an act of Congress explicitly condoning it. And that's unlikely as the multikult system requires a police state to prevent its unraveling.

    I don't know about this "recalibrating society". I don't feel much in common that oppose me on religious, racial, cultural, regional, and economic grounds. I cannot see myself being reconciled to New Deal Mk. II, prior unity of various groups of whites was the creation of the World Wars and the coming of mass culture along with an economic boom and space exploration. Are there large numbers of people really willing to kill for Sanders and Corbyn? What great cultural achievements can be made in a society tilting towards globohomo but also towards the Muslim eclipse of Christianity in its old heartland, to say nothing of the Black African population bomb/boom. Liberalism is a weak identity, only useful in opposition to the Ancien Regime.

  18. "Dissenting from liberal views on social matter is taken personally by liberals, and only the deranged typically enjoy causing this distress to people "that just want to be left alone". I myself disengaged from political campaigning because of this."

    Being that Stalinist repression of speaking one's dissenting mind is now favored by neo-liberal elites (and those who fail to ID them as the enemy of all that is wholesome and sincere), it literally is dangerous to advertise your dissent of modern liberalism.

    Whenever someone on the Left dares to suggest moderation or compromise (like Peter Beinart did in 2017), it's either generally ignored or attacked as too favorable to the Right. Both the elite Left and the grassroots Left alike are way too busy pushing bizarro ID politics, globalism, and pogroms of conservative populists and "racists" to be able to put forth sustained effort at limiting their side's excesses.

  19. ICYMI: Colyer concedes, endorses Kobach.

  20. "Corporations fear anti-discrimination lawsuits and boycotts, entering into written/unwritten "consent decrees" for affirmative action/speech codes is an easy way of getting the monkey off their back. Allowing open realtalk would require an act of Congress explicitly condoning it. And that's unlikely as the multikult system requires a police state to prevent its unraveling."

    That's the cop out, though. And it doesn't add up, because……Corporations can literally do anything, besides create and market snuff films or pedo porn. In the neo-liberal era, money means more than it did in other eras. Money is everything. It's power, influence, credibility (you gonna trust the welfare bums out there?). What do big companies have? Money. The supreme court in the neo-liberal era ruled that unlimited spending on political donations is free speech.

    When the courts made rulings that enshrined and codified such things as affirmative action and so forth, the "conservatives" of the era sighed but rarely fought back. Why? Being PC became a means to make more money. Companies use their vast resources to defeat that which is seen as an impediment to money making. Obviously, if AA and such was that onerous and debilitating, these companies would've fought tooth and nail against it. But they didn't. In cases like Bakke V California (1978), it was up to individuals to fight the fight.

    BTW, another cop out is that the "public" will bitch too much to make it worth the trouble to be un-PC. But then, perhaps the very reason that "outrage" became a tactic is because institutions (such as big companies) buckled easily under pressure? A huge reason for the late 80's surge in PC is because companies (and universities, and government agencies, etc.) buckled on one thing after another in the 70's and early 80's. By the late 80's, it had become a sport, if you will, to accuse others of racism. These cynical and bullying assholes were only encouraged by the lack of resistance they encountered.

    And there will always be speech taboos; it's just a question of their quality and their quantity. And the way they're enforced. No workplace will ever allow everything to be possible (nor should they). In the 1950's, it wasn't a good idea to publicly declare your homosexuality. Granted, it was understood that certain people were gay (and they were called fairies and queers), but don't go blurt out that you like sodomy. The late 60's and early 70's was when speech taboos were at their low point of enforcement (for better or for worse), but the level of social drama at that time became too much and by the time Rocky won best picture in 1976, society was building taboos back up, which only got stronger as time went by.

  21. Feryl,

    The ANC made it 25 years before going on the land expropriation binge, and I doubt even the grabbing of every farm (and the murder of several hundred farmers) in the country by an EFF mob would truly collapse the country. Some form of IMF/World Bank/PRC/MegaCorpSocJus would be brought in to prevent a second Weimar, in the same way that was done to Greece.

    How does the generational dynamics work here wrt a potential leftist president in 2020 that grants an amnesty that results in a permanent Dem majority? Is the can kicked far enough to avoid a disaster not caused by an exogenous factor (global warming)?

  22. Feryl,

    The insidiousness of AA is that the courts forced it to be informal and unwritten. It creates no known victims, while its beneficiaries will think they got it on merit (and get very angry when a white male says they got it because of AA). While AA loses almost every time when it goes on the ballot, there is an elite consensus behind it as the GOP has never used its power in Congress to abolish. By contrast the Pentagon resisted AA until the Obama-era secretaries started demanding more female generals. As every general is a political appointee, this tendency will remain in the system barring Trump purging the officer corps.

    It remains to be seen if an "alt-economy" can be created that is exclusively patronized by the Right. Should it be possible it would be a major indicator that we could achieve national self-determination. It says much about the wuss that is the average conservative voter that the NFL is still around (could sportsball survive with non-whites alone?). If sportsballers were making anti-abortion protests there would be PR keelhauling (riots?), and as a side benefit big city liberal mayors would get an excuse to stop subsidizing stadiums. But no, Boomerbros will probably be right back in the seats this fall.

  23. In a recent MN Dem primary:

    "The candidates generally support Medicare for all, stronger gun control and the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE)."

    WTF!

    Someone might want to tell Agnostic that liberals as of now have no interest in taking their heads out of their ass when it comes to ID politics and radical changes that no traditionalist would approve of. In other words, we're not getting a new New Deal anytime soon. The phrase itself ("deal") implies negotiations and mutual acceptance of responsibilities. You can't reason with, much less negotiate, people who wish to symbolically destroy the very thing that defines a nation (border control). Paging Heartiste, this gloop about "helping" everyone by turning away no one is as childishly feminine as it gets. A pox on Boomer women and those who enabled them to corrupt our culture and destroy our logical reasoning (folks, open borders means no effective economic security for most people).

    It is going to take either an economic melt-down, or major (and perhaps civil) war to clean this mess up.

  24. Also, let's be real:

    For 90% of liberals (certainly the younger and non-white ones), attacking ICE is certainly intended to be a symbolic attack on trad. Americans and white proles. They know their stance is disgusting to their enemies, and that's exactly the point of it: to enrage and inflame trad. white people.

    This isn't the 1960's, where even the most stupid ideas were intended to benefit everyone in the long run. No, we're in a civil war era now where no respect, no good faith, no quarter is given to one's enemies. And given that the Left keeps taking olive branches and throwing them in a bon fire that's gotten bigger and bigger for 50 years, I'd say that it really is the Left that has a lot of 'splaining to do. The Right hates itself for not doing more and doing better, the Left hates that anyone questions anything they do.

    The Right needs to stop lowering taxes on the wealthy, but then again, the Left also needs to stop with this horseshit that Western whites are so loathsome that they don't even deserve their own countries anymore.

  25. "This is a point we should put pressure on relentlessly. Ask Democrat politicians (and aspiring politicians) who are white–especially men–why they think they have a right to take a seat away from a POC. Do it at the local level, in news article comments, on call-in shows, at debates, at townhalls, and with white progressives in your social circles."

    Forget about putting whites on the back of the bus; we should encourage liberals to think that whites deserve to be on their special buses…Which have had the brake lines ripped out. As guys like Sailer and Scott Adams have indicated, out in CA it's no fun to be a traditionalist, or even a peaceful moderate, right now. But that's from relatively small scale incidents of harassment and unrest. We've yet to have anything like the '92 LA riots or the riots of the late 60's.

    As hot as racial and political tensions are right now, they could be even hotter. Charismatic genuine ethnic champions could very well spark outright ethnic warfare at any moment. The crisis era has been going on for about 10 years, and likely will last another 5-10 years. A crisis usually climaxes with some series of terrible events, with a particular side emerging victorious. That's how things will be recalibrated. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse; regardless, people will accept it. Whereas during a crisis era, change is a big topic that sparks a lot of heated debated and uncertainty.

  26. Feryl,

    The left thinks it has the wind at its back, and unless either the Asian or Hispanic blocs detribalize they probably do. They also have ample historical evidence that the nature of the Right is to accept defeat and move on. (1871 and 1979 beg to differ). While "abolish ICE" remains a minority position, "defang ICE" is about 50-50, the public wants white business owners perp walked, not benighted Central American peasants.

    The historic example of South Africa is also good news for them and bad news for us. The Right refused to participate in the negotiations for the new Constitution, fought amongst themselves, and then passively accepted defeat which was then followed by an economic boom rather than a bloodbath. The warnings about "white genocide" have been echoing for years, but have always been dismissed as lunacy (the facts are that whites are in absolute decline, which should count as ethnic cleansing). So the left has an existing state where white conservatives were stripped of power and Mad Max didn't happen (yet). They also have well produced pieces of propaganda showing what happens if the left loses (High Castle, Handmaiden's Tale).

  27. "While "abolish ICE" remains a minority position"

    Hold on. All three Dem candidates in a race against each other professing that idea would be like three GOP candidates saying flat out: "no mosque should be permitted in the US".

    That all of one side and some of the other may not like a given idea is besides the point; which is that EXTREMELY Left wing ideas are now being expressed with regularity by Dem elites (and wannabe Dem elites), while the GOP as usual is for the most part only slightly dipping their toes into truly un-PC territory (and at that, a lot of 'em are cucks who are only sounding like Trump out of desperation, and it remains to be seen whether they'll even try to make good on these ideas; on the Left with stuff like AF Fair Housing it's clear that nothing is off-limits to them in their quest to afflict comfortable (white) people.

    I'm sure that moderate and lapsed liberals (who are, I dunno, almost all older and dwindling in number) would like to tell themselves that the Dems are but a couple of election cycles away from erecting a new New Deal, without too much grief along the way, but I don't see it. Not because of racial diversity or whatever, but because the level of animosity between all kinds of parties is so great right now. We're talking about family members being estranged from each other; not because of drugs, or parenting issues, or employment issues, or whatever else it was that created drama in say, the 1980's. But rather, because of inflamed tensions over the neo-liberal West and it's future. Racial diversity shouldn't stop an ethnically similar family from getting along. But that's what's happened.

  28. "How does the generational dynamics work here wrt a potential leftist president in 2020 that grants an amnesty that results in a permanent Dem majority? Is the can kicked far enough to avoid a disaster not caused by an exogenous factor (global warming)?"

    I'm not sure what you're getting at. Global warming is an amorphous issue that doesn't have the same urgency or power as the dynamics between people in terms of economy, foreign relations, and domestic politics. America still has a livable climate, we still produce food, etc. The main environment disasters that come to mind in a crisis era are related to nukes and war in general, as well great famines often caused by population overshoot or poor environmental stewardship.

    The retarded Left focuses on GW because it's a weapon aimed at the fossil fuel companies, who are squarely Republican. The Left generally isn't allowed to talk about over-population, and resource issues in general, because to do so would be to admit that the neo-liberals have been negligent in their distribution of resources (too many have gone to third world hell holes).

  29. O/T

    Worth a chuckle, not content with Invade/Invite, National Review now wants to encourage emigration and more transnational money laundering. But then again, it does fit in with the "Belarus or Bust" blackpill.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/american-expatriates-deserve-territorial-income-tax-system/

  30. Feryl,

    I was asking whether you think a surge in immigration would be enough to cause dissolution of the country if it was to be enacted in 2021 by a Harris Administration. I was also asking about the timetable of the crisis era in generational dynamics.

    My comparison was to present day South Africa, where it has been a quarter century since the ANC assumed power, and the time period in which both land expropriation and the revival of white identity politics happened. My thinking is that a prospective Harris Administration would receive adulation similar to what Nelson Mandela received, assuming there is an economic boom and a reduction in poverty via new social programs. This would "kick the can".

    Leftist thinking is actually that not enough resources are going to the Third World, and to a point I agree with them. Neoliberal convergence theory says that capital should flow to the Third World to receive higher rates of return. The main reason it doesn't is because a lot of it ends up in tax havens because locals don't trust the local banks/government. Financial inducement is the quickest way to get repatriation, and is a visible step of "de-privileging".

  31. Feryl,

    Right, the O-Cs claim not wanting to give people like Shapiro a "platform". That's patently ridiculous since Shapiro has a much larger audience than she does, and his audience is a lot less fickle than her newly materialized audience is.

    Re: Trump, the left's caricature virtually guarantees a static approval rating for Trump (barring something truly enormous) because attacking strawman Trump will always look ridiculous to those who voted for him and perpetuating strawman Trump will keep those who voted against him from ever giving him a fair shake.

    To jump back to our look at Rome, when the legions and the praetorian clashed, the praetorians always got crushed. If the military attempted a coup, the intelligence agencies wouldn't be able to do jack shit to stop it from happening.

    A recurring theme for the Derb is his exasperated reminder that immigration is merely a policy, just like a taxation or criminal sentencing. For most people, especially those on the left, they cannot help but see it almost entirely in moralistic terms, though. Where do we go from there?

    216,

    Re: Jeong, I undoubtedly heard/read more Cuckservative, Inc 'thinkers' and LOLbertarians talk about the NYT has the right to keep her because it's a private company blah blah blah than criticize her on any deep level. "Yeah, what she said is dumb but the NYT can do what it wants." Inspiring!

    snorlax,

    And Colyer's been very gracious about it (at least in public). He and Kobach are doing a joint event tomorrow night intended to unite their supporters for the general election. It's possible Kobach is cucking, but I highly doubt it. More likely this is what the transition looks like–America First Trumpism becoming the senior partner with CoC libertarianism moving to the junior partner spot.

    Feryl,

    Idk about PC being profitable. It hasn't been for the NFL. It hasn't been for the comics book industry. And it wasn't for ABC (?) in cancelling Roseanne. These are short-term assessments, though. Maybe over the longer-term being PC will be beneficial for all of them.

    216,

    South Africa is a real black pill. When will whites fight back? Never (see South Africa). When will exclusively non-white societies that remain after whites are purged stop blaming whites for their problems? Never (see Zimbabwe).

  32. AE,

    While I recall you saying that you aren't a fan, Sun Tzu said to leave the enemy a path of escape. That's how it is for South African whites, and whites at large. As long as there is somewhere to flee to, no one is going to take the violent option without the sanction of the established leadership. Business, cultural and clerical leaders have made it clear that identity politics for YT is verboten, and don't discount the "well-meaning" liberals afraid of reinstalling the software that "caused the two World Wars and colonialism". I do think that if some elites flipped, things would be different. Imagine if Taylor Swift actually held the beliefs implied in the memes, a lot of single white women would go into the Trump column if she campaigned for him.

    Zimbabwe has moved away from ripping whites, as they are now a Chinese protectorate. Even the most deluded leftists in the West no longer believe anything that the ZANU-PF government has to say, so there is no hope of more foreign aid. Zimbabwe and South Africa also probably have the highest intensity of anti-white sentiments, rooted in having permanent white settlers. The African elite currently love the West, as they stash their wealth in swiss banks (an African is a literal CEO of a major swiss bank), but the West has moved away from state-directed investments into infrastructure. Western, particularly American, corporations hesitate to do business in Africa because bribes are not a deductible expense. China, India, Russia and even some EU countries don't have these "scruples". An anti-immigration West might move the African elite towards China, or even worse would revive Pan-Africanist anti-white sentiments among blacks worldwide.

    It's quite a surprising lesson on the travails of the Right in South Africa post 1992. When the expected bloodbath didn't happen they lost all credibility with the approximately one-third of whites that supported them. Instead their votes went to a party led by a liberal Jew who gave some ethnic nepotism to future Breitbart editor Joel Pollak. It was actually the Right that did the most to cement the creation of the Mandela myth when they assassinated Chris Hani, if only they had instead capped Joe Slovo. The economy also had 20 years of growth in the tank, thanks to the commodities boom which allowed the ANC to put millions onto "social grants". The Right there is still tone-deaf at times, using the "ANC is the real apartheid" argument. There's also an unspoken tension between the Afriforum and Suidlanders groups. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a dumb tendency of the whites to bemoan native blacks "xenophobia" rather than try and outflank the Open Border Black elite.

  33. "Right, the O-Cs claim not wanting to give people like Shapiro a "platform". That's patently ridiculous since Shapiro has a much larger audience than she does, and his audience is a lot less fickle than her newly materialized audience is. "

    It's not like Shapiro is a haranguing Boomer ideologue who wants to bully and smash up almost everyone for the sake of cheap thrills and to get an ego boost. Shapiro appeared on Bill Maher and matter of factly said that he just thought Trump was the lesser of two evils; he didn't chest thump about becoming a true believer anxious to pile up his enemy's bodies and plant his team's flag on the mass grave.

    There's an obvious generation gap at work here, with most Millennials (not including the often mentally unbalanced or very cynical attention whores and opportunists) averting stupid ideologue tendencies and not wanting to make the same mistakes that Boomers do (rushing to judgement, taking risks, hyper competitiveness, shallowness, etc.). Millennials, who have not benefited one bit from neo-liberalism, are generally skeptical of mindless partisan bickering (Millennials have the weakest affiliation with either party) which they grew up around and understand to be worthless and pointless, being that Boomer-fied politics and personalities have been largely terrible for society.

  34. "Idk about PC being profitable. It hasn't been for the NFL. It hasn't been for the comics book industry. And it wasn't for ABC (?) in cancelling Roseanne. These are short-term assessments, though. Maybe over the longer-term being PC will be beneficial for all of them."

    It's interesting that literally every outlet you mention…..Is connected! Espn/ABC/Disney/Marvel are owned by the same consortium. They can make a lot of dumb mistakes because they're a (relative) monopoly. In business terms, there are "loss leaders". These are items that vendors know will not be profitable, but the lack of profits are accepted as long as returns are made elsewhere.

    ESPN and Disney have done a lot of numbskull SJW crap recently. But the virtue signaling has come to be accepted as a "loss leader".

    It's none other than Disney who've been front and center in the copyright tomfoolery of the past 50 years. Whenever some property of theirs has been threatened to be taken away by public domain laws, they fight tooth and nail to get the law changed and be effective before they lose anything. Recently with the nascent Fox merger they now will get their hands on stuff like the Alien monster and the Predator. Yep, folks, get used to Disney (one lawsuit happy outfit) suing anyone who ever ripped off the Alien. Which has only happen in like, oh, 50% of the sci-fi cartoons, movies, and video games of the last 40 years.

    Disney is aiming to become this kind of omnipotent gatekeeper and master of all pop culture. Whose eternal grip on much iconic pop culture will enable it to remain powerful and rich for centuries to come.

    The whole point of public domain is to encourage hard work and creativity. But since the 70's more and more people have tried to coast on royalties derived from owned works, even when said works weren't their creation to begin with. For example, the MLK heirs make royalties on broadcastings of MLK's speeches! That makes a mockery of the idea that a person, should, ya know, actually work for a living. Disney's shareholders get to continuously make money off the sale, use, and revival of dozens of pre-existing ideas instead of having to put energy into new stuff.

    The MLK speech thing was jaw dropping when I learned it. Oratory and speech writing may be a skill, but it's not the sustained creative effort that a movie or book is.

  35. You guys aren't being cynical enough when you say that companies "begrudgingly" went along with PC. In fact, many of them came to believe that the key to a secure and functioning society/economy was to accept diversity and so forth as a means to not alienating any current or future customers. Money Money Money.

  36. Feryl,

    The sportsball industry has a severe "American exceptionalism" problem, the US Big 4 don't have much pull in the actual football rest of the world. The NBA, unquestionably the most Jewish of the 4, has done the most to promote foreigners into the game and in doing so attract a bigger TV audience in their home countries. Adam Silver has done basically everything possible to "get woke", aside from paying for your stadium without taxes. Say what you will about blacks, but there's no greater example of consumerism than Air Jordans.

    Disney has made untold billions from Marvel, and they will make billions more to come, a few SJW graphic novel bombs won't stop this juggernaut of poz. Even the Han Solo bomb was unprofitable only because they reshot the film adding 50 million in production costs. The next Star Wars will probably clear another 2 billion assuming it isn't total dreck.

    The tendency of capital is that growth must be endless, it is the rare kind of firm that stays within its local market. No brand wants to be associated with Boomer conservative males, especially the emerging markets where America is correctly seen as a decadent power.

  37. Feryl,

    I say "begrudgingly" because most corps still prefer to reject those with criminal records, despite this being the easiest way to get more unqualified blacks into the workforce. These are also the same employers that display a known bias that favors Asians and Hispanics as harder working than Whites and Blacks who are said to complain too much. It's also been tremendous social engineering to even get recent veterans into employment, though business has eagerly engaged in "we support da trupps" advertising.

    In terms of women, rather than race, I agree that corporations eagerly signed on, but came to regret it. Liberated women were slutty, but also produced harassment lawsuits. Women also represented a near-doubling in the labor market that immigration was not able to deliver in the same time, thus doing much to cause real terms decline in wages.

  38. AE –

    Good to hear. I think winning this way may just have been a best-case scenario/blessing-in-disguise for Kobach actually — if he'd been declared the winner on primary night he'd likely have been the primary (well, secondary) focus of the MSM's hate-campaign over the past news cycle, but this way, ironically, he flies under the radar.

  39. The national MSM that is.

  40. "I was asking whether you think a surge in immigration would be enough to cause dissolution of the country if it was to be enacted in 2021 by a Harris Administration. I was also asking about the timetable of the crisis era in generational dynamics."

    There's no way to make things worse, in terms of division in the country. WRT foreigners, we've clearly hit the tipping point at which further waves have a negligible effect on the social fabric since it's been so torn up already. Outside of most of Appalachia, much of Northern New England, and certain parts of the Rust Belt, one can easily encounter foreigners practically everywhere. Almost all moderately large to very large urban centers, including many of their suburbs, of Southern New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Midwest, the South, and The West now have populations that are at least 5-15% foreign born IMO (the official stats can't possibly account for all the border jumpers and Visa over-stayers and fraud perps).

    Generationally speaking, as the 2017 tax plan indicates the Me Gen still reveres wealth, power, and privilege. The modern Left almost completely ignores neo-liberalism and it's class disparities. Both side's older leadership are clearly comfortable with the state of affairs in which the big winners are celebrated for "hard work", and the big losers are put down as pitiful and not worthy of our attention or sympathy. Social Darwinism (including open borders) obviously has destroyed the middle class, and the older generations who benefited from the more equitable culture of the 1960's-1980's are now viciously guarding their wealth, their jobs, their assets etc.. and the predation of FIRE, which has totally gypped Millennials being that people who are now in their 20's and 30's have a vastly smaller net worth than young adults had in previous eras.

  41. Re: my earlier comment on South Africa

    https://twitter.com/mynameisjerm/status/1030091558622769153

    Tone deaf, but could be accelerationism.

  42. 216,

    He's on our side, I think. Or you mean the sentiment he is mocking?

  43. AE,

    Yes, Jerm is right-wing, the tweet is mocking the ANC, but also mocking the claims of blacks that immigrants are displacing them from employment (in the 3rd world a large portion of jobs are in the "informal economy" that isn't taxed). Irreverent humor to be sure, but rooted in the lassiez-faire insanity that created the mess in the first place.

    The tendency I described earlier is that white South Africans repeat the left-liberal tripe about (black) xenophobia, out of a sense of "triangulation". There's also a well-funded Soros think tank that counter-signals the weaksauce DA party any time they talk about deportations. Immigration is the only populist issue that the ANC/EFF could be outflanked on.

  44. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2562

    Interesting final question, perhaps an acid test for Alt/Dissident Right supporters.

    One-fifth of black respondents agree the GOP is better on the economy, but of course they will be voting tribally for the Dems. Hotep is not Black Blue Dogs. Ideally Trump shuts his mouth on the NFL, which is spiking black turnout. Idk about Omarosa, but perhaps this leads to a backlash about private wiretapping. I'd also look into whether or not she's the agent of a domestic/foreign intelligence agency.

    It's still surprising to me that blacks are more supportive of cutting taxes on the rich than cutting immigration. They really do hate us.

  45. I dunno what the hard-on for South Africa here is all about. It's one country among many. And all countries are subject to the same cyclical dynamics; it's just that the exact nature of the events and the participants vary. And consider that a erstwhile "white" (or sorta white) country outside of Europe going totally un-PC could possibly spark a major intervention by the usual (asshole) suspects of the neo-liberal West. It's interesting that countries like Austria and Denmark are basically "allowed" to assert the interests of the historical majority, with relatively little criticism by Western globalists, let alone belligerent anger as we see against Russia and the Visegrad countries deemed to be too close to Russia.

    I think that the arrogant neo-liberals basically assume that the post-WW2 alliance between Western Europe and the English speaking countries will go on indefinitely, and the Boomers in particular have a view of foreign policy straight outta the 1950's-1980's, when they came of age. Millennials have seen the fractious nature of Boomers, and the cynicism of Gen X-ers, and are well aware that at any moment what's passed for normalcy since 1946 could get tossed out. Note also that China, which the US has never had a major war with and has been largely on the US's good side since the 1970's, is typically overlooked as a threat by older generations. Whereas hating on Russia comes easy, even though objectively speaking modern Russia is not the Soviet Union in size, power, or ideology.

    Steve Bannon, who's a devotee of generational theory and cycles, probably did a great deal to influence Trump and he helped bring in others who foresaw a future of clashes within Western countries and possibly against former allies. Thus why Trump and other Trumpers consider it vital to reform our relationship with China, possibly at a great cost. Imagine the US being economically or militarily embarrassed, resulting in China being blamed (not without good reason) for hanging the US out to dry. The reverse is possible; China could become a dumpster fire, freezing over relations with America and possibly becoming a catalyst for the US and Japan uniting to contain an angered China. Alternatively, some kind of big dust up between China and Japan could really seize up America's foreign policy, as we argued about which country to support; Japan, the most Western country to never be run by white people, or China, the West's sweat shop.

    If you look at what sparks great wars, it tends to originate with resource/economic issues. Fighting over labor policy sparked the Civil War; Germany was wracked by economic problems in the early 20th century, which let Hitler make the case that Germany needed to assert it's sense of national pride by becoming more belligerent towards domestic and foreign enemies.

  46. We keep busting Chinese spies and thieves. Still, (((nobody))) want to got to war against China. Feinstein literally had a Chinese spy at her side for twenty years….and…..*crickets*. Agnostic talks about moderate neo-liberals not wanting serious economic sanctions or wars, lest investment opportunities dry up. I can see that with China; they don't want even a mild trade war with China, lest America's sweat shop no longer be available for cheap labor and manufacturing. Of course, Putin himself evicted many Western gangsters from his country, which sparked the growing enmity towards him. That combined with neo-cons wanting to revive the cold war has been a terrible thing.

    America's decadent elites tolerate Chinese deception, fraud, and abuse of America. Why? A deal with the Devil. Western elites continue to ride high (economic inequality has soared to nigh unprecedented levels in the English speaking countries), while China has seen tremendous growth for the last 40 years due to, among other things, the English speaking countries refusing to play tough WRT trade policy. China has obviously grown arrogant and entitled (whereas, say, Japan got nuked by us and therefore has obvious reasons to keep itself in line) during this boom period.

    Steve Bannon and other woke people are fearful of China continuing to make large gains at the expense of others. And I'd assume that they're considering the notion that America and it's allies get so complacent that they don't notice the rising dragon to the East, through which a momentous fire could be summoned.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS