Even in Massachusetts ...
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
MA’s persistently high opioid death rates, however, has produced a stunning shift between 2014 and 2016: black MA residents now live longer than non-Hispanic white residents, even despite higher infant mortality rates, due to lower deaths from opioid overdose. pic.twitter.com/0amjXMd4BD
— Atul Gawande (@Atul_Gawande) December 28, 2018
White Americans are behaving more and more like how American Indians have long behaved: as a defeated and despairing race.
But no casinos either …
Be nice if we could get some concessions to run our own casinos.
The American Indians had the excuse of being stricken dead in vast numbers by disease and grossly outnumbered by a vastly technologically and organizationally superior foe. What excuse do whites have?
New England and the port of New York have provided American leadership since New England led the coalition that destroyed the South and New York City controlled financing of the Gilded Age. It's no mistake that New York's nickname is still "The Empire State" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_%22Empire_State%22 ) . NYC was originally a Dutch settlement, and has managed to hold on to the Dutch Golden Age concept of trade (if it makes money, make the trade) through the American Revolution, the replacement of Dutch by Anglo Saxon, the replacement of Anglo Saxon by an establishment with a substantial Jewish component. That New York is just south of New England has been quite a boon to it, and the two have a kind of symbiosis: New England does the heavy thinking and New York City provides the muscle.
It's hard to beat a combination like that. New England staffs the large corporations and much of upper tiers of academia, New York controls (or heavily influences) financing for the corporations, to include the media.
Unfortunately, both of them are crazy as bedbugs, and have been since settlement. New England is still trying to get the rest of the nation to atone for its sins (last two times New England did this was the Civil War, 0.6 American megadeaths, Reconstruction (no death figures, but mortality for inhabitants of the South, all colors, supposedly rose during Reconstruction).
New York City has tended to favor foreign policy favored by its Jewish community since the migrations of the 1890s, but is primarily driven (like all large cities in the world) by its loss of manufacturing consequent to containerization and its reliance on finance and political power to provide income. New York City consequently favors immigration (for cheap labor and the votes to keep outside subsidies of various sorts).
Pacific Coast follows New England and NYC, which settled the Pacific Coast cities during the AD 1800s.
So: money and religion. It's a strong combination, and it's protected by distance from most of the country. Both areas have their weaknesses, however. NYC's political legitimacy (and that of other large cities populated by very recent immigrants) is being questioned by what's left of the historic US population. At the same time that radical Democrats are questioning the legitimacy of the Federal Government. Both together might destroy the subsidies upon which NYC depends. NYC is also letting its capital plant ("infrastructure") wear out, which suggests that even today NYC's subsidies are inadequate to city operating costs that include depreciation, and also suggests a future need for even larger subsidies than it currently receives. Additionally see Copley's remarks in the book _Uncivilization_.
New England is losing its position as intellectual leader, as its stated positions become less plausible to the general population and at the same time less in the interest of the present American population. This loss of position is related to the general decay of philosophy and religion in the West, a major trend that cannot be stopped by exercising political or social will.
Right now, the US has a popular leader supported strongly by a substantial and economically important part of he US population. This might successfully change the dominant coalition in the US. If not, well, the loss of leadership by New England and NYC will continue, and resistance to them will continue to grow, so a current loss won't be the end of things.
So: answer is that we're in the early stages of a fighting back: get a leader, identify what it is we're fighting. The fight is indirect just now, as there is usually nothing local to fight _and_ any fight that seriously damaged infrastructure would both ineffective and not seriously affect the current dominant coalition. That the current effort just might work _without_ mass civil suffering shows that resistance isn't entirely futile, and that the current form of resistance isn't entirely ill judged. Of course, we are also running out of time, and for several reasons.
Counterinsurgency
Whites can’t even be said to have been “defeated;” when did they ever fight?
Haven't white Americans simply betrayed each other? Specifically, the elite has betrayed the rest.
You are being ridiculous. Of course whites "fight". They "fight" everyday, in their jobs, in their relationships, for their sportsball teams, and for their ideology. Just because there are white people who oppose your philosophies does not mean they lack the capacity or will to fight.
How are YOU fighting back against the elites who allegedly are demonizing "your kind"? Be specific.
Whites fought, they fought hard, they just didn't fight together. To quote a classic SSC post:http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
White nationalists need to emphasize their humanist alternative: They want normal white people to flourish securely in their own countries.
In this philosophy, our elites would look out for our interests as white people first and foremost, and they would stop abusing, exploiting and gaslighting us as throwaways.
A group of ultra-under-achieving, bottom decile white men who want socialism just so that they can mooch off of successful whites, has muddied and tainted the legitimate and respectable goal of pride in white identity.
That is why there are virtually no females in contemporary White Trashionalism. The females of this defective subrace become the fat bluehaired feminists.
Remember Peterike's Law, which is :
"White Trashionalism is nothing more than bottom-decile white men whining about how bottom-decile white women are no longer being forced to produce piglets with these men."
That is not humanist in the least.
"They want normal white people to flourish securely in their own countries."
First, how do you define "normal white people"? Second, consider that the Americas did not contain "white people" until Europeans set foot on them in the 1500 and 1600's. So, technically, "their own countries" for white people are Europe. We should go back.
"In this philosophy, our elites would look out for our interests as white people first and foremost"
Actually, our elites look out for citizens, which include people from different races and ethnic groups. Furthermore, recall that white people are not that unified throughout history. WASPs considered the Irish, the Italians, and the Poles, for example, to be beneath them racially and culturally.
"and they would stop abusing, exploiting and gaslighting us as throwaways"
I thought only the Jews and darkies play the victim card. Do you not have any sense of pride? What are you doing to ensure you are not being "abused" and "exploited"?
I think we are ok, that is, as long as we continue to speak our own lengua.
My impression is that even people like Steve and conservative commenters here who noticed the changes in American society still have no idea what it’s like to actually have grown up in lost America. When “fucking white males” have been hated your whole life and its beaten into you in childhood.
It’s a LOT more different getting that from birth than Steve realizes. Perhaps it’s not really possible to intuit different childhoods–i certainly don’t know what it *feels* like to have grown up in an Amazonian tribe and I wouldn’t no matter how much I studied it.
Drug use is no longer stigmatized, drugs are much more available, and there are fewer blue collar jobs that kept people constantly busy and exerted peer pressure on them.
A young women that I was acquainted with, white type, managed to get herself pregnant. The man involved was close to her age, quite willing to marry her, employed at low income, and apparently she had no real objection to him. The girl's mother, who was a Christian Lay preacher, and herself married, managed to talk the young girl out of marrying the man _because the young woman could get more money by going on welfare_.
The story here isn't so much about "ain't it awful" as it is that the mother firmly set the young woman's future as poverty, her children hating her, increasing despair as the young woman grew into an old woman (In the marriage market, women are born rich, and become poor, men born poor, and get rich), and probable early death. That, on a mass scale, seems to be the source of White Death.
Counterinsurgency
- Born in the mid-late 1970s: 20%+ affected
- Born in the mid-late 1980s: 40% affected
- Born in the mid 1990s: 60% affected
- Born in the early 2000s (current high school students): 70%+ affected'Affected' correlates with region, residence in a metropolitan area, and relatively higher socioeconomic status. The SWPL meme in the 2000s captured this overlap. The 10% of U.S. Whites born in 1965-1969 whom I would estimate were 'affected' growing up are also disproportionately those of higher IQ and SES, so even their impact is disproportionate to their numbers.The corollary to this is that while most White youth born in or after the early 1990s have grown up (are growing up) 'affected,' a percentage of them go through a personal struggle and come out the other end consciously rejecting the anti-White system, in a way that those born in the 1950s, 1940s, and earlier probably never can. Say this number of 'reject the system' is three-in-ten of the 'affected'. The situation today among Whites age 15 to 35 as we approach 2020, then, - 35% grew up unaffected
- 20% grew up affected but came to personally reject the anti-White system
- 45% grew up affected and at-least-passively accept the anti-White system
--- --- of which, ca.15%? actively embrace the system, 30% passively acceptThe 35% "unaffected" + 20% "affected, reject system" is the White youth Trump base. (Trump won White youth.) The ca.15% "affected, embrace system" is the White Antifa base. The Alt-Right drew from the 20% "affected, reject system" pool.
Russell Means said in one of his very last interviews that the white man was now in the same position as the Indian regarding the Federal Government, that old touchstone of Indian invective.
Means never fully got onto the multi-culti bandwagon because of how blacks became morality as such while Indians were always an afterthought in the racial-spoils-system. That really pissed him off, to the point where he was able to sympathize with the white man.
"What your government has done to the Indian they will eventually do to all of you"
Good, now we need some PSAs to show blacks and Hispanics that life is good and long in America and they can now stop complaining.
There’s a tale of an Indian (dot) student enquiring of his history professor how it was that tiny numbers of Britons could defeat huge hosts of Indians. The laconic reply was “they didn’t betray each other”.
Haven’t white Americans simply betrayed each other? Specifically, the elite has betrayed the rest.
https://i2.wp.com/www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/BwJ1F8uIcAATmTE.jpg-large-e1410651930356.jpeg
Still I can't think of any case in history where a population in a democracy that was so overwhelmingly part of the majority has allowed itself to be pushed around as much as whites in America are allowing ourselves to be.
No --
The Jews--demonstrated by behavior (don't care what so and so says he feels)--on average, despite their terrific treatment in America, have not chosen to see themselves as "white Americans" but as a minority and have been trying--very successfully--to bust the joint up, with attacks on traditional white culture, "multicultralism" and, most effectively with a mass "nation of immigrants!" flood.
That's a betrayal in the sense of you invite in a guest ... and he turns on you. But it's not accurate to just put that under "white Americans betraying each other". The Jews simply chose to see themselves as a separate tribe with separate ethnic interests from the majority--balkanization and control rather than national/civilizational success.
Yes --
The good-whites are our Kapos. And they deserve similar treatment.
But whites, and white men in particular? They'll betray each other in a heartbeat for the right amount of money. As Jay Gould said, "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half." He was right. Who are the greatest enforcers of P.C. out there? White shitlibs, calling out their fellow whites.
Whites had a collective consciousness in the era of colonization in the 19th century, when they had to stick together in the face of hostile aboriginal tribes who were obviously primitive and inferior. But they lost it in the 20th century. The last guy to try to create a white collective consciousness was Uncle A, and he conquered damn near all of Europe between 1939-1941 and damn near defeated the Soviet Union. Pretty impressive, when you think about it.
That's why the minority groups like Jews, blacks, liberals, etc. are constantly invoking the specter of Nazism even where it doesn't actually exist -- they need to keep whites divided against themselves because they know damn well they can't defeat organized whites in a head-to-head contest and quake in their boots at the very thought of it.
Be interesting to do a bit of intra-European analysis. In terms of the “White Death,” both MA and Appalachia have populations (Irish in MA, Scots-Irish Border Folk in Appalachia) that are known for their melancholic tendencies….
It is especially surprising to see the white longevity in steep decline as the smoking rate has declined. So few people smoke today , just 30 years ago 40% of whites were smokers...today just 15%...but heroin is now cheaper than tobacco. Amazing that you can buy a bag of almost pure heroin for $5 on the streets of Philadelphia today. Back in the 90s a bag coast $20 and it had halt the potency of todays supply. While a pack of cigarettes in Philly now costs twice as much as a bag of dope.
A traitorous ruling elite….
Right, because certain whites, all Jews, and their non-white toadies in academic and in government work in concert behind the scenes to destroy Western Civilization and to commit genocide against trad-men and trad-women. [/sarcasm]
It’s mostly boomers though. I have said “boomercide when?” in the past without knowing they would do it to themselves.
Massachusetts is fairly heterogeneous. People think of Boston, which is booming, but there are old decaying mill cities like Springfield and Fall River that might as well be in the Rust Belt. Lots of overdoses in those places. And some parts of the state are pretty rural.
When did our elites allow us to fight?
Hispanics spend more time collecting old-age social security benefits per this chart. Look at the life expectancy at 65 line.
The 1986 Amnesty generation didn’t pay much unto Social Security because of low incomes, but they will be collecting for a really long time. An amnestied 25 year old in 1986 can start collecting early old-age benefits only four years from now, and may end up collecting for 30+ years after only paying in for 35 years and only marginal amounts while getting it ALL back at the end of every year from EITC.
EITC is most generous to single mothers, and Hispanic illegitimacy rates are so much higher than whites, they get much more in EITC welfare per low-income worker.
Just look at the last line: Hispanic males at 85 have a median expected life span of 14.2--living to almost 100! Uh .... no. (All the guys dying between 85 and 99 would have to be balanced by people living over 100. Yeah right.) They admit there are issues with low N population groups, but this is off the charts ridiculous.
Real life expectancy doesn't work this way at the high end. It tightly ratchets down. For instance in my early 60s, the Social Security folks give me a life expectancy out into my early 80s. But for the guy hitting 85, it's <91. Hit 90 it's <95. Hit 95<98. If you live to a ripe old age, you can always--statistically--expect to go a few more years. But once you're at these old ages, a good fraction of your cohort still alive are checking out the very next year. Modern medicine and easy low-damage occupations are pushing up life expectancy, but the body does just wear out.
The takehome here should only be general:
-- Hispanics have longer lifespans. That's been the case as long as the US has had the category.
-- The notable thing here is the whites are doing worse than blacks. That's very new. Usually there's a crossover in the elderly, where blacks who haven't killed themselves with poor choices at younger ages, live a bit longer than whites at the high ages. (Maybe a genetic thing, or maybe just selection of the blacks who get there. But definitely a real thing.) But now whites are doing worse than blacks--at least in Massachusetts--across all ages. That's really bad news for whites.
No casinos (or do you mean casinos & their owner who bankrupted a few) ?
Be interesting to do a bit of intra-European analysis. In terms of the "White Death," both MA and Appalachia have populations (Irish in MA, Scots-Irish Border Folk in Appalachia) that are known for their melancholic tendencies....
good point…
It is especially surprising to see the white longevity in steep decline as the smoking rate has declined. So few people smoke today , just 30 years ago 40% of whites were smokers…today just 15%…but heroin is now cheaper than tobacco. Amazing that you can buy a bag of almost pure heroin for $5 on the streets of Philadelphia today. Back in the 90s a bag coast $20 and it had halt the potency of todays supply. While a pack of cigarettes in Philly now costs twice as much as a bag of dope.
In this philosophy, our elites would look out for our interests as white people first and foremost, and they would stop abusing, exploiting and gaslighting us as throwaways.
Yep. But we have a problem : there are ‘White Trashionalists’.
A group of ultra-under-achieving, bottom decile white men who want socialism just so that they can mooch off of successful whites, has muddied and tainted the legitimate and respectable goal of pride in white identity.
That is why there are virtually no females in contemporary White Trashionalism. The females of this defective subrace become the fat bluehaired feminists.
Remember Peterike’s Law, which is :
“White Trashionalism is nothing more than bottom-decile white men whining about how bottom-decile white women are no longer being forced to produce piglets with these men.”
“White Americans are behaving more and more like how American Indians have long behaved: as a defeated and despairing race.”
I think this is true; even at the elite levels. The current zeitgeist desires an end to the old order. The last of the whites, existing as ghosts in the ruins, will be a melancholy bunch.
How are hispanic lifespans so long? This is a trend I have seen but never understood.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-hispanic-paradox-why-do-latinos-live-longer/
White America is like 90s Russia under Yeltsin and the globalist neoliberal plunderers.
The Russians expected the new Marshal Plan. “ American” economists treated their defeated foes better than the strongest allies.
Show me on the doll where bad orange man touched you.
Does a similar table exist for the US as a whole, not just the state of MA, showing remaining life expectancy at a given age, stratified by race and sex?
Does anybody have a time machine? I’d like to go back to the 1980s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqolSvoWNck
QED!
Don't you know that it is the responsibility of anyone with a time machine to go back and kill Hitler?
(And it’s still the Pan Am Building.)
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0160/6394/products/12450v.jpeg?v=1502442307
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHTanWoS5iM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BsxSUQOWO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgQwUTKDCY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGqJCtykLDM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYkslCXJMGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMsSMqjdow
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/369785-one-of-the-major-problems-encountered-in-time-travel-isIn an age where we barely manage basic grammar, why subject folks to the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional tense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MznHdJReoeo
Haven't white Americans simply betrayed each other? Specifically, the elite has betrayed the rest.
Yep. And it’s something of a pan-Western problem: Merkel’s Invitation, Blair’s Immigration scheme, etc
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
A good point, and thanks for bringing it up. As a (late) Boomer, I can imagine there is a difference, although – as you say – I may not be able to imagine what that difference is.
Haven't white Americans simply betrayed each other? Specifically, the elite has betrayed the rest.
Indeed. An invading majority has a reason to back each other up and sew discord amond the population being invaded. The majority doesn’t feel like it needs to have each other’s back.
Still I can’t think of any case in history where a population in a democracy that was so overwhelmingly part of the majority has allowed itself to be pushed around as much as whites in America are allowing ourselves to be.
That is why it is fair that Elizabeth Warren receive affirmative action.
This is a class war, with race being used as a wedge. Upper class and super rich (which includes Republicans) are waging a war of annihilation on the middle class. It’s a war against Andrew Jackson and democracy, against FDR, labor unions, child labor laws, etc. It’s a war to make us into a third world dictatorship with a few super rich and a mass of submissive peons. It doesn’t matter to the rulers whether this turns out to be a Communist dictatorship or a Capitalist dictatorship. Either way the few super rich keep their money and power.
Yes, Jews are significant ring leaders. Yes, non-white race hustlers are egging it on. Yes, stupid white liberals are useful fools.
But the real motive driving this is profit for a small group at the top.
If you want to know why white Christian patriotic Americans have let their country slip away, then look in the mirror, iSteve bloggers. You worship money, this is the woe you reap.
Still I can't think of any case in history where a population in a democracy that was so overwhelmingly part of the majority has allowed itself to be pushed around as much as whites in America are allowing ourselves to be.
You must not be keeping track of immigration policy in Europe….
It’s pretty much the same group of Harvard boys running our economic policy as there in the 1990’s. That was a test run.
The Russians expected the new Marshal Plan. “ American” economists treated their defeated foes better than the strongest allies.
Still I can't think of any case in history where a population in a democracy that was so overwhelmingly part of the majority has allowed itself to be pushed around as much as whites in America are allowing ourselves to be.
Sweden and Canada have much larger white majorities, but are also browning much faster than the USA, and with clear signs of popular approval.
In this philosophy, our elites would look out for our interests as white people first and foremost, and they would stop abusing, exploiting and gaslighting us as throwaways.
They already do, and none of that can matter when the game is Van Pelt Football. The “n” word must become meaningless (or people have got to be made to recognize that it is being carelessly applied, which depends on the sanity of others and is therefore stupid). I’m not talking about Quentin Tarantino’s favorite word, either.
Means never fully got onto the multi-culti bandwagon because of how blacks became morality as such while Indians were always an afterthought in the racial-spoils-system. That really pissed him off, to the point where he was able to sympathize with the white man.
Russell Means wrote about his experience as a young Native American who rediscovered his “home” in his traditions as an Indian and not as a member of the white man’s tribe: “In that humiliating moment, I came to realize how white people look upon us: We’re not real human beings, we don’t exist, we have no care, no rights, no sensibilities. We’re tourist attractions.” Russell Means, ”Where White Men Fear to Tread” (St. Martin’s Press, 1995) p. 111.
This is why Turtleboy Sports is required reading. They chronicle this despair every day in hilarious detail. A lot of these Red Sox Nation drug addicts share their entire lives on their Facebook pages. Big mistake! Turtleboy is there to read it and shame them publicly.
That’s like asking “when did the enemy ever allow us to fight.” In fact, it’s asking that exactly.
https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/merkel-with-her-muslim-rapist-refugees.jpg
https://c.ndtvimg.com/2018-10/8ptdei9_emmanuel-macron-middle-finger_625x300_01_October_18.jpg
1962 would be better:
QED!
OT
1980s ?!
Don’t you know that it is the responsibility of anyone with a time machine to go back and kill Hitler?
jump ahead to 9:26
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6iqm1l
Haven't white Americans simply betrayed each other? Specifically, the elite has betrayed the rest.
Yes and no.
No —
The Jews–demonstrated by behavior (don’t care what so and so says he feels)–on average, despite their terrific treatment in America, have not chosen to see themselves as “white Americans” but as a minority and have been trying–very successfully–to bust the joint up, with attacks on traditional white culture, “multicultralism” and, most effectively with a mass “nation of immigrants!” flood.
That’s a betrayal in the sense of you invite in a guest … and he turns on you. But it’s not accurate to just put that under “white Americans betraying each other”. The Jews simply chose to see themselves as a separate tribe with separate ethnic interests from the majority–balkanization and control rather than national/civilizational success.
Yes —
The good-whites are our Kapos. And they deserve similar treatment.
I don’t think the subset of whites that is vulnerable to opioid abuse tends to be self-hating liberal types. If anything, I imagine they’re the subset that is most resistant to white guilt and anti-white indoctrination.
Drug use is no longer stigmatized, drugs are much more available, and there are fewer blue collar jobs that kept people constantly busy and exerted peer pressure on them.
Today his heroin would cost him just $5 per day while he now spends $11 per day on tobacco. He quit using 9 years ago , takes Buprenorphine daily though.
https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/1078678799066251270
Unprintable.
It’s Friday night, everyone. Hit the town like it’s 1988.
(And it’s still the Pan Am Building.)
My theory: it’s less the the anti-white sentiment and more the lack of career paths. In current white culture, men need to earn bank to get women and respect. Particularly self-respect. That’s all there is now (see: Bowling Alone).
Blacks play a different game altogether. Hispanics seemingly have an inbuilt resilience: they’re content as lumpenproles. They take pride in “working hard”– it’s irrelevant that you’re a mere peon. The immigrants and their children also have the benefit of relative socio-economic improvement.
“White America is like 90s Russia under Yeltsin and the globalist neoliberal plunderers.”
This. The comparison to Indians is stupid. Indians were a hunter gatherer people who stood no chance against their invaders. Their conquest was inevitable. A little footnote in human history.
Who conquered whites?
Like post-USSR, the US has been undergoing a shock therapy in economics, culture and morality. It’s been at least 60 years and continues. The results have been the same. It took more than a dozen years for the ship to stop taking on water in post-USSR, but it’s still listing and it could still sink.
There’s no stopping the breach in the US. By virtue of simple ability, whites will remain the most dominant of the competing racial groups in the US, and it all may end up in a splintering into several states, but there’s no salvaging the US as a political entity.
https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/1078678799066251270
https://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_chamber_insert.htm
Don't you know that it is the responsibility of anyone with a time machine to go back and kill Hitler?
I actually agree. Without Hitler a lot of the propaganda that’s been used against the West would not be possible. Ok, that’s an overstatement–they’d be doing it anyway, but it would not have the same punch/effectiveness. And as i’ve pointed out, while the 1914 debacle was sort of a whirlpool inexorably sucking us in–requiring statesmanship to avert–the 1939 debacle was really sui generis. Reboot the model, butterfly flaps its wings–99 times out of 100, does not happen.
However, once you have a time machine … a crack at 1914 would be goodness.
And honestly, the largest, completely undeserved–by capability or conquest–demographic expansion in the history of the world happened between Africa and the New World after Europeans pried it open. If we have a time machine … i say, let’s fix that colossal screw up!
Of course, there’s a problem with time machines. Say i go back and clean up some of our mistakes. Then, of course, i would no longer exist and ergo, poof!, pop out of existence. So then my fix is undone and poof!, i’m back dooing my fix, and … It’s some weird quantum like super-position of states of the universe.
No Hitler > No WWII
No WWII > No attack on Pearl Harbor
No attack on Pearl Harbor > Dad in California doesn't join navy to fight Japs.
Dad not in navy > Dad doesn't meet Mom at a drugstore by the naval base in Jacksonville, Florida.
Conclusion: Thank Hitler I'm alive.
They would have found another Hitler. Finnish resistance to the Soviet Union would have been turned into Nazi Germany.
It’s tough to recognize the enemy when the enemy is your nation’s elite
https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/merkel-with-her-muslim-rapist-refugees.jpg
https://c.ndtvimg.com/2018-10/8ptdei9_emmanuel-macron-middle-finger_625x300_01_October_18.jpg
The white population is hopelessly divided. That is how the nation was lost.
No cohesion.
And the worst fools on planet Earth are the white liberals.
They will be the death of us for sure.
Did you know that any .308 or .30-06 works great on Cuckoo Birds if you have a subcaliber adapter? Quiet and the cuckoo doesnt know what hit it, and keeps other birds from feeding them.
https://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_chamber_insert.htm
Pourquoi? Pour encourager les raptors. Passerines are passé.
Heard of the Wehrmacht or the Army of Northern Virginia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_PlanNeither does fighting for a slavocracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqolSvoWNck
QED!
She wasn’t singing to you.
Douglas Adams here alerts us to a considerable pitfall of time-travel:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/369785-one-of-the-major-problems-encountered-in-time-travel-is
In an age where we barely manage basic grammar, why subject folks to the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional tense?
Nah, it’s never too late. The real fight can start at any time, and those who end up making a difference can look back fondly to right here, right now.
Don't you know that it is the responsibility of anyone with a time machine to go back and kill Hitler?
Mike Tyson Mysteries S03E18 The Gift
jump ahead to 9:26
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6iqm1l
Trying to massacre Slavs doesn’t count
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan
Neither does fighting for a slavocracy
https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/merkel-with-her-muslim-rapist-refugees.jpg
https://c.ndtvimg.com/2018-10/8ptdei9_emmanuel-macron-middle-finger_625x300_01_October_18.jpg
The best thing that can come out of this is a widespread, consistent, white-hot hatred for the parasitic elite. Of course, we largely already have that, in divided forms (including leftist and non-white variants). It is possible that much of what is happening represents the semi-exposed elite’s efforts to reverse the universal disapproval that makes security arrangements for Davos so stringent. So there must be clarification and consolidation.
Haven't white Americans simply betrayed each other? Specifically, the elite has betrayed the rest.
Absolutely. Whites today do not have a pan-white consciousness. Other adversarial groups do. Blacks will not betray their most murderous and violent fellow blacks to the white police. Muslims will not betray fellow Muslims to the infidel. Gays create subversive queer subcultures that slowly usurp power, because they can always ferret out who is or is not a fellow queer. Jews create Jewish subcultures that are always poking at the hornet’s nest. Women create militant feminist cells and march en masse in pussy hats.
But whites, and white men in particular? They’ll betray each other in a heartbeat for the right amount of money. As Jay Gould said, “I can hire half the working class to kill the other half.” He was right. Who are the greatest enforcers of P.C. out there? White shitlibs, calling out their fellow whites.
Whites had a collective consciousness in the era of colonization in the 19th century, when they had to stick together in the face of hostile aboriginal tribes who were obviously primitive and inferior. But they lost it in the 20th century. The last guy to try to create a white collective consciousness was Uncle A, and he conquered damn near all of Europe between 1939-1941 and damn near defeated the Soviet Union. Pretty impressive, when you think about it.
That’s why the minority groups like Jews, blacks, liberals, etc. are constantly invoking the specter of Nazism even where it doesn’t actually exist — they need to keep whites divided against themselves because they know damn well they can’t defeat organized whites in a head-to-head contest and quake in their boots at the very thought of it.
Oh come on, before Hitler they used the same lazy demonization with other names. There’s absolutely nothing unique about the Hitler Myth except that it took. When German prisoners after the war started to hear atrocity stories they would often roll their eyes and say, it’s the Belgian hands again, referring to WWI propaganda.
If not for Hitler, I wouldn’t exist:
No Hitler > No WWII
No WWII > No attack on Pearl Harbor
No attack on Pearl Harbor > Dad in California doesn’t join navy to fight Japs.
Dad not in navy > Dad doesn’t meet Mom at a drugstore by the naval base in Jacksonville, Florida.
Conclusion: Thank Hitler I’m alive.
There have been quite a few massive die offs in human history, but if we changed history so they never happened the earth would be inhabited by completely different people. None of us would be alive.
If Squanto had not agreed to help the Plymouth colony, my ancestors would have died. If he had intervened sooner, they probably would’ve found different mates, and I would never have been born.
For WW II, father had terrible allergies and was not drafted. That allowed him to attend Columbia U instead of being off fighting. That allowed him to meet the people who later set him up with a blind date with my mother.
Hindsight is of course 20:20.
Most whites cannot afford to abuse substances; that is an expensive sin of the flesh.
Most underemployed whites have never had any kind of drug or alcohol problem. The constant references to whites and opiods provide a good way to avoid talking about the real reasons for mass-scale underemployment of US citizens and the historically low laborforce participation rate.
It also creates the untrue impression that employers are not hiring / retaining as many whites for that reason.
One bigly, truthful reason is: single moms and legal / illegal immigrants in single-breadwinner households can afford to accept the available temp and part-time work due to their wage supplements from Uncle Sam—specifically due to their rental assistance, EBT that increases per kid produced, monthly cash assistance, electricity assistance and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash—but many white Americans cannot afford the dignity of rent on their earned-only income.
That is pretty depressing. Citizens are living in some pretty hopeless and degrading economic situations, hence their non-drug-related despair.
It does not help that many majority-minority workplaces are openly discriminatory. Many of us crossed parties, thinking that voting for Republicans was a vote against this wildly hypocritical phenomenon.
Not
It is not just the government jobs that are staffed with 80% minority majorities. These are mostly non-racist, 80%-Black majorites, pushing out most of the whites who jumped through all of the hoops to get a government job. In many agencies, most Blacks make it to civil servant status, while most whites do not.
It is many corporate call centers and some corporate back offices, too. Add to that the many non-racist, 80%-Hispanic-majority workplaces. Add the non-racist, 80%-Asian-majority workplaces. Add the 90% youth-dominated workplaces. Then add the 98% childbearing-aged-mom workplaces, tallying up your opportunity quotient as a middle-aged job seeker who is not in any of the “culture-fit” categories.
Maybe, the openly discriminatory minorities and the openly discriminatory moms in their “voted-best-for-moms” jobs, with their libertine absenteeism privileges and their multiple unearned income streams from .gov, are happy. They do not have to work with many people who are not just like them. They run them all off.
Some middle-aged white people have plenty of things to stamp out their happiness. Each and every time you get one of the low-wage churn jobs, you must jump through endless, mouse-on-a-treadmill, jerk-you-around hoops, afterwhich you often see nothing but a zoo-like work atmosphere, full of needless visciousness from people who are mostly dishing that out to distract from their extreme absenteeism and their low numbers.
Hard work means nothing. Except to boost up the manager’s bonus, consistently high numbers mean nothing. They can always find a few others who work hard, keeping the numbers up while the frequently absentee, retained, culture-fit employees take tons of family-friendly time off. They churn the hardworking chumps.
Few people have been in these jobs for more than 2 years. The pay is insufficient to cover rent, meaning that you have zero money to cover basic expenses between churn jobs unless you have unearned income from 1) a spouse, 2) an ex spouse, 3) the government for reproducing in a single-breadwinner household or 4) the SS-retirement fund.
Many middle-aged whites are too young for SS; they have many years left in this punishing job scene. They are too old to churn out kids that qualify them for multiple, unearned income streams from welfare programs and refundable child tax ctedits up to $6,431 from the US Treasury Department. Their paychecks are lower due to the progressive tax code, even though many work much harder and more productively than parents with paychecks pumped up by the tax code.
They are not as likely as young people to get married, resulting in a second income to help with rent during their working years and two streams of SS income and double streams of pension / 401k income in retirement. Many know they won’t even be able to afford rent in old age, regardless of how hard they work.
People are not glorifying them every five minutes, calling them “working families” and la, la, la, regardless of the Grand Canyon-sized periods of excused time off enjoyed by the, in fact, not-working-hard families of the automation era.
Non-affluent, middle-aged whites are more likely to have been brought up with strict expectations and less praise, unlike the white millennial snowflakes with their automatic verbal accolades and the minorities who can blame everything on white privilege despite their disproportionate access to layered, pay-per-birth welfare streams, their $6,431 refundable child tax credits and their majority-minority EEOC-hypocrisy-mill workplace options.
Non-wealthy, middle-aged whites: this is the group subject to the most criticism—the harshest criticism—especially with the media churning out nothing but the U6 / U3 substitution lie, which counts all of the noncitizens, welfare-consuming, part time and temp workers as employed, regardless of how few hours they work, while not counting record numbers of US citizens of working age who are out of the labor force.
Friggin lying ***hol**. The lies of the corporate-owned media contribute heavily to the despair.
By middle age, most US citizens have worked in enough of these churn jobs to know that the fabled “real jobs” are mostly churn jobs, temp jobs, part-time jobs and pyramid-scam jobs of various types, with the few decent-paying jobs mostly held by well-vacationed, dual-earner, “needs-the-job” parents with family-friendly hours made possible by computers that do more and more of the work of “the talent,” too.
It is not just the part-time-working single moms, staying under the income limits for welfare by keeping their hours down. It is the highly paid employees, keeping two of the scarce good jobs with benefits in fewer households—the parents in dual-earner households who are needed less at work due to machines that do more of their work. It is still officially full-time work in those cases, though.
It is easy to avoid despair when you have two, above-firing, high-paying jobs per household, with vacations galore, a nice house in a posh zip code, tons of minor luxuries, etc., etc.
It is not so easy when you cannot afford to rent a noisy, crappy, one-room apartment in an unsafe area of the city, even when you work more hours in a horrible environment, enjoying zero vacations or extras. When you have no realistic expectation of any job security, even when you meet the numbers every month, you are in a constant state of non-drug-induced turmoil, never knowing whether or not you will have a roof over your head.
Solution; more pay-per-birth immigrants to compete for part time & temp jobs!
Counterinsurgency
Drugs are not like fur coats. There exist huge market distortions. Downscale whites (and downscale others) are undeniably prolific abusers of cigarettes, and someone was mentioning that a bag of heroin is now less expensive than a pack of cigs in some areas of the country. Also the opioid epidemic is partially subsidized by Medicaid, VA, and other programs, not to mention indirectly subsidized by food stamps, workmans comp, child support payments, alimony, etc... When people's savings, public subsidy, and private subsidy aren't enough, there's always stealing, hustling, slinging, and tricking to support habits.
Crack devastated the ghettos a generation ago and I hope you aren't trying to claim that means that people in the ghettos must have been rich then. lol.
*interestingly, watching enough Live PD could also dispel the notion that poverty is a cause of substance abuse. Basically anyone making sociological claims at any level should be assigned 10 hours of Live PD.
Hang in there.
I actually agree. Without Hitler a lot of the propaganda that’s been used against the West would not be possible. Ok, that’s an overstatement–they’d be doing it anyway,
They would have found another Hitler. Finnish resistance to the Soviet Union would have been turned into Nazi Germany.
No cohesion.
And the worst fools on planet Earth are the white liberals.
They will be the death of us for sure.
Yet we seem to be on the cusp of it. With the demographic changes that will continue regardless of any action, we will be forced into cohesion. Look to any of the “respectable” news sources and see where the agenda is headed, NYT, The Atlantic, CNN, etc. The celebration and even glee of our demise is greatly overstated. That is where the mistake has been made. IF they were smart, they would have waited at least another couple of decades to start writing all the anti-white screeds.
So was electing Trump the Ghost Dance?
Haven't white Americans simply betrayed each other? Specifically, the elite has betrayed the rest.
It’s almost as if, for the ‘elites’, class trumps race. Funny how that works.
Particularly if you don’t fit the outgoing, on-beat bro archetype. Then you’re truly garbage — the lowest of the very lowest.
Then, the women you get can steal what you’ve earned and go screw the pool boy (not necessarily in that order). Outstanding.
US whites are maladapted to mass media. Decades of prosperity haven’t helped either but they simply couldn’t maintain group cohesion, even minimally, under sustained news and entertainment media assault.
In places with high non-white immigration and much worse quality immigration there is no opioid crisis. In Sweden and the UK the situation is much worse but there is no despairing and turning to opioids. The opioid crisis is the worst in the southern half of West Virginia which doesn’t have many immigrants. It seems the opioid crisis requires a combination of an out of control pharma sector and Scotch Irish genetics. US is only country with both?
OT
https://krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/eureka-local-news/organizers-cancel-womens-march-jan-19-due-to-overwhelmingly-white-participants
Slate or the Atlantic today had something on high black infant mortality rates, and from past experience there is often a “rest of the story” to such race-medical claims (cf. the eclampsia “epidemic” in D.C. that coincided with Domincan immigrants and only seems to affect them), so I did a medium dive into it this morning, and couldn’t figure it out. But what I found was:
— Many of the studies are by black physicians, the ones with the 1 SD lower MCATs, and they often veer off into non-medical territory like education and poverty, and they seem statistically illitierate, with no comprehention of the concept of confounding traits (for instance, not controlling for socio-economic status and then comparing white and black).
— Weirdly, black extreme preemies have much higher survival rates than white, but black semi-preemies have much worse survival rates. I have no idea why that would be.
— Most of these deaths are because of birth defects. I didn’t get to the bottom of whether blacks have more babies with birth defects (and, if so, why), or whether whites get more heroic medical care to keep such babies alive beyond the first year. Controlling for SES would probably answer this, since it’s essentially the same as controlling for IQ, which correlates with mutational load on the genome, which correlates with birth defects.
I’ve always wondered why there haven’t been more whites who have fought back against what is happening in front of them. I suppose many have too much to lose. Though it is short-sighted, there are whites who are living well. They are not 1 percenters, but they do have good life and don’t want to risk being ostracized by rocking the boat.
Then there are the ones with nothing to lose. However, many of them seem to be on meds or other drugs, and might be too zoomed out to even care.
Do you think poor people are being prescribed so many meds today to keep them docile?
Assimilation works. White Southerners, whose culture was a mix of Scots-Irish, Welsh, Scots Highland, Scots Lowland, West Country Norman, and north English Norman, were forced at gunpoint to assimilate to Yankee WASP cultural hegemony. For economic reasons, and just to be good guy citizens, Irish and Polish and Italian Catholics also assimilated to Yankee WASP cultural patterns and standards. Dutch, German, and Scandinavian Protestants needed only to speak English and end any opposition to the spread of Anglo Empire to be fully assimilated to Yankee WASP culture.
We are living with the inevitable results of trading your birthright for a mess of pottage that enriches WASP Elites while numbing your ability to see the chains they call freedom.
And yes, I do think there has been no mistake whatsoever that so many highly addictive drugs have been over-prescribed the past 30 years or so, especially among the poorest half of white America.
Perhaps whites see what is right in front of them, but interpret it differently than you. That would be the source of your frustration.
The diet keeps them docile, the meds are pure profit.
Perhaps Dr Gawande can make us one of his famous checklists. Otherwise, he’s (ahem) Atul…
It is especially surprising to see the white longevity in steep decline as the smoking rate has declined. So few people smoke today , just 30 years ago 40% of whites were smokers...today just 15%...but heroin is now cheaper than tobacco. Amazing that you can buy a bag of almost pure heroin for $5 on the streets of Philadelphia today. Back in the 90s a bag coast $20 and it had halt the potency of todays supply. While a pack of cigarettes in Philly now costs twice as much as a bag of dope.
Are you controlling for inflation?
What is partially responsible for this is the mass-advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals to the general American public which is thankfully banned in Europe. Opioid abuse is much lower here as consumers are not bombarded with ads telling them the cure to their woes lies at the bottom of a pill bottle.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/oct/23/advertising.marketingandpr
Those who chose to fight, do. If one has the means and inclination, ‘permission’ is not needed.
https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/merkel-with-her-muslim-rapist-refugees.jpg
https://c.ndtvimg.com/2018-10/8ptdei9_emmanuel-macron-middle-finger_625x300_01_October_18.jpg
Excluding white beholders who are masochists or sleepwalkers (of which there are many), your pictures show the opposite: It’s ridiculously easy to recognize the enemy when the enemy is ‘elites’ like Merkel and Macron.
https://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_chamber_insert.htm
Metaphorically speaking, it might be more satisfying to shoot both birds.
Pourquoi? Pour encourager les raptors. Passerines are passé.
Most underemployed whites have never had any kind of drug or alcohol problem. The constant references to whites and opiods provide a good way to avoid talking about the real reasons for mass-scale underemployment of US citizens and the historically low laborforce participation rate.
It also creates the untrue impression that employers are not hiring / retaining as many whites for that reason.
One bigly, truthful reason is: single moms and legal / illegal immigrants in single-breadwinner households can afford to accept the available temp and part-time work due to their wage supplements from Uncle Sam—specifically due to their rental assistance, EBT that increases per kid produced, monthly cash assistance, electricity assistance and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash—but many white Americans cannot afford the dignity of rent on their earned-only income.
That is pretty depressing. Citizens are living in some pretty hopeless and degrading economic situations, hence their non-drug-related despair.
It does not help that many majority-minority workplaces are openly discriminatory. Many of us crossed parties, thinking that voting for Republicans was a vote against this wildly hypocritical phenomenon.
Not
It is not just the government jobs that are staffed with 80% minority majorities. These are mostly non-racist, 80%-Black majorites, pushing out most of the whites who jumped through all of the hoops to get a government job. In many agencies, most Blacks make it to civil servant status, while most whites do not.
It is many corporate call centers and some corporate back offices, too. Add to that the many non-racist, 80%-Hispanic-majority workplaces. Add the non-racist, 80%-Asian-majority workplaces. Add the 90% youth-dominated workplaces. Then add the 98% childbearing-aged-mom workplaces, tallying up your opportunity quotient as a middle-aged job seeker who is not in any of the “culture-fit” categories.
Maybe, the openly discriminatory minorities and the openly discriminatory moms in their “voted-best-for-moms” jobs, with their libertine absenteeism privileges and their multiple unearned income streams from .gov, are happy. They do not have to work with many people who are not just like them. They run them all off.
Some middle-aged white people have plenty of things to stamp out their happiness. Each and every time you get one of the low-wage churn jobs, you must jump through endless, mouse-on-a-treadmill, jerk-you-around hoops, afterwhich you often see nothing but a zoo-like work atmosphere, full of needless visciousness from people who are mostly dishing that out to distract from their extreme absenteeism and their low numbers.
Hard work means nothing. Except to boost up the manager’s bonus, consistently high numbers mean nothing. They can always find a few others who work hard, keeping the numbers up while the frequently absentee, retained, culture-fit employees take tons of family-friendly time off. They churn the hardworking chumps.
Few people have been in these jobs for more than 2 years. The pay is insufficient to cover rent, meaning that you have zero money to cover basic expenses between churn jobs unless you have unearned income from 1) a spouse, 2) an ex spouse, 3) the government for reproducing in a single-breadwinner household or 4) the SS-retirement fund.
Many middle-aged whites are too young for SS; they have many years left in this punishing job scene. They are too old to churn out kids that qualify them for multiple, unearned income streams from welfare programs and refundable child tax ctedits up to $6,431 from the US Treasury Department. Their paychecks are lower due to the progressive tax code, even though many work much harder and more productively than parents with paychecks pumped up by the tax code.
They are not as likely as young people to get married, resulting in a second income to help with rent during their working years and two streams of SS income and double streams of pension / 401k income in retirement. Many know they won’t even be able to afford rent in old age, regardless of how hard they work.
People are not glorifying them every five minutes, calling them “working families” and la, la, la, regardless of the Grand Canyon-sized periods of excused time off enjoyed by the, in fact, not-working-hard families of the automation era.
Non-affluent, middle-aged whites are more likely to have been brought up with strict expectations and less praise, unlike the white millennial snowflakes with their automatic verbal accolades and the minorities who can blame everything on white privilege despite their disproportionate access to layered, pay-per-birth welfare streams, their $6,431 refundable child tax credits and their majority-minority EEOC-hypocrisy-mill workplace options.
Non-wealthy, middle-aged whites: this is the group subject to the most criticism—the harshest criticism—especially with the media churning out nothing but the U6 / U3 substitution lie, which counts all of the noncitizens, welfare-consuming, part time and temp workers as employed, regardless of how few hours they work, while not counting record numbers of US citizens of working age who are out of the labor force.
Friggin lying ***hol**. The lies of the corporate-owned media contribute heavily to the despair.
By middle age, most US citizens have worked in enough of these churn jobs to know that the fabled “real jobs” are mostly churn jobs, temp jobs, part-time jobs and pyramid-scam jobs of various types, with the few decent-paying jobs mostly held by well-vacationed, dual-earner, “needs-the-job” parents with family-friendly hours made possible by computers that do more and more of the work of “the talent,” too.
It is not just the part-time-working single moms, staying under the income limits for welfare by keeping their hours down. It is the highly paid employees, keeping two of the scarce good jobs with benefits in fewer households—the parents in dual-earner households who are needed less at work due to machines that do more of their work. It is still officially full-time work in those cases, though.
It is easy to avoid despair when you have two, above-firing, high-paying jobs per household, with vacations galore, a nice house in a posh zip code, tons of minor luxuries, etc., etc.
It is not so easy when you cannot afford to rent a noisy, crappy, one-room apartment in an unsafe area of the city, even when you work more hours in a horrible environment, enjoying zero vacations or extras. When you have no realistic expectation of any job security, even when you meet the numbers every month, you are in a constant state of non-drug-induced turmoil, never knowing whether or not you will have a roof over your head.
Solution; more pay-per-birth immigrants to compete for part time & temp jobs!
Nothing is worse than war, except perhaps a massacre, even a slow one. Arbeit macht frei.
Counterinsurgency
MA may not be representative. In the U.S. as a whole, 42 million people identify as Black or African American making up 12% of the total population, as per most recent American Community Survey. But the Black population in Massachusetts of 443,182 is only 6.6% of the total population of the state, just a little over half the national percentage.
And there’s no positive proof that, “MA’s investments in high education levels, economic opportunity, public health measures (e.g., tobacco/gun control, pro-exercise and healthy food policies), and near-universal health coverage are working.” Is there any state that’s ‘anti-exercise’? Gawande is simply inferring (or interjecting) according to his own political beliefs. Also, long term trends can’t be adjudged from a fleet two-year blip between 2014-’16. This is all highly speculative & can change back & forth again.
But Gawande, in his twitter feed, at the same time, also emphasized that,”The starkest differences in death rates are not by race or gender, but by level of education. People with only a high school degree or less have a *350%* higher annual rate of death than others. That’s not a typo.” Believe him or not.
See: Colin Woodward, _American Nations_ (search Amazon.com) for terminology. Woodward calls New England the “Yankees”.
New England and the port of New York have provided American leadership since New England led the coalition that destroyed the South and New York City controlled financing of the Gilded Age. It’s no mistake that New York’s nickname is still “The Empire State” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_%22Empire_State%22 ) . NYC was originally a Dutch settlement, and has managed to hold on to the Dutch Golden Age concept of trade (if it makes money, make the trade) through the American Revolution, the replacement of Dutch by Anglo Saxon, the replacement of Anglo Saxon by an establishment with a substantial Jewish component. That New York is just south of New England has been quite a boon to it, and the two have a kind of symbiosis: New England does the heavy thinking and New York City provides the muscle.
It’s hard to beat a combination like that. New England staffs the large corporations and much of upper tiers of academia, New York controls (or heavily influences) financing for the corporations, to include the media.
Unfortunately, both of them are crazy as bedbugs, and have been since settlement. New England is still trying to get the rest of the nation to atone for its sins (last two times New England did this was the Civil War, 0.6 American megadeaths, Reconstruction (no death figures, but mortality for inhabitants of the South, all colors, supposedly rose during Reconstruction).
New York City has tended to favor foreign policy favored by its Jewish community since the migrations of the 1890s, but is primarily driven (like all large cities in the world) by its loss of manufacturing consequent to containerization and its reliance on finance and political power to provide income. New York City consequently favors immigration (for cheap labor and the votes to keep outside subsidies of various sorts).
Pacific Coast follows New England and NYC, which settled the Pacific Coast cities during the AD 1800s.
So: money and religion. It’s a strong combination, and it’s protected by distance from most of the country. Both areas have their weaknesses, however. NYC’s political legitimacy (and that of other large cities populated by very recent immigrants) is being questioned by what’s left of the historic US population. At the same time that radical Democrats are questioning the legitimacy of the Federal Government. Both together might destroy the subsidies upon which NYC depends. NYC is also letting its capital plant (“infrastructure”) wear out, which suggests that even today NYC’s subsidies are inadequate to city operating costs that include depreciation, and also suggests a future need for even larger subsidies than it currently receives. Additionally see Copley’s remarks in the book _Uncivilization_.
New England is losing its position as intellectual leader, as its stated positions become less plausible to the general population and at the same time less in the interest of the present American population. This loss of position is related to the general decay of philosophy and religion in the West, a major trend that cannot be stopped by exercising political or social will.
Right now, the US has a popular leader supported strongly by a substantial and economically important part of he US population. This might successfully change the dominant coalition in the US. If not, well, the loss of leadership by New England and NYC will continue, and resistance to them will continue to grow, so a current loss won’t be the end of things.
So: answer is that we’re in the early stages of a fighting back: get a leader, identify what it is we’re fighting. The fight is indirect just now, as there is usually nothing local to fight _and_ any fight that seriously damaged infrastructure would both ineffective and not seriously affect the current dominant coalition. That the current effort just might work _without_ mass civil suffering shows that resistance isn’t entirely futile, and that the current form of resistance isn’t entirely ill judged. Of course, we are also running out of time, and for several reasons.
Counterinsurgency
My mother, a staunch liberal and a retired university faculty member, is of Southern stock, ancestors who all fought with the South. According to my mother, the South was completely devastated after the War, and no real Federal effort to help the South occurred until FDR. The South was left to wallow in poverty until the TVA and CCC and WPA, esp the TVA. My mother considers the TVA to be the start of the real Reconstruction.
For her family — both of her grandfathers were the sons of physicians who had been second or later sons of plantation owners, but none of her grandparents attended college. She blames the post-War Southern poverty, the way wealthy families were impoverished. Fortunately, both of her parents attended college. Their first date was when her father was a freshman and her mother a sophomore. They stayed together from 1925 until my grandfather’s death in 1995.
Most of the people ODing on opioids used to kill themselves more slowly with alcohol.
LE at 89 years for hispanic femlaes looks very implausible (thats almost 3 years more than for japanese females for example, worlds champions for longevity) and in general how they manage to calculate life expectancies by race if the USA dont have any population registers (to my knowledge), that would mean that these estimates are unlinked, i.e. population exposure taken from censuses while the race of the deseased from death certificates. Taking into account the blurred line between “whites” and “white hispanics” this could lead to some numerator/denominator bias. Another explanation: hispanics population overestimated and/or their deaths underreported. But no way in hell will I believe in LE of 90 years for them
sorry for my English
‘Tis a strange phenomenon, but the sheer *irrepressibility* of sub Saharan Africans is remarkable.
‘Only’ 400,000 or so were ever imported into the USA as slaves, but despite the ‘oppression’ and ‘hopelessness’ their numbers have multiplied more than a hundred fold.
A mere 50 years ago few would have bet on native South African blacks beating and dominating the Boers, with all their ‘technical’ superiority’ into submission. Few also, a century ago would have bet on American blacks winning against the prowess and toughness of white Americans, but since the rantings of Martin Luther King, that’s where we are.
Yep, ‘irrepressibility’ is the word, surviving and thriving despite all. The link with ‘pride’ and ‘shamelessness’ and ‘irrepressibility’ in that certain cultures would rather die out than live with humiliation, whilst other cultures thrive no matter what, is a matter of interest.
No Hitler > No WWII
No WWII > No attack on Pearl Harbor
No attack on Pearl Harbor > Dad in California doesn't join navy to fight Japs.
Dad not in navy > Dad doesn't meet Mom at a drugstore by the naval base in Jacksonville, Florida.
Conclusion: Thank Hitler I'm alive.
Exactly.
There have been quite a few massive die offs in human history, but if we changed history so they never happened the earth would be inhabited by completely different people. None of us would be alive.
If Squanto had not agreed to help the Plymouth colony, my ancestors would have died. If he had intervened sooner, they probably would’ve found different mates, and I would never have been born.
For WW II, father had terrible allergies and was not drafted. That allowed him to attend Columbia U instead of being off fighting. That allowed him to meet the people who later set him up with a blind date with my mother.
Grandfather: I fought allergies.
New England and the port of New York have provided American leadership since New England led the coalition that destroyed the South and New York City controlled financing of the Gilded Age. It's no mistake that New York's nickname is still "The Empire State" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_%22Empire_State%22 ) . NYC was originally a Dutch settlement, and has managed to hold on to the Dutch Golden Age concept of trade (if it makes money, make the trade) through the American Revolution, the replacement of Dutch by Anglo Saxon, the replacement of Anglo Saxon by an establishment with a substantial Jewish component. That New York is just south of New England has been quite a boon to it, and the two have a kind of symbiosis: New England does the heavy thinking and New York City provides the muscle.
It's hard to beat a combination like that. New England staffs the large corporations and much of upper tiers of academia, New York controls (or heavily influences) financing for the corporations, to include the media.
Unfortunately, both of them are crazy as bedbugs, and have been since settlement. New England is still trying to get the rest of the nation to atone for its sins (last two times New England did this was the Civil War, 0.6 American megadeaths, Reconstruction (no death figures, but mortality for inhabitants of the South, all colors, supposedly rose during Reconstruction).
New York City has tended to favor foreign policy favored by its Jewish community since the migrations of the 1890s, but is primarily driven (like all large cities in the world) by its loss of manufacturing consequent to containerization and its reliance on finance and political power to provide income. New York City consequently favors immigration (for cheap labor and the votes to keep outside subsidies of various sorts).
Pacific Coast follows New England and NYC, which settled the Pacific Coast cities during the AD 1800s.
So: money and religion. It's a strong combination, and it's protected by distance from most of the country. Both areas have their weaknesses, however. NYC's political legitimacy (and that of other large cities populated by very recent immigrants) is being questioned by what's left of the historic US population. At the same time that radical Democrats are questioning the legitimacy of the Federal Government. Both together might destroy the subsidies upon which NYC depends. NYC is also letting its capital plant ("infrastructure") wear out, which suggests that even today NYC's subsidies are inadequate to city operating costs that include depreciation, and also suggests a future need for even larger subsidies than it currently receives. Additionally see Copley's remarks in the book _Uncivilization_.
New England is losing its position as intellectual leader, as its stated positions become less plausible to the general population and at the same time less in the interest of the present American population. This loss of position is related to the general decay of philosophy and religion in the West, a major trend that cannot be stopped by exercising political or social will.
Right now, the US has a popular leader supported strongly by a substantial and economically important part of he US population. This might successfully change the dominant coalition in the US. If not, well, the loss of leadership by New England and NYC will continue, and resistance to them will continue to grow, so a current loss won't be the end of things.
So: answer is that we're in the early stages of a fighting back: get a leader, identify what it is we're fighting. The fight is indirect just now, as there is usually nothing local to fight _and_ any fight that seriously damaged infrastructure would both ineffective and not seriously affect the current dominant coalition. That the current effort just might work _without_ mass civil suffering shows that resistance isn't entirely futile, and that the current form of resistance isn't entirely ill judged. Of course, we are also running out of time, and for several reasons.
Counterinsurgency
The higher mortality rates in the South during Reconstruction were mostly due to the fact that the South had been completely devastated during the War. I know of no evidence that Reconstruction caused it, nor am I aware of anything done to help matters.
My mother, a staunch liberal and a retired university faculty member, is of Southern stock, ancestors who all fought with the South. According to my mother, the South was completely devastated after the War, and no real Federal effort to help the South occurred until FDR. The South was left to wallow in poverty until the TVA and CCC and WPA, esp the TVA. My mother considers the TVA to be the start of the real Reconstruction.
For her family — both of her grandfathers were the sons of physicians who had been second or later sons of plantation owners, but none of her grandparents attended college. She blames the post-War Southern poverty, the way wealthy families were impoverished. Fortunately, both of her parents attended college. Their first date was when her father was a freshman and her mother a sophomore. They stayed together from 1925 until my grandfather’s death in 1995.
Please consider the Wikipedia article, especially its sections on corruption and its last paragraph:
"What remains certain is that Reconstruction failed, and that for blacks its failure was a disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did endure."
I'm pointing out that the disaster included an increased death rate among the freedmen, as the economic system that had been feeding them was quickly destroyed and replaced by a system of small farming that apparently worked very poorly (perhaps because the freedmen running them were under capitalized and field hands rather than farmers). New England (the Yankees in the terminology of Woodward's _American nations_ is still proud of Reconstruction, or what it claims happened during Reconstruction.
In the old tag line, the Yankees came to do good, and they ended up doing quite well.
And the Yankees appear, with Open Borders, to be repeating Reconstruction on the rest of the US base population. The Unitarian Universalist doctrine of universal salvation after death is being extended to life _before_ death, as a religious duty.
As for the Yankee degree of influence, you might note that relatively few immigrants are being re-located to the New England states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_England), just as there was very little interest in the first Reconstruction in shipping slaves to New England to be farmers there.
The Unz American Pravda should have cracked the existing paradigm sufficiently to allow consideration of the above. Sure, some ethnic groups are being over-represented, but the "Devil" theory that some one group is responsible for everything is unlikely at best. Remember, the Devil is a supernatural being -- a real entity if one takes Christianity literally, a metaphor for the emergent evil of human communities if one doesn't. Attempted leadership isn't necessarily evil. The Hudson River Valley, a sort of intersection between Yankee "can do" and NYC "brute business muscle and marketing), was responsible for industrializing the US (or, one might say, "dominating the American economy"). Attempted leadership can also do bad things, examples given above. None of that makes the area the Devil, either in the literal sense meant within the Abrahamic religions or in the metaphorical sense. It does mean, quite often, a conflict of regional goals that can be very severe (est. 0.6 megadeaths, US civil war).
Counterinsurgency
To my knowledge no one has studied this in depth. There is one professor who has studied Southern history economics in detail, and he may have written about this. I listed to an episode on Walter Edgar's Journal on NPR where Dr. Mark Smith of USC, interviewed Dr. James C. Cobb, Professor of History at UGA, about South Carolina’s Economy during World War I. I'll have to look into it.
No Hitler > No WWII
No WWII > No attack on Pearl Harbor
No attack on Pearl Harbor > Dad in California doesn't join navy to fight Japs.
Dad not in navy > Dad doesn't meet Mom at a drugstore by the naval base in Jacksonville, Florida.
Conclusion: Thank Hitler I'm alive.
The McCollum memo and grounds for it would have happened irrespective of Hitler. How likely would FDR have been to goad Japan into war without Hitler? I am not sure but geopolitically the USA didn’t want a Pacific Rival at the time. In hindsight they might have let them be a counterweight to China more than they are now.
Hindsight is of course 20:20.
https://i2.wp.com/www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/BwJ1F8uIcAATmTE.jpg-large-e1410651930356.jpeg
I’ve noted for a long time that the pathologies of white council estates in the UK 1980s and 1990s were like those of aboriginal Americans or Australians. But the rape gangs add a whole new depressive dimension – who’d be a parent of girls in Rotherham, Rochdale or anywhere with a Muslim population?
But the media big up every incident of white misbehaviour and play down every incident of minority misbehaviour. The stories of people like Kriss Donald or Mary Ann Leneghan are reported, but they’re not on the TV or radio news, no earnest op-eds are commissioned, not chewed over day after day on every current affairs show, no one stands up in Parliament saying ‘something must be done’.
Indeed anyone saying ‘something must be done’ becomes the problem themselves. Remember Nick Griffin of the BNP was put on trial for claiming that white girls were being groomed and raped in West Yorkshire.
Which means low-information voters – especially the older ones who’ve avoided diversity and trust the BBC – literally do not have a clue, and continue to vote for the ‘respectable’ (i.e. bought) parties. This isn’t just a UK/US thing either – look at the French who voted for Macron, a manufactured candidate.
Wasn’t poor white people dwindling away the dream of patrician white people (like Malthus) for centuries?
Or that’s what was implied when I recently brought it up again to said people’s scions.
They need serious shaming and the twin implied threat of loyalty needing to be mutual and the rot spreading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms
My mother, a staunch liberal and a retired university faculty member, is of Southern stock, ancestors who all fought with the South. According to my mother, the South was completely devastated after the War, and no real Federal effort to help the South occurred until FDR. The South was left to wallow in poverty until the TVA and CCC and WPA, esp the TVA. My mother considers the TVA to be the start of the real Reconstruction.
For her family — both of her grandfathers were the sons of physicians who had been second or later sons of plantation owners, but none of her grandparents attended college. She blames the post-War Southern poverty, the way wealthy families were impoverished. Fortunately, both of her parents attended college. Their first date was when her father was a freshman and her mother a sophomore. They stayed together from 1925 until my grandfather’s death in 1995.
I like the speech lauding the TVA that the Coens wrote for George Clooney at the end of O Brother Where Art Thou?
I just looked that up and watched it. Thanks for the tip.
Drug use is no longer stigmatized, drugs are much more available, and there are fewer blue collar jobs that kept people constantly busy and exerted peer pressure on them.
Well, who here knows people with drug problems/deaths? I don’t.
These are all people I grew up with and knew my entire life. There are plenty more I knew as slightly.
There have been drug epidemics before that struck at lower class communities but usually these were urban blacks - the crack epidemic of the early 80s for example. That rural whites have now sunk lower than urban blacks really says something.
And there's no positive proof that, "MA’s investments in high education levels, economic opportunity, public health measures (e.g., tobacco/gun control, pro-exercise and healthy food policies), and near-universal health coverage are working." Is there any state that's 'anti-exercise'? Gawande is simply inferring (or interjecting) according to his own political beliefs. Also, long term trends can't be adjudged from a fleet two-year blip between 2014-'16. This is all highly speculative & can change back & forth again.
But Gawande, in his twitter feed, at the same time, also emphasized that,"The starkest differences in death rates are not by race or gender, but by level of education. People with only a high school degree or less have a *350%* higher annual rate of death than others. That's not a typo." Believe him or not.
Yeah, but maybe they only have a high school degree because they got hooked on drugs.
Wasn’t poor people dwindling away the actualite of English life for centuries, if Gregory Clark is correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms
White patricians are still in the camp of Lamarck. Poor whites are poverty prone dispute having lived in the US for hundreds of years. The most influential race and eugenics scientist by the mid 30′s was Ernest Hooton, who wanted sterilisation or isolation of undesirables; he was a thouroughgoing Lamarckian. Crucially, Hooton said a long established race (such as the American type) could not be altered by immigration, because the American environment would alter the immigrants’ genetic qualities toward American norms even if they married within their own immigrant community. The genes of every new influx would be modified to the inveterate type formed by the American environment and mode of life. Hence the American type population would subsume any amount of immigrants, because the similar environment would alter the immigrants’ genes with or without intermarriage. Genetic mixture of the American type population with new immigrants would be overborne by modification of the immigrant genes acquiring the characteristic of American genes. This was not any kind of Darwinism.
The scientists who provided the rationale for eugenics laws being passed were in the mainstream, but were in a great many cases not Darwinians. Moreover, they were actually targeting problematic white individuals and populations, such as the Appalachians who had failed to alter for the better despite living in the US for hundreds of years, thereby showing themselves to be a pathological element not susceptible to Lamarckian environmental genetic modification. On the committee on physical anthropology of the negro with Hooton was Aleš Hrdlička, who was a Lamarckian.
There were once all sorts of plans for improving American Indians too. Failure to evolve in the desired direction is seen as the mark of degeneracy.
They only voted for him because they didn’t want to vote for Jean-Marie’s daughter. It is unfair but there’s no use in pretending otherwise.
There have been quite a few massive die offs in human history, but if we changed history so they never happened the earth would be inhabited by completely different people. None of us would be alive.
If Squanto had not agreed to help the Plymouth colony, my ancestors would have died. If he had intervened sooner, they probably would’ve found different mates, and I would never have been born.
For WW II, father had terrible allergies and was not drafted. That allowed him to attend Columbia U instead of being off fighting. That allowed him to meet the people who later set him up with a blind date with my mother.
Grandson: What did you do in the war, grandpa?
Grandfather: I fought allergies.
https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/1078678799066251270
Disgusting. She should have her citizenship revoked.
Most underemployed whites have never had any kind of drug or alcohol problem. The constant references to whites and opiods provide a good way to avoid talking about the real reasons for mass-scale underemployment of US citizens and the historically low laborforce participation rate.
It also creates the untrue impression that employers are not hiring / retaining as many whites for that reason.
One bigly, truthful reason is: single moms and legal / illegal immigrants in single-breadwinner households can afford to accept the available temp and part-time work due to their wage supplements from Uncle Sam—specifically due to their rental assistance, EBT that increases per kid produced, monthly cash assistance, electricity assistance and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash—but many white Americans cannot afford the dignity of rent on their earned-only income.
That is pretty depressing. Citizens are living in some pretty hopeless and degrading economic situations, hence their non-drug-related despair.
It does not help that many majority-minority workplaces are openly discriminatory. Many of us crossed parties, thinking that voting for Republicans was a vote against this wildly hypocritical phenomenon.
Not
It is not just the government jobs that are staffed with 80% minority majorities. These are mostly non-racist, 80%-Black majorites, pushing out most of the whites who jumped through all of the hoops to get a government job. In many agencies, most Blacks make it to civil servant status, while most whites do not.
It is many corporate call centers and some corporate back offices, too. Add to that the many non-racist, 80%-Hispanic-majority workplaces. Add the non-racist, 80%-Asian-majority workplaces. Add the 90% youth-dominated workplaces. Then add the 98% childbearing-aged-mom workplaces, tallying up your opportunity quotient as a middle-aged job seeker who is not in any of the “culture-fit” categories.
Maybe, the openly discriminatory minorities and the openly discriminatory moms in their “voted-best-for-moms” jobs, with their libertine absenteeism privileges and their multiple unearned income streams from .gov, are happy. They do not have to work with many people who are not just like them. They run them all off.
Some middle-aged white people have plenty of things to stamp out their happiness. Each and every time you get one of the low-wage churn jobs, you must jump through endless, mouse-on-a-treadmill, jerk-you-around hoops, afterwhich you often see nothing but a zoo-like work atmosphere, full of needless visciousness from people who are mostly dishing that out to distract from their extreme absenteeism and their low numbers.
Hard work means nothing. Except to boost up the manager’s bonus, consistently high numbers mean nothing. They can always find a few others who work hard, keeping the numbers up while the frequently absentee, retained, culture-fit employees take tons of family-friendly time off. They churn the hardworking chumps.
Few people have been in these jobs for more than 2 years. The pay is insufficient to cover rent, meaning that you have zero money to cover basic expenses between churn jobs unless you have unearned income from 1) a spouse, 2) an ex spouse, 3) the government for reproducing in a single-breadwinner household or 4) the SS-retirement fund.
Many middle-aged whites are too young for SS; they have many years left in this punishing job scene. They are too old to churn out kids that qualify them for multiple, unearned income streams from welfare programs and refundable child tax ctedits up to $6,431 from the US Treasury Department. Their paychecks are lower due to the progressive tax code, even though many work much harder and more productively than parents with paychecks pumped up by the tax code.
They are not as likely as young people to get married, resulting in a second income to help with rent during their working years and two streams of SS income and double streams of pension / 401k income in retirement. Many know they won’t even be able to afford rent in old age, regardless of how hard they work.
People are not glorifying them every five minutes, calling them “working families” and la, la, la, regardless of the Grand Canyon-sized periods of excused time off enjoyed by the, in fact, not-working-hard families of the automation era.
Non-affluent, middle-aged whites are more likely to have been brought up with strict expectations and less praise, unlike the white millennial snowflakes with their automatic verbal accolades and the minorities who can blame everything on white privilege despite their disproportionate access to layered, pay-per-birth welfare streams, their $6,431 refundable child tax credits and their majority-minority EEOC-hypocrisy-mill workplace options.
Non-wealthy, middle-aged whites: this is the group subject to the most criticism—the harshest criticism—especially with the media churning out nothing but the U6 / U3 substitution lie, which counts all of the noncitizens, welfare-consuming, part time and temp workers as employed, regardless of how few hours they work, while not counting record numbers of US citizens of working age who are out of the labor force.
Friggin lying ***hol**. The lies of the corporate-owned media contribute heavily to the despair.
By middle age, most US citizens have worked in enough of these churn jobs to know that the fabled “real jobs” are mostly churn jobs, temp jobs, part-time jobs and pyramid-scam jobs of various types, with the few decent-paying jobs mostly held by well-vacationed, dual-earner, “needs-the-job” parents with family-friendly hours made possible by computers that do more and more of the work of “the talent,” too.
It is not just the part-time-working single moms, staying under the income limits for welfare by keeping their hours down. It is the highly paid employees, keeping two of the scarce good jobs with benefits in fewer households—the parents in dual-earner households who are needed less at work due to machines that do more of their work. It is still officially full-time work in those cases, though.
It is easy to avoid despair when you have two, above-firing, high-paying jobs per household, with vacations galore, a nice house in a posh zip code, tons of minor luxuries, etc., etc.
It is not so easy when you cannot afford to rent a noisy, crappy, one-room apartment in an unsafe area of the city, even when you work more hours in a horrible environment, enjoying zero vacations or extras. When you have no realistic expectation of any job security, even when you meet the numbers every month, you are in a constant state of non-drug-induced turmoil, never knowing whether or not you will have a roof over your head.
Solution; more pay-per-birth immigrants to compete for part time & temp jobs!
To claim that substance abuse cannot be associated with downscale people because of the cost is ludicrous. The notion that poverty is a barrier to substance abuse can be dispelled by an act as simple as watching 5 minutes of Live PD.*
Drugs are not like fur coats. There exist huge market distortions. Downscale whites (and downscale others) are undeniably prolific abusers of cigarettes, and someone was mentioning that a bag of heroin is now less expensive than a pack of cigs in some areas of the country. Also the opioid epidemic is partially subsidized by Medicaid, VA, and other programs, not to mention indirectly subsidized by food stamps, workmans comp, child support payments, alimony, etc… When people’s savings, public subsidy, and private subsidy aren’t enough, there’s always stealing, hustling, slinging, and tricking to support habits.
Crack devastated the ghettos a generation ago and I hope you aren’t trying to claim that means that people in the ghettos must have been rich then. lol.
*interestingly, watching enough Live PD could also dispel the notion that poverty is a cause of substance abuse. Basically anyone making sociological claims at any level should be assigned 10 hours of Live PD.
Drug use is no longer stigmatized, drugs are much more available, and there are fewer blue collar jobs that kept people constantly busy and exerted peer pressure on them.
True , drugs are much more available today and much less costly. Back in the 90s when my brother started using heroin it was more difficult to acquire, and the purity was much lower and the cost was 5 times higher. Back in 1998 his tobacco habit cost him $2.50 per day and his heroin cost $25 per day.
Today his heroin would cost him just $5 per day while he now spends $11 per day on tobacco. He quit using 9 years ago , takes Buprenorphine daily though.
“The South is gonna change”.
I just looked that up and watched it. Thanks for the tip.
It is a good point that you make.
But I would not count on the white liberal to align with any white nationalistic group. These people will gladly sign up with the enemy if for no other reason than their hatred for any cohesive group of white people.
Hard to figure the source of their hatred for their own racial group, but I do not think of it as masochistic as much as I perceive it to be sadistic. They hate “other” white people, not themselves, whom they adore.
Think of the scum that populate the anti-fascist mobs today. They are all pretty much your typical brain-dead white liberal who despise other white people, particularly white people who want to preserve their nation and their culture.
White liberals claim to be against “haters” and racists, which they have defined simply as any white person who wants to preserve their culture and is uncomfortable with massive non-white immigration into their nation.
So in essence the white liberal is the enemy of any white person who wants to preserve the historic American nation. And they are the real haters.
I do not see such fools as capable of choosing any side except the side of the enemies of the historic American nation–as they have always done and will always do.
Legalized pot will be the white man’s casino.
Why are whites just giving up though?? They have been through worse; gotten too soft? It is frustrating to see chunks of people throw the towel in so easily.
But my mentality is not to give up. No matter how bad things get, I will always try to fight back, or survive. Who are these weak whites throwing in the towel? I'm also young so I know exactly what it's like to live in the "dispossessed" country... and I don't really care. It is as bad as you think, and nobody over age 25 would really understand it. Either way it just pisses me off, but I don't despair. If I had nothing left to lose, I would form up in a militia to save the system, not waste away on drugs.
I am very worried about marijuana though. Far too many young kids, from age 15 or 16, are smoking weed on a regular basis. I think this is frankly one of the biggest threats to white people (in canada every race is smoking now though). The stuff rots out your brain.
Preview: Bourdain follows path of heroin in America
Even in LA…
It’s the beans (maybe)
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-hispanic-paradox-why-do-latinos-live-longer/
It seems like the cities with major research universities and tech
industry, esp. Boston-Cambridge, are gradually being taken over
by the market-dominant minorities (Jews, Chinese, East Indians).
The continuing Chinese/Indian influx to the tune of 200,000 a year
(incl. illegals) certainly helps. So have the market-dominant minorities yet
succeeded in driving the Wasps from the stately 19th century mansions
in Boston’s wealthy western suburbs like Newton and beyond? It must
be dispiriting to observe this process in action. First, the Irish and the
Italians were driven out by the high cost of real estate in the city. Are
the Wasps next? True, the Irish and the Italians gave the city a somewhat
boisterous character but at least Boston in the old days seemed full of
of life. During my recent (admittedly short) visit Boston seemed very subdued, if
not dead, gentrified to the point of nausea, and everywhere you looked (in central
Boston), you saw Chinese people.
https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/1078678799066251270
We call that the Amy Biehl syndrome.
Means never fully got onto the multi-culti bandwagon because of how blacks became morality as such while Indians were always an afterthought in the racial-spoils-system. That really pissed him off, to the point where he was able to sympathize with the white man.
That Russell Means interview on Alex Jones television is well worth watching and re-watching a couple times. Maybe mute the sound during the infowars flash bang intro.
“What your government has done to the Indian they will eventually do to all of you”
My mother, a staunch liberal and a retired university faculty member, is of Southern stock, ancestors who all fought with the South. According to my mother, the South was completely devastated after the War, and no real Federal effort to help the South occurred until FDR. The South was left to wallow in poverty until the TVA and CCC and WPA, esp the TVA. My mother considers the TVA to be the start of the real Reconstruction.
For her family — both of her grandfathers were the sons of physicians who had been second or later sons of plantation owners, but none of her grandparents attended college. She blames the post-War Southern poverty, the way wealthy families were impoverished. Fortunately, both of her parents attended college. Their first date was when her father was a freshman and her mother a sophomore. They stayed together from 1925 until my grandfather’s death in 1995.
“Reconstruction” as a proper name refers to the attempted political and social reconstruction of the conquered territory after the US Civil War. Even Wikipedia uses this meaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era). You are confusing the verb “reconstruction”, which does mean rebuilding, with the noun “Reconstruction”.
Please consider the Wikipedia article, especially its sections on corruption and its last paragraph:
“What remains certain is that Reconstruction failed, and that for blacks its failure was a disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did endure.”
I’m pointing out that the disaster included an increased death rate among the freedmen, as the economic system that had been feeding them was quickly destroyed and replaced by a system of small farming that apparently worked very poorly (perhaps because the freedmen running them were under capitalized and field hands rather than farmers). New England (the Yankees in the terminology of Woodward’s _American nations_ is still proud of Reconstruction, or what it claims happened during Reconstruction.
In the old tag line, the Yankees came to do good, and they ended up doing quite well.
And the Yankees appear, with Open Borders, to be repeating Reconstruction on the rest of the US base population. The Unitarian Universalist doctrine of universal salvation after death is being extended to life _before_ death, as a religious duty.
As for the Yankee degree of influence, you might note that relatively few immigrants are being re-located to the New England states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_England), just as there was very little interest in the first Reconstruction in shipping slaves to New England to be farmers there.
The Unz American Pravda should have cracked the existing paradigm sufficiently to allow consideration of the above. Sure, some ethnic groups are being over-represented, but the “Devil” theory that some one group is responsible for everything is unlikely at best. Remember, the Devil is a supernatural being — a real entity if one takes Christianity literally, a metaphor for the emergent evil of human communities if one doesn’t. Attempted leadership isn’t necessarily evil. The Hudson River Valley, a sort of intersection between Yankee “can do” and NYC “brute business muscle and marketing), was responsible for industrializing the US (or, one might say, “dominating the American economy”). Attempted leadership can also do bad things, examples given above. None of that makes the area the Devil, either in the literal sense meant within the Abrahamic religions or in the metaphorical sense. It does mean, quite often, a conflict of regional goals that can be very severe (est. 0.6 megadeaths, US civil war).
Counterinsurgency
I haven’t seen any studies of life under Reconstruction. The closest I saw was an analysis of life of a Freedman sharecropper compared to the life of a slave. The sharecropper had a much better life. This, of course, did not analyze those Freedmen who had no jobs, nor did it analyze the horrible life of the convict laborers, who were worse off than slaves.
I have seen a few comments about the life of the former house servants. Some stayed with their former owners. I had ancestors who moved to Texas, and brought their former house slaves with them. I think Steve once mentioned a study about a post-war community of the “talented tenth” in New Orleans; some had been free before the war, others were former house servants. IIRC, Steve mentioned that the descendants of this talented tenth community included some of the richest and most powerful blacks in the US. For example, the first black billionaire, Oprah Winfrey, and the Robinson family of Chicago (such as Michelle Robinson Obama).
It is interesting, in the 1950s some of the integrationists wanted to start integrating schools with children of the local “talented tenth”. For example, the black kids chosen to integrate Little Rock Central High School we’re hand picked from the most upstanding black families in Little Rock.
“White Americans are behaving more and more like how American Indians have long behaved: as a defeated and despairing race.”
Mr. Sailer, you are really trying to stretch a link between the spirit of American Indians being broken by European values imposed on them by force and the spirit of today’s white Americans being broken by their own tragic dependencies. Native Americans were mighty proud until the European came down on them hard. But that is no surprise given humanity’s knack for conquering. As far as today’s white Americans being a “defeated and despairing race”, perhaps you hit the fermented eggnog too hard on that line.
No. It was the turn of the tide.
There’s obviously a lot of white despair in places like MA but it certainly hasn’t changed the political attitudes of most of its residents.
Fake Indian Lizzie Warren cruised to victory last Nov. with about 60% of the vote and MA was the only state (save for minority white HI) where every county voted against Trump and for Hillary back in 2016. Sure there were some pockets of Red in central MA , southern Berkshires, parts of the ‘south shore’, etc. but the Hildabeast won the white vote -even white males- in MA.
Look at a national county-by-county vote map from 2016. Pockets of New England (MA esp.) and the urban Pacific northwest are the only Blue places on the map where Trump can not chalk up his losses to demographics. Even NY state and IL are largely red states except for NYC and Chicago. As someone who grew up in the area, I hate to say it, but these whites have the rest of the country over a barrel by providing the anti-white, anti-American Dems with the crucial votes needed to win in national elections. If New England /pacific northwest whites voted even like upper Midwest whites, the Dems would be a marginalized minority party right now and people like Hillary wouldn’t have come sickening close to winning.
The state is the father, and the mothers are those who
“A traitorous ruling elite….”
Right, because certain whites, all Jews, and their non-white toadies in academic and in government work in concert behind the scenes to destroy Western Civilization and to commit genocide against trad-men and trad-women. [/sarcasm]
etc, etc
“Whites can’t even be said to have been “defeated;” when did they ever fight?”
You are being ridiculous. Of course whites “fight”. They “fight” everyday, in their jobs, in their relationships, for their sportsball teams, and for their ideology. Just because there are white people who oppose your philosophies does not mean they lack the capacity or will to fight.
How are YOU fighting back against the elites who allegedly are demonizing “your kind”? Be specific.
“White Americans are behaving more and more like how American Indians have long behaved: as a defeated and despairing race.”
That will continue as long as whites remain secularists and/or bound to follow WASP cultural lead until it forces gotterdammerung upon all it influences.
My mother, a staunch liberal and a retired university faculty member, is of Southern stock, ancestors who all fought with the South. According to my mother, the South was completely devastated after the War, and no real Federal effort to help the South occurred until FDR. The South was left to wallow in poverty until the TVA and CCC and WPA, esp the TVA. My mother considers the TVA to be the start of the real Reconstruction.
For her family — both of her grandfathers were the sons of physicians who had been second or later sons of plantation owners, but none of her grandparents attended college. She blames the post-War Southern poverty, the way wealthy families were impoverished. Fortunately, both of her parents attended college. Their first date was when her father was a freshman and her mother a sophomore. They stayed together from 1925 until my grandfather’s death in 1995.
I’m sure land confiscation policies contributed to an already bad situation. 4/5ths of properties were confiscated in some SC Low Country counties. Of course you already had a great deal of land with no one to work it, as the slave population that had worked it were now wandering about with no means of support. This was one time in Southern history where the Tidewater fared worse than the Upcountry, as Reconstruction had far less impact in Appalachia. Almost all my mother’s lines were planters and slaveholders before the war, but were landless afterward. The lives of my father’s ancestors were very little changed.
To my knowledge no one has studied this in depth. There is one professor who has studied Southern history economics in detail, and he may have written about this. I listed to an episode on Walter Edgar’s Journal on NPR where Dr. Mark Smith of USC, interviewed Dr. James C. Cobb, Professor of History at UGA, about South Carolina’s Economy during World War I. I’ll have to look into it.
Drug use is no longer stigmatized, drugs are much more available, and there are fewer blue collar jobs that kept people constantly busy and exerted peer pressure on them.
There are many factors that contribute to drug addiction and suicide, but I think an understated one is the fact that non-Hispanic white American goyim tend to be atomistic and have a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality, so when we fall on hard times, we’re more likely to blame themselves for our troubles and less likely to reach out for help, assuming we have much of a support system available anyway (which we probably don’t). Far too many of us don’t know our families, like them, or help them, and our non-kin social networks often aren’t much better.
In this philosophy, our elites would look out for our interests as white people first and foremost, and they would stop abusing, exploiting and gaslighting us as throwaways.
“White nationalists need to emphasize their humanist alternative”
That is not humanist in the least.
“They want normal white people to flourish securely in their own countries.”
First, how do you define “normal white people”? Second, consider that the Americas did not contain “white people” until Europeans set foot on them in the 1500 and 1600’s. So, technically, “their own countries” for white people are Europe. We should go back.
“In this philosophy, our elites would look out for our interests as white people first and foremost”
Actually, our elites look out for citizens, which include people from different races and ethnic groups. Furthermore, recall that white people are not that unified throughout history. WASPs considered the Irish, the Italians, and the Poles, for example, to be beneath them racially and culturally.
“and they would stop abusing, exploiting and gaslighting us as throwaways”
I thought only the Jews and darkies play the victim card. Do you not have any sense of pride? What are you doing to ensure you are not being “abused” and “exploited”?
“I’ve always wondered why there haven’t been more whites who have fought back against what is happening in front of them. I suppose many have too much to lose. ”
Assimilation works. White Southerners, whose culture was a mix of Scots-Irish, Welsh, Scots Highland, Scots Lowland, West Country Norman, and north English Norman, were forced at gunpoint to assimilate to Yankee WASP cultural hegemony. For economic reasons, and just to be good guy citizens, Irish and Polish and Italian Catholics also assimilated to Yankee WASP cultural patterns and standards. Dutch, German, and Scandinavian Protestants needed only to speak English and end any opposition to the spread of Anglo Empire to be fully assimilated to Yankee WASP culture.
We are living with the inevitable results of trading your birthright for a mess of pottage that enriches WASP Elites while numbing your ability to see the chains they call freedom.
And yes, I do think there has been no mistake whatsoever that so many highly addictive drugs have been over-prescribed the past 30 years or so, especially among the poorest half of white America.
No --
The Jews--demonstrated by behavior (don't care what so and so says he feels)--on average, despite their terrific treatment in America, have not chosen to see themselves as "white Americans" but as a minority and have been trying--very successfully--to bust the joint up, with attacks on traditional white culture, "multicultralism" and, most effectively with a mass "nation of immigrants!" flood.
That's a betrayal in the sense of you invite in a guest ... and he turns on you. But it's not accurate to just put that under "white Americans betraying each other". The Jews simply chose to see themselves as a separate tribe with separate ethnic interests from the majority--balkanization and control rather than national/civilizational success.
Yes --
The good-whites are our Kapos. And they deserve similar treatment.
I’m not going to get into a debate with you on the role of the Jews – obviously we disagree.
BUT, whites are definitely not the kapos in this setup. Kapos were despicable characters but in the end they were prisoners too and in no way equal partners with the Nazis.
The destruction of the Old America has been a joint Jewish-WASP effort – they are equal partners in the effort. Since there are so many more WASPs than Jews, in fact WASP are in the majority (although Jews are “over-represented” as they are in any high IQ endeavor that does not expressly exclude them). You are like the folks who keep saying that Bolshevism is the same thing as Judaism. There were Jewish Bolsheviks but there were plenty of non-Jewish Bolsheviks too, including those at the very top and there were plenty of Jews who were opposed to Bolshevism and who were hurt by Bolshevism just as much as non-Jewish Russians were. The only place where there were no Jewish Russians were in the “White” political movements which were expressly anti-Semitic – they couldn’t participate because these movements were expressly anti-Semitic.
The same applies to America today. When you in effect blame the decline of America on “Jewish Bolshevism” you are making the same argument that Hitler did and you are just as wrong as he was. This is why “Antisemitism is the socialism of fools”. You could (as Hitler tried) get rid of all the Jews (“they all have to go back”) and nothing would change – whites would still be killing themselves with drugs. Jews are not the primary cause so getting rid of them wouldn’t fix anything.
Seeing as how every scientifically literate person understands the concept of "extended phenotype", are you presuming that all the rest of us are scientifically illiterate? Or are you just demonstrating that you are?
“I’ve always wondered why there haven’t been more whites who have fought back against what is happening in front of them.”
Perhaps whites see what is right in front of them, but interpret it differently than you. That would be the source of your frustration.
The Irish Catholics of Massachusetts are simply a much more garrulous version of the American Indian.
No --
The Jews--demonstrated by behavior (don't care what so and so says he feels)--on average, despite their terrific treatment in America, have not chosen to see themselves as "white Americans" but as a minority and have been trying--very successfully--to bust the joint up, with attacks on traditional white culture, "multicultralism" and, most effectively with a mass "nation of immigrants!" flood.
That's a betrayal in the sense of you invite in a guest ... and he turns on you. But it's not accurate to just put that under "white Americans betraying each other". The Jews simply chose to see themselves as a separate tribe with separate ethnic interests from the majority--balkanization and control rather than national/civilizational success.
Yes --
The good-whites are our Kapos. And they deserve similar treatment.
PS, Jews are not “guests” in America. If the people in a public park or on a public bus are behaving obnoxiously, you still have the right to criticize them, but not because they are the “guests” and you are the “hosts”. Appointing yourself as the “host” is begging the question.
In that sense, they're guests.
Both sides of the big political fights of recent decades have been driven by whites. Barack Obama was himself half-white, half-black, but he was backed, chosen, and driven, by progressive leadership that was overwhelmingly white.
Whites fought, they fought hard, they just didn’t fight together. To quote a classic SSC post:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
A large part of the reason for the failure of the Republicans to capture more of the white vote is the failure of the Republicans.
They have consistently and predictably let the historic American nation down on issue after issue after issue.
Why vote for the Republican party if all it means is raising the age for social security, cutting medical benefits, and giving more tax cuts to the top one percent?
Oh, and continuing the wars for Israel and keeping the borders open for the Chamber of Commerce, the Koch brothers, and other assorted traitorous scum.
Oh, and continuing the wars for Israel and keeping the borders open for the Chamber of Commerce." True to an extent but Trump ran as a different kind of Republican... He ran again the Chamber(pot) of Commerce on trade/immigration, opposed the Iraq disaster and ran on protecting Soc. Security. Granted on tax cuts he's been a doctrinaire Republican.
But I think the ingrained mindset of a lot of whites in MA re: Trump (and elsewhere) is "Oh gee, he's a Republican so that's gonna effect muh abortions, and muh gay marriages, etc. Plus he's so crude and petty." Of course, even if Trump appoints 9 Scalia clones to the Sup. Court, MA (and other states) could still have legalized abortion in their jurisdictions, but the national Republican party doesn't message this the right way because their scared stiff that even the appearance of waffling on abortion will cost them their base. Hence formerly pro-choice Romney and Trump suddenly become prolife when they ran for prez.
The 1986 Amnesty generation didn't pay much unto Social Security because of low incomes, but they will be collecting for a really long time. An amnestied 25 year old in 1986 can start collecting early old-age benefits only four years from now, and may end up collecting for 30+ years after only paying in for 35 years and only marginal amounts while getting it ALL back at the end of every year from EITC.
EITC is most generous to single mothers, and Hispanic illegitimacy rates are so much higher than whites, they get much more in EITC welfare per low-income worker.
Was having some fun with the kids home, didn’t get to this yesterday, but this chart Guwande’s put up is obvious junk at the high end.
Just look at the last line: Hispanic males at 85 have a median expected life span of 14.2–living to almost 100! Uh …. no. (All the guys dying between 85 and 99 would have to be balanced by people living over 100. Yeah right.) They admit there are issues with low N population groups, but this is off the charts ridiculous.
Real life expectancy doesn’t work this way at the high end. It tightly ratchets down. For instance in my early 60s, the Social Security folks give me a life expectancy out into my early 80s. But for the guy hitting 85, it’s <91. Hit 90 it's <95. Hit 95<98. If you live to a ripe old age, you can always–statistically–expect to go a few more years. But once you're at these old ages, a good fraction of your cohort still alive are checking out the very next year. Modern medicine and easy low-damage occupations are pushing up life expectancy, but the body does just wear out.
The takehome here should only be general:
— Hispanics have longer lifespans. That's been the case as long as the US has had the category.
— The notable thing here is the whites are doing worse than blacks. That's very new. Usually there's a crossover in the elderly, where blacks who haven't killed themselves with poor choices at younger ages, live a bit longer than whites at the high ages. (Maybe a genetic thing, or maybe just selection of the blacks who get there. But definitely a real thing.) But now whites are doing worse than blacks–at least in Massachusetts–across all ages. That's really bad news for whites.
Spain is projected to pass Italy for longest lifespan in Europe, that's probably part of the hispanic advantage. I think Northern Euros may have cold weather adaptations that increase risk of the modern chronic diseases that kill most of us. It is either that or olive oil and wine are magic, as industry-funded studies keep concluding.
Plenty of blame to go around for sure.
But the Jews, because of their overwhelming dominance of the media and the culture, have played a far more destructive and negative role in the decline of the republic than would have happened without their negative influence.
This dominance has not been good for the historic American nation and ultimately it will not be good for the Jews either.
Adult supervision is sadly lacking in what remains of a once functional and somewhat decent nation.
Most underemployed whites have never had any kind of drug or alcohol problem. The constant references to whites and opiods provide a good way to avoid talking about the real reasons for mass-scale underemployment of US citizens and the historically low laborforce participation rate.
It also creates the untrue impression that employers are not hiring / retaining as many whites for that reason.
One bigly, truthful reason is: single moms and legal / illegal immigrants in single-breadwinner households can afford to accept the available temp and part-time work due to their wage supplements from Uncle Sam—specifically due to their rental assistance, EBT that increases per kid produced, monthly cash assistance, electricity assistance and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash—but many white Americans cannot afford the dignity of rent on their earned-only income.
That is pretty depressing. Citizens are living in some pretty hopeless and degrading economic situations, hence their non-drug-related despair.
It does not help that many majority-minority workplaces are openly discriminatory. Many of us crossed parties, thinking that voting for Republicans was a vote against this wildly hypocritical phenomenon.
Not
It is not just the government jobs that are staffed with 80% minority majorities. These are mostly non-racist, 80%-Black majorites, pushing out most of the whites who jumped through all of the hoops to get a government job. In many agencies, most Blacks make it to civil servant status, while most whites do not.
It is many corporate call centers and some corporate back offices, too. Add to that the many non-racist, 80%-Hispanic-majority workplaces. Add the non-racist, 80%-Asian-majority workplaces. Add the 90% youth-dominated workplaces. Then add the 98% childbearing-aged-mom workplaces, tallying up your opportunity quotient as a middle-aged job seeker who is not in any of the “culture-fit” categories.
Maybe, the openly discriminatory minorities and the openly discriminatory moms in their “voted-best-for-moms” jobs, with their libertine absenteeism privileges and their multiple unearned income streams from .gov, are happy. They do not have to work with many people who are not just like them. They run them all off.
Some middle-aged white people have plenty of things to stamp out their happiness. Each and every time you get one of the low-wage churn jobs, you must jump through endless, mouse-on-a-treadmill, jerk-you-around hoops, afterwhich you often see nothing but a zoo-like work atmosphere, full of needless visciousness from people who are mostly dishing that out to distract from their extreme absenteeism and their low numbers.
Hard work means nothing. Except to boost up the manager’s bonus, consistently high numbers mean nothing. They can always find a few others who work hard, keeping the numbers up while the frequently absentee, retained, culture-fit employees take tons of family-friendly time off. They churn the hardworking chumps.
Few people have been in these jobs for more than 2 years. The pay is insufficient to cover rent, meaning that you have zero money to cover basic expenses between churn jobs unless you have unearned income from 1) a spouse, 2) an ex spouse, 3) the government for reproducing in a single-breadwinner household or 4) the SS-retirement fund.
Many middle-aged whites are too young for SS; they have many years left in this punishing job scene. They are too old to churn out kids that qualify them for multiple, unearned income streams from welfare programs and refundable child tax ctedits up to $6,431 from the US Treasury Department. Their paychecks are lower due to the progressive tax code, even though many work much harder and more productively than parents with paychecks pumped up by the tax code.
They are not as likely as young people to get married, resulting in a second income to help with rent during their working years and two streams of SS income and double streams of pension / 401k income in retirement. Many know they won’t even be able to afford rent in old age, regardless of how hard they work.
People are not glorifying them every five minutes, calling them “working families” and la, la, la, regardless of the Grand Canyon-sized periods of excused time off enjoyed by the, in fact, not-working-hard families of the automation era.
Non-affluent, middle-aged whites are more likely to have been brought up with strict expectations and less praise, unlike the white millennial snowflakes with their automatic verbal accolades and the minorities who can blame everything on white privilege despite their disproportionate access to layered, pay-per-birth welfare streams, their $6,431 refundable child tax credits and their majority-minority EEOC-hypocrisy-mill workplace options.
Non-wealthy, middle-aged whites: this is the group subject to the most criticism—the harshest criticism—especially with the media churning out nothing but the U6 / U3 substitution lie, which counts all of the noncitizens, welfare-consuming, part time and temp workers as employed, regardless of how few hours they work, while not counting record numbers of US citizens of working age who are out of the labor force.
Friggin lying ***hol**. The lies of the corporate-owned media contribute heavily to the despair.
By middle age, most US citizens have worked in enough of these churn jobs to know that the fabled “real jobs” are mostly churn jobs, temp jobs, part-time jobs and pyramid-scam jobs of various types, with the few decent-paying jobs mostly held by well-vacationed, dual-earner, “needs-the-job” parents with family-friendly hours made possible by computers that do more and more of the work of “the talent,” too.
It is not just the part-time-working single moms, staying under the income limits for welfare by keeping their hours down. It is the highly paid employees, keeping two of the scarce good jobs with benefits in fewer households—the parents in dual-earner households who are needed less at work due to machines that do more of their work. It is still officially full-time work in those cases, though.
It is easy to avoid despair when you have two, above-firing, high-paying jobs per household, with vacations galore, a nice house in a posh zip code, tons of minor luxuries, etc., etc.
It is not so easy when you cannot afford to rent a noisy, crappy, one-room apartment in an unsafe area of the city, even when you work more hours in a horrible environment, enjoying zero vacations or extras. When you have no realistic expectation of any job security, even when you meet the numbers every month, you are in a constant state of non-drug-induced turmoil, never knowing whether or not you will have a roof over your head.
Solution; more pay-per-birth immigrants to compete for part time & temp jobs!
That’s pretty despairing. Hopefully you’re able to make up for lower income with better skills, like optimizing on clothing, food, etc. it wasn’t hard, in extra time, to become good at supercouponing and live off the system without collecting welfare.
Hang in there.
That is a great book. Almost everywhere could benefit by checklistization. Especially checklists that, like Wikipedia, are open to editing by all.
To my knowledge no one has studied this in depth. There is one professor who has studied Southern history economics in detail, and he may have written about this. I listed to an episode on Walter Edgar's Journal on NPR where Dr. Mark Smith of USC, interviewed Dr. James C. Cobb, Professor of History at UGA, about South Carolina’s Economy during World War I. I'll have to look into it.
In most of the barrier islands, Defuskee and the like, all the whites were expelled from the islands. This created a very unusual situation in which a more African culture arose, with its own language (Gullah, sometimes derisively called Geechee). Up to very recently, perhaps even to the present day, few if any cars even had valid license plates. Wills were often not probated, so it was not always clear who owned what land. Some islands were areas where police often didn’t venture.
The fact that the police didn’t venture there was an arrangement that the whites and the blacks agreed on. During Jim Crow many southern police forces would charge money to answer a call in black neighborhoods. The other side of the coin was that many state governments made most of their money off of leasing convict labor, so there was an incentive to imprison poor people, especially blacks, for often trivial offenses. So the Gullah folks were often very happy to be ignored by the cops.
The modern day rush for real estate developers to sell vacation homes on the barrier islands has led to a very interesting clash of cultures. I can understand not probating the wills. One of my ancestors married the very young daughter of a Cherokee chief, and got a farm outside Nashville. He was an officer in the CSA Army during the War. When he died, it was technically illegal for her to own the farm due to her Indian blood. I visited the farm in 1976, and many of the people living there were in their late 90s or even over 100, still bitterly complaining about the Yankees. When they sold it to developers in 1980 there was a bit of trouble getting it all sorted out, making sure everyone agreed and everyone got their fair cut.
Right, because certain whites, all Jews, and their non-white toadies in academic and in government work in concert behind the scenes to destroy Western Civilization and to commit genocide against trad-men and trad-women. [/sarcasm]
Please give us your explanation of these stats. Thanks!
Right, because certain whites, all Jews, and their non-white toadies in academic and in government work in concert behind the scenes to destroy Western Civilization and to commit genocide against trad-men and trad-women. [/sarcasm]
Dear boy, please try to keep up:
Merkel in Germany
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/germany-merkel-refugee-asylum/405058/
Tony Blair in the UK
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
The 1965 Immigration Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
New Hampshire, 94 Percent White, Asks: How Do You Diversify a Whole State?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/us/new-hampshire-white-diversify.html
etc, etc
The 1965 Immigration Act was a much needed update.
New England and the port of New York have provided American leadership since New England led the coalition that destroyed the South and New York City controlled financing of the Gilded Age. It's no mistake that New York's nickname is still "The Empire State" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_%22Empire_State%22 ) . NYC was originally a Dutch settlement, and has managed to hold on to the Dutch Golden Age concept of trade (if it makes money, make the trade) through the American Revolution, the replacement of Dutch by Anglo Saxon, the replacement of Anglo Saxon by an establishment with a substantial Jewish component. That New York is just south of New England has been quite a boon to it, and the two have a kind of symbiosis: New England does the heavy thinking and New York City provides the muscle.
It's hard to beat a combination like that. New England staffs the large corporations and much of upper tiers of academia, New York controls (or heavily influences) financing for the corporations, to include the media.
Unfortunately, both of them are crazy as bedbugs, and have been since settlement. New England is still trying to get the rest of the nation to atone for its sins (last two times New England did this was the Civil War, 0.6 American megadeaths, Reconstruction (no death figures, but mortality for inhabitants of the South, all colors, supposedly rose during Reconstruction).
New York City has tended to favor foreign policy favored by its Jewish community since the migrations of the 1890s, but is primarily driven (like all large cities in the world) by its loss of manufacturing consequent to containerization and its reliance on finance and political power to provide income. New York City consequently favors immigration (for cheap labor and the votes to keep outside subsidies of various sorts).
Pacific Coast follows New England and NYC, which settled the Pacific Coast cities during the AD 1800s.
So: money and religion. It's a strong combination, and it's protected by distance from most of the country. Both areas have their weaknesses, however. NYC's political legitimacy (and that of other large cities populated by very recent immigrants) is being questioned by what's left of the historic US population. At the same time that radical Democrats are questioning the legitimacy of the Federal Government. Both together might destroy the subsidies upon which NYC depends. NYC is also letting its capital plant ("infrastructure") wear out, which suggests that even today NYC's subsidies are inadequate to city operating costs that include depreciation, and also suggests a future need for even larger subsidies than it currently receives. Additionally see Copley's remarks in the book _Uncivilization_.
New England is losing its position as intellectual leader, as its stated positions become less plausible to the general population and at the same time less in the interest of the present American population. This loss of position is related to the general decay of philosophy and religion in the West, a major trend that cannot be stopped by exercising political or social will.
Right now, the US has a popular leader supported strongly by a substantial and economically important part of he US population. This might successfully change the dominant coalition in the US. If not, well, the loss of leadership by New England and NYC will continue, and resistance to them will continue to grow, so a current loss won't be the end of things.
So: answer is that we're in the early stages of a fighting back: get a leader, identify what it is we're fighting. The fight is indirect just now, as there is usually nothing local to fight _and_ any fight that seriously damaged infrastructure would both ineffective and not seriously affect the current dominant coalition. That the current effort just might work _without_ mass civil suffering shows that resistance isn't entirely futile, and that the current form of resistance isn't entirely ill judged. Of course, we are also running out of time, and for several reasons.
Counterinsurgency
Dunno. People of New England stock led the fight against mass immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries…..
As opposed to the South, whose decadent slavocracy wanted the USA to look like South Carolina….
Heh. Yet another argument from contempt. You should be ashamed.
Slavery was dependent on tropical products, which wouldn't grow north of the Mason-Dixon line. Slavery was never going to work outside of tropical and sub-tropical areas, although peonage (which apparently dominates California's Central Valley agriculture just now) can. Slavery wasn't going to work in the Great American Desert, either. It had gone about as far as it would go.
There were some speculations about a Great Slave Empire in Latin America, but that was just a fever dream, well beyond the resources of the South (or of France, as it turned out) even if the rest of the States would have permitted an attempt to establish such an Empire.
Slavery was past its prime in the South, worldwide for that matter, and it seems likely that it would have vanished (as it did in Brazil. last country in the Americas to abolish slavery (AD 1888). 0.6 megadeaths for 23 years early freedom, plus losses among the the freed slaves and poverty for the suvivors. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war).
Worth it? Think about it first.
I have more immediate concerns. New England appears to be a repeat offender, and is apparently trying (in concert with the New York City establishment) to reorganize US society yet again. No remorse for the 0.6 million Civil War dead, no "sorry about deaths and impoverishment during the Reconstruction fiasco", just "You're bad people, we're going to take over again and reconstruct you and your society, with considerable help from foreign nationals". Do you want that? Why????
Counterinsurgency
That is not humanist in the least.
"They want normal white people to flourish securely in their own countries."
First, how do you define "normal white people"? Second, consider that the Americas did not contain "white people" until Europeans set foot on them in the 1500 and 1600's. So, technically, "their own countries" for white people are Europe. We should go back.
"In this philosophy, our elites would look out for our interests as white people first and foremost"
Actually, our elites look out for citizens, which include people from different races and ethnic groups. Furthermore, recall that white people are not that unified throughout history. WASPs considered the Irish, the Italians, and the Poles, for example, to be beneath them racially and culturally.
"and they would stop abusing, exploiting and gaslighting us as throwaways"
I thought only the Jews and darkies play the victim card. Do you not have any sense of pride? What are you doing to ensure you are not being "abused" and "exploited"?
Ron Unz vehemently denies this. He even denies that White Nationalists consider Jews to be non-white. I have had to school Ron Unz about this repeatedly, and he is still in denial.
It would be fantastic if you repeated the above sentence in response to him.
“Massachusetts is fairly heterogeneous. People think of Boston, which is booming, but there are old decaying mill cities like Springfield and Fall River that might as well be in the Rust Belt. Lots of overdoses in those places. And some parts of the state are pretty rural.”
I don’t know Fall River, but Springfield seems to be in reasonable shape. It has its rough areas but nothing like Hartford 30 miles south. Now, Holyoke, just north of Springfield, that’s another story, it’s pretty nasty, but it’s not really representative of the area.
Most of the rural parts of Massachusetts are decent.
Please consider the Wikipedia article, especially its sections on corruption and its last paragraph:
"What remains certain is that Reconstruction failed, and that for blacks its failure was a disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did endure."
I'm pointing out that the disaster included an increased death rate among the freedmen, as the economic system that had been feeding them was quickly destroyed and replaced by a system of small farming that apparently worked very poorly (perhaps because the freedmen running them were under capitalized and field hands rather than farmers). New England (the Yankees in the terminology of Woodward's _American nations_ is still proud of Reconstruction, or what it claims happened during Reconstruction.
In the old tag line, the Yankees came to do good, and they ended up doing quite well.
And the Yankees appear, with Open Borders, to be repeating Reconstruction on the rest of the US base population. The Unitarian Universalist doctrine of universal salvation after death is being extended to life _before_ death, as a religious duty.
As for the Yankee degree of influence, you might note that relatively few immigrants are being re-located to the New England states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_England), just as there was very little interest in the first Reconstruction in shipping slaves to New England to be farmers there.
The Unz American Pravda should have cracked the existing paradigm sufficiently to allow consideration of the above. Sure, some ethnic groups are being over-represented, but the "Devil" theory that some one group is responsible for everything is unlikely at best. Remember, the Devil is a supernatural being -- a real entity if one takes Christianity literally, a metaphor for the emergent evil of human communities if one doesn't. Attempted leadership isn't necessarily evil. The Hudson River Valley, a sort of intersection between Yankee "can do" and NYC "brute business muscle and marketing), was responsible for industrializing the US (or, one might say, "dominating the American economy"). Attempted leadership can also do bad things, examples given above. None of that makes the area the Devil, either in the literal sense meant within the Abrahamic religions or in the metaphorical sense. It does mean, quite often, a conflict of regional goals that can be very severe (est. 0.6 megadeaths, US civil war).
Counterinsurgency
I was deliberate in my improper use of the term, meaning that the New Deal was a TRUE reconstruction. I should have said rebuilding or modernization to be less confusing.
I haven’t seen any studies of life under Reconstruction. The closest I saw was an analysis of life of a Freedman sharecropper compared to the life of a slave. The sharecropper had a much better life. This, of course, did not analyze those Freedmen who had no jobs, nor did it analyze the horrible life of the convict laborers, who were worse off than slaves.
I have seen a few comments about the life of the former house servants. Some stayed with their former owners. I had ancestors who moved to Texas, and brought their former house slaves with them. I think Steve once mentioned a study about a post-war community of the “talented tenth” in New Orleans; some had been free before the war, others were former house servants. IIRC, Steve mentioned that the descendants of this talented tenth community included some of the richest and most powerful blacks in the US. For example, the first black billionaire, Oprah Winfrey, and the Robinson family of Chicago (such as Michelle Robinson Obama).
It is interesting, in the 1950s some of the integrationists wanted to start integrating schools with children of the local “talented tenth”. For example, the black kids chosen to integrate Little Rock Central High School we’re hand picked from the most upstanding black families in Little Rock.
Essentially, Reconstruction was an early American attempt at nation building, and it apparently worked as well as nation building does today. The South eventually ended Reconstruction, or perhaps Reconstruction fell of its own weight, and Southern society lasted in recognizable form until the 1960s.The "use the talented 10%" didn't last. Bloom, in _Closing of the American Mind_ claims that Cornell deliberately picked one of its first classes of blacks from unqualified inner city blacks, the better to show proficiency in converting them to future leaders of American, or perhaps to better quiet radicals who advocated such a course. The students proceeded to shut down Cornell and hold several visiting parents as hostages. As usual, apparently the intent wasn't to help blacks, it was to hurt white institutions. OTH, the start their Cornell operation gave to a career in politics may well have helped the black students. That sort of thing led to the present situation.Life is very disappointing.Counterinsurgency
That’s really a remarkable result. I wonder what the corresponding figures are like for many other states.
I’d be especially curious about those for California. My own guess is that despite the terrible housing and traffic problems, CA whites aren’t suffering anything like the social problems of whites in many parts of the Midwest and the East coast. For example, from what I’ve read there’s very little of an Opioid problem here, except maybe for the drug addicts who’ve moved here from other parts of the country.
Now CA has the smallest white minority of any major state, maybe down to not much above 30% of the total population, and the CA state government is obviously extremely liberal and PC. So if I’m correct about whites here doing much better than whites elsewhere, I think it would show that the issues involved are far more complex and nuanced than what many commenters here would suggest.
Questions of PC are also pertinent. Having lived in both MA and CA, I feel pretty safe in saying that the average Bay Stater is considerably less pozzed. For example, I have never heard Whites in CA use the N-word in casual conversation while walking down public streets. In MA, on the other hand, I heard the N-word being used pretty frequently by prole Whites.
I shop at WalMart in a very white city. The other shoppers who aren't elderly are mostly Hispanic/Black/Unidentifiable tattooed Americans. There are poor whites in CA cities, but more so they've sequestered themselves in rural communities or moved to NV and ID.
Blame Sailer and his ilk. They did jackshit for the past 50 years, save whine online about all the shite their cowardice and passivity let happen.
His father and others kicked Hitler’s butt. Steve and his cronies licked Steinem’s boots.
Each year, every year, feminists shat on all things male…from drugging young boys in kindergarten for being imperfect girls…to making divorce easy for moms while taking kids and assets from dads…to expelling young men from college based on mere allegations of ever-changing “offenses to wimmin.”
While all that and more happened, Sailer “talked” and “wrote” and changed nothing.
No wonder young males today want to be gay, incel, non-binary, furrykin: ANYTHING but the mice Sailerites became.
I'd be especially curious about those for California. My own guess is that despite the terrible housing and traffic problems, CA whites aren't suffering anything like the social problems of whites in many parts of the Midwest and the East coast. For example, from what I've read there's very little of an Opioid problem here, except maybe for the drug addicts who've moved here from other parts of the country.
Now CA has the smallest white minority of any major state, maybe down to not much above 30% of the total population, and the CA state government is obviously extremely liberal and PC. So if I'm correct about whites here doing much better than whites elsewhere, I think it would show that the issues involved are far more complex and nuanced than what many commenters here would suggest.
Interesting stats on opiod prescriptions in CA vs the national average:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state/california-opioid-summary
As I observed upthread, it would be interesting to do some intra-European analysis. MA and Appalachia, for example, have populations (Irish Catholics and Scots-Irish) that are prone to melancholy. Then there are environmental factors (CA is a famously sunshiny state).
Questions of PC are also pertinent. Having lived in both MA and CA, I feel pretty safe in saying that the average Bay Stater is considerably less pozzed. For example, I have never heard Whites in CA use the N-word in casual conversation while walking down public streets. In MA, on the other hand, I heard the N-word being used pretty frequently by prole Whites.
“Why vote for the Republican party if all it means is raising the age for social security, cutting medical benefits, and giving more tax cuts to the top one percent?
Oh, and continuing the wars for Israel and keeping the borders open for the Chamber of Commerce.”
True to an extent but Trump ran as a different kind of Republican… He ran again the Chamber(pot) of Commerce on trade/immigration, opposed the Iraq disaster and ran on protecting Soc. Security. Granted on tax cuts he’s been a doctrinaire Republican.
But I think the ingrained mindset of a lot of whites in MA re: Trump (and elsewhere) is “Oh gee, he’s a Republican so that’s gonna effect muh abortions, and muh gay marriages, etc. Plus he’s so crude and petty.” Of course, even if Trump appoints 9 Scalia clones to the Sup. Court, MA (and other states) could still have legalized abortion in their jurisdictions, but the national Republican party doesn’t message this the right way because their scared stiff that even the appearance of waffling on abortion will cost them their base. Hence formerly pro-choice Romney and Trump suddenly become prolife when they ran for prez.
New England and the port of New York have provided American leadership since New England led the coalition that destroyed the South and New York City controlled financing of the Gilded Age. It's no mistake that New York's nickname is still "The Empire State" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_%22Empire_State%22 ) . NYC was originally a Dutch settlement, and has managed to hold on to the Dutch Golden Age concept of trade (if it makes money, make the trade) through the American Revolution, the replacement of Dutch by Anglo Saxon, the replacement of Anglo Saxon by an establishment with a substantial Jewish component. That New York is just south of New England has been quite a boon to it, and the two have a kind of symbiosis: New England does the heavy thinking and New York City provides the muscle.
It's hard to beat a combination like that. New England staffs the large corporations and much of upper tiers of academia, New York controls (or heavily influences) financing for the corporations, to include the media.
Unfortunately, both of them are crazy as bedbugs, and have been since settlement. New England is still trying to get the rest of the nation to atone for its sins (last two times New England did this was the Civil War, 0.6 American megadeaths, Reconstruction (no death figures, but mortality for inhabitants of the South, all colors, supposedly rose during Reconstruction).
New York City has tended to favor foreign policy favored by its Jewish community since the migrations of the 1890s, but is primarily driven (like all large cities in the world) by its loss of manufacturing consequent to containerization and its reliance on finance and political power to provide income. New York City consequently favors immigration (for cheap labor and the votes to keep outside subsidies of various sorts).
Pacific Coast follows New England and NYC, which settled the Pacific Coast cities during the AD 1800s.
So: money and religion. It's a strong combination, and it's protected by distance from most of the country. Both areas have their weaknesses, however. NYC's political legitimacy (and that of other large cities populated by very recent immigrants) is being questioned by what's left of the historic US population. At the same time that radical Democrats are questioning the legitimacy of the Federal Government. Both together might destroy the subsidies upon which NYC depends. NYC is also letting its capital plant ("infrastructure") wear out, which suggests that even today NYC's subsidies are inadequate to city operating costs that include depreciation, and also suggests a future need for even larger subsidies than it currently receives. Additionally see Copley's remarks in the book _Uncivilization_.
New England is losing its position as intellectual leader, as its stated positions become less plausible to the general population and at the same time less in the interest of the present American population. This loss of position is related to the general decay of philosophy and religion in the West, a major trend that cannot be stopped by exercising political or social will.
Right now, the US has a popular leader supported strongly by a substantial and economically important part of he US population. This might successfully change the dominant coalition in the US. If not, well, the loss of leadership by New England and NYC will continue, and resistance to them will continue to grow, so a current loss won't be the end of things.
So: answer is that we're in the early stages of a fighting back: get a leader, identify what it is we're fighting. The fight is indirect just now, as there is usually nothing local to fight _and_ any fight that seriously damaged infrastructure would both ineffective and not seriously affect the current dominant coalition. That the current effort just might work _without_ mass civil suffering shows that resistance isn't entirely futile, and that the current form of resistance isn't entirely ill judged. Of course, we are also running out of time, and for several reasons.
Counterinsurgency
As a Pennsylvania German, I have no love for New England. But no one in New England made you people fire at Fort Sumter. And it was Edmund Ruffin, of all people, whom you invited to pull the lanyard. Seriously, nothing says peaceful-Southerners-provoked-by-malevolent-Yankees like inviting Ruffin down as though the whole thing is a party.
Yes, Ruffin was a hothead even by borderlander standards. Heck, South Carolina was considered hotheaded by the rest of the South, and the mental disorder was attributed to early settlement by a large group of Barbados planters. Caribbean island slave economies ate slaves. 5 year average slave lifespan after arrival, and the slave owners had no ruth whatsoever.
Mainly, though, I'm not blind. The US Civil War was a disaster for the US, and so was Reconstruction. Both were the result of efforts by a coalition of New England (Yankees) and New York City (NYC, Dutch trading culture, slightly modified). We're now undergoing what amounts to a second Reconstruction.
* Same issue: slavery (slogan being "Slavery is American's original Sin"), same method: mobilize the underclass (former slaves back then) and make the former underclass the new governing class (search for "Union League"), while NYC picks up the commercial gains. This time the Yankees are importing massive numbers of foreign nationals to augment their effort. Last time much of Union troop strength was new immigrants.
* Yankees and NYC are augmented this time with California coastal cities, which were settled by Yankees and New York merchants in the early AD 1800s.
* Methodology is still the same: intense propaganda, reliance on paramilitary forces to kill and intimidate opposition among those being reconstructed, reconstruction based entirely on race. Classic insurgency tactics that date back to at least the French Revolution.
* Result is still the same: increased poverty, increased death rate among the group targeted for reconstruction, loss of primary source of income for the targeted area, increased racial hatred.
Reconstruction instances then and now are downright isomorphic. It's bit disconcerting. The borderlanders took it on the chin during the Civil War and Reconstruction both. They are this time, too.
Frankly, a contemporary Reconstruction is not appealing, and I'm surprised that you'd ignore the threat. Do you really want to permit this to happen?
Counterinsurgency
Jews have a self-image of the Eternal Immigrant/Outsider. Not talking about you personally, Jack D. This is iSteve. We deal in averages.
In that sense, they’re guests.
I'd be especially curious about those for California. My own guess is that despite the terrible housing and traffic problems, CA whites aren't suffering anything like the social problems of whites in many parts of the Midwest and the East coast. For example, from what I've read there's very little of an Opioid problem here, except maybe for the drug addicts who've moved here from other parts of the country.
Now CA has the smallest white minority of any major state, maybe down to not much above 30% of the total population, and the CA state government is obviously extremely liberal and PC. So if I'm correct about whites here doing much better than whites elsewhere, I think it would show that the issues involved are far more complex and nuanced than what many commenters here would suggest.
Do you mean economically or in that CA whites don’t abuse drugs? The downscale whites in CA who want to get somewhere move to other states. Wealthier whites move to CA. It’s likely just different economic populations that we’re observing.
I shop at WalMart in a very white city. The other shoppers who aren’t elderly are mostly Hispanic/Black/Unidentifiable tattooed Americans. There are poor whites in CA cities, but more so they’ve sequestered themselves in rural communities or moved to NV and ID.
My mother, a staunch liberal and a retired university faculty member, is of Southern stock, ancestors who all fought with the South. According to my mother, the South was completely devastated after the War, and no real Federal effort to help the South occurred until FDR. The South was left to wallow in poverty until the TVA and CCC and WPA, esp the TVA. My mother considers the TVA to be the start of the real Reconstruction.
For her family — both of her grandfathers were the sons of physicians who had been second or later sons of plantation owners, but none of her grandparents attended college. She blames the post-War Southern poverty, the way wealthy families were impoverished. Fortunately, both of her parents attended college. Their first date was when her father was a freshman and her mother a sophomore. They stayed together from 1925 until my grandfather’s death in 1995.
Ugh. Heavens how I hate the New Deal.
The Pennsylvania farmers, whose fields were filled with moldering bodies after Gettysburg, did not wait for the Federal government to fix their problems. And although we luckily kept the rebels at bay most of the war, the town of Chambersburg was destroyed by violent invaders in 1864. I am unaware of any “Federal help” for Chambersburg.
The TVA wasn’t as bad as most FDR nonsense until after the war. In the 1950s they began funding dreadful strip mining. Typical shortsighted American decision to trade responsible stewardship of the land for “cheap power.” See: Night Comes to the Cumberlands by Harry Caudill. Caudill makes the point that at that time the TVA went totally against their original mission statement.
I'd be especially curious about those for California. My own guess is that despite the terrible housing and traffic problems, CA whites aren't suffering anything like the social problems of whites in many parts of the Midwest and the East coast. For example, from what I've read there's very little of an Opioid problem here, except maybe for the drug addicts who've moved here from other parts of the country.
Now CA has the smallest white minority of any major state, maybe down to not much above 30% of the total population, and the CA state government is obviously extremely liberal and PC. So if I'm correct about whites here doing much better than whites elsewhere, I think it would show that the issues involved are far more complex and nuanced than what many commenters here would suggest.
RE: MA vs CA,
Again, having lived in both states, I get the distinct impression that CA Whites have much more fully embraced mestizaje. Indeed, they seem to exult in the idea of their own demise as a race, that the European will vanish from Anglo-America. One example of this struck me rather forcefully. As I’ve mentioned on several occasions, I run a sub rosa conservative discussion group at my uni. Just this semester, a female member told me about how her brother (who is married to a heavily Amerind Latinx) was very happy about the fact that his children were not White…..And her brother is a Republican…..
And the opiod crisis has been hitting MA hard for at least a few years. I know of 3 people in my small hometown who've died in the last few. I don't see anything like that in Seattle. Plenty of weed and homeless here though.
Hispanics live longer because they eat a traditional diet instead of the American fast food diet, work jobs that require more physical activity, and have stronger families. I would imagine as they stay here longer they will adopt the American diet and be corrupted by the American welfare state and will suffer family fragmentation and more crime just as blacks did in the sixties when they got access to more welfare.
no , controlled for inflation a Bag of heroin costs $60 in 1994 and today a more potent bag costs $5
etc, etc
The policies of Merkel and Blair represent the apparent desires of their constituents.
The 1965 Immigration Act was a much needed update.
A group of ultra-under-achieving, bottom decile white men who want socialism just so that they can mooch off of successful whites, has muddied and tainted the legitimate and respectable goal of pride in white identity.
That is why there are virtually no females in contemporary White Trashionalism. The females of this defective subrace become the fat bluehaired feminists.
Remember Peterike's Law, which is :
"White Trashionalism is nothing more than bottom-decile white men whining about how bottom-decile white women are no longer being forced to produce piglets with these men."
Changes nothing. Bottom dwellers agitate for a free ride in any cohort.
Why are whites just giving up though?? They have been through worse; gotten too soft? It is frustrating to see chunks of people throw the towel in so easily.
Frankly I don’t understand why these whites seem to have given up either. I don’t know anybody affected by opioids, so it’s hard for me to even know what’s going on.
But my mentality is not to give up. No matter how bad things get, I will always try to fight back, or survive. Who are these weak whites throwing in the towel? I’m also young so I know exactly what it’s like to live in the “dispossessed” country… and I don’t really care. It is as bad as you think, and nobody over age 25 would really understand it. Either way it just pisses me off, but I don’t despair. If I had nothing left to lose, I would form up in a militia to save the system, not waste away on drugs.
I am very worried about marijuana though. Far too many young kids, from age 15 or 16, are smoking weed on a regular basis. I think this is frankly one of the biggest threats to white people (in canada every race is smoking now though). The stuff rots out your brain.
The gays have been getting ridiculous support and coaching lately; "it gets better". What whites need is a man of action and determination to look up to, who is willing to suffer the slings and arrows of the left mobs. A poor example was Gavin McGinnis and his pro-West Proud Boys, who was quickly chewed up and spit out. Something along those lines. It would be great if it wasn't a politician, athlete, or entertainer, but that's the way to appeal to a large audience. Someone without baggage though, they need to be Chick-Fil-a clean and have a willingness not to back down.
But whites, and white men in particular? They'll betray each other in a heartbeat for the right amount of money. As Jay Gould said, "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half." He was right. Who are the greatest enforcers of P.C. out there? White shitlibs, calling out their fellow whites.
Whites had a collective consciousness in the era of colonization in the 19th century, when they had to stick together in the face of hostile aboriginal tribes who were obviously primitive and inferior. But they lost it in the 20th century. The last guy to try to create a white collective consciousness was Uncle A, and he conquered damn near all of Europe between 1939-1941 and damn near defeated the Soviet Union. Pretty impressive, when you think about it.
That's why the minority groups like Jews, blacks, liberals, etc. are constantly invoking the specter of Nazism even where it doesn't actually exist -- they need to keep whites divided against themselves because they know damn well they can't defeat organized whites in a head-to-head contest and quake in their boots at the very thought of it.
Hell, they won’t even hold out for money — white men will throw each other under the bus for nought but the quick, cheap high that comes from sucking up and punching down.
Charlie Brown should have given Lucy a severe brownfooting the second time she pulled the football.
This country is f***ed
I haven’t seen any studies of life under Reconstruction. The closest I saw was an analysis of life of a Freedman sharecropper compared to the life of a slave. The sharecropper had a much better life. This, of course, did not analyze those Freedmen who had no jobs, nor did it analyze the horrible life of the convict laborers, who were worse off than slaves.
I have seen a few comments about the life of the former house servants. Some stayed with their former owners. I had ancestors who moved to Texas, and brought their former house slaves with them. I think Steve once mentioned a study about a post-war community of the “talented tenth” in New Orleans; some had been free before the war, others were former house servants. IIRC, Steve mentioned that the descendants of this talented tenth community included some of the richest and most powerful blacks in the US. For example, the first black billionaire, Oprah Winfrey, and the Robinson family of Chicago (such as Michelle Robinson Obama).
It is interesting, in the 1950s some of the integrationists wanted to start integrating schools with children of the local “talented tenth”. For example, the black kids chosen to integrate Little Rock Central High School we’re hand picked from the most upstanding black families in Little Rock.
Reconstruction is as little mentioned in the popular media as is who did what towards the end of the Wiemar Republic. Here’s a partisan document. meant to give enough information to show that further research would be informative: http://www.scv357.org/employment/pdf%20files/Union_League1.pdf , which is somewhat critical of Reconstruction. Compare that with the Wikipedia “Reconstruction_Era” article.
Essentially, Reconstruction was an early American attempt at nation building, and it apparently worked as well as nation building does today. The South eventually ended Reconstruction, or perhaps Reconstruction fell of its own weight, and Southern society lasted in recognizable form until the 1960s.
The “use the talented 10%” didn’t last. Bloom, in _Closing of the American Mind_ claims that Cornell deliberately picked one of its first classes of blacks from unqualified inner city blacks, the better to show proficiency in converting them to future leaders of American, or perhaps to better quiet radicals who advocated such a course. The students proceeded to shut down Cornell and hold several visiting parents as hostages. As usual, apparently the intent wasn’t to help blacks, it was to hurt white institutions. OTH, the start their Cornell operation gave to a career in politics may well have helped the black students. That sort of thing led to the present situation.
Life is very disappointing.
Counterinsurgency
“As opposed to the South, whose decadent slavocracy wanted the USA to look like South Carolina….”
Heh. Yet another argument from contempt. You should be ashamed.
Slavery was dependent on tropical products, which wouldn’t grow north of the Mason-Dixon line. Slavery was never going to work outside of tropical and sub-tropical areas, although peonage (which apparently dominates California’s Central Valley agriculture just now) can. Slavery wasn’t going to work in the Great American Desert, either. It had gone about as far as it would go.
There were some speculations about a Great Slave Empire in Latin America, but that was just a fever dream, well beyond the resources of the South (or of France, as it turned out) even if the rest of the States would have permitted an attempt to establish such an Empire.
Slavery was past its prime in the South, worldwide for that matter, and it seems likely that it would have vanished (as it did in Brazil. last country in the Americas to abolish slavery (AD 1888). 0.6 megadeaths for 23 years early freedom, plus losses among the the freed slaves and poverty for the suvivors. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war).
Worth it? Think about it first.
I have more immediate concerns. New England appears to be a repeat offender, and is apparently trying (in concert with the New York City establishment) to reorganize US society yet again. No remorse for the 0.6 million Civil War dead, no “sorry about deaths and impoverishment during the Reconstruction fiasco”, just “You’re bad people, we’re going to take over again and reconstruct you and your society, with considerable help from foreign nationals”. Do you want that? Why????
Counterinsurgency
Let me offer this thought -
Slavery is back, via mass immigration.
Notice how "human trafficking" is a euphemism for the modern slave trade. Open borders, human trafficking, immigration, all those topics always run together.
Today's slaves come from the third world and are used by every people group.
As Whites become a minority in North America and Europe, we will be sold into slavery. Unless we organize for self-defense.
Slavery is the history of the world.
All nations, all tribes on all continents for thousands of years. Especially Africans and Orientals are the champion slavers.
This brief period of representative government by Whites that briefly abolished slave trade is the aberration.
Mass multi-culti immigration will destroy White self-government. Slavery will be just one of the miseries multi-culti brings.
Now, if the South had wanted to do something constructive, they could have simply deported all their slaves to Liberia and freed them once they touched African soil.....You might want to look a little harder at the ethno-religious origins of the people who are altering American society....The Confederacy thought that it was worth it....As opposed to what slavery did to the South?
Note that, in terms of the arts and the sciences, the South, up until 1950, produced very little to.For example, Murray notes how New England plus New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania produced 184 eminent figures in the arts and the sciences by 1950. In contrast, the states that made up the Confederacy only produced 24, a ratio of more than 7:1.
And if anyone wants to bring up population levels as a way to explain the stark disparity, it’s not going to account for all of it:
1850
Northeast: 8.5 million
South: 5.6 million Whites
1900:
Northeast: 20.6 M
South: 12.1 M Whites
1950:
Northeast: 37.4 M
South: 36.9 M Whites
Henry Cabot Lodge seems to have been the first person to closely analyze this gap, and he blamed it on slavery:
“No finer people ever existed
than those who settled and built up our Southern
States, but when slavery became, in the
course of the world’s progress, and in a free
country, nothing less than a hideous anomaly,
it warped the community in which it flourished,
limited the range of intellectual activity,
dwarfed ability, and retarded terribly the advance
of civilization. It is wonderful that the
people who labored beneath the burden of a
slave system achieved as much as they did, and
the mass of ability which they produced under
such adverse conditions is a striking proof of
the strength of the race. The effects of slavery
are painfully apparent in these tables, and only
time will enable the people who suffered by
the evil system to recover from them.”
https://www.unz.org/Pub/Century-1891sep-00687
No.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=462
"Slave labor was efficient, productive, and adaptable to a variety of of occupations, ranging from agriculture and mining to factory work. Slavery was the basis of the nation's most profitable industry. During the decades before the Civil War, slave grown cotton accounted for over half the value of all United States exports, and provided virtually all the cotton used in the northern textile industry and 70 percent of the cotton used in British mills. Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the richest Americans made their fortunes from slavery. In 1860, two out of every three Americans worth $100,000 or more lived in the South. Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners' confidence in the future."
Indeed.
Are you ever going to make an argument for why that matters? Are you ever going to acknowledge that an argument is necessary?
Seeing as how every scientifically literate person understands the concept of “extended phenotype”, are you presuming that all the rest of us are scientifically illiterate? Or are you just demonstrating that you are?
Looks like I was probably right. According to this very nice state-by-state summary, there’s virtually no Opioid problem in CA:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state
The per capita rate of deaths is tied with TX for having about the lowest in America, running 90% less than West Virginia, which is the hardest-hit state, while MA is also among those suffering the worst. From the map, it looks like it’s mostly an East Coast or Midwest problem.
Since the huge drop in the MA life expectancy was due to Opioid, I’d think that whites in CA are probably doing fine, though I’m sure they’re dissatisfied with the terrible traffic and long commutes.
Since CA is one of the most liberal states and TX one of the most conservative, there’s no ideological pattern. But those are the only two large states in America where whites have already become a minority with Hispanics a huge share of the population. So maybe you could speculate that living around lots of Hispanics and becoming a racial minority is good for white mental health and life-expectancy…
Obviously, I’m mostly joking. But it’s always seemed to me that Hispanics are very pleasant people to have around, so maybe it’s not entirely a joke…
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iVIT-x0rjBg/WHOH7QH8nNI/AAAAAAAAX1M/kPvhUm0spg4wGhtG41r8mqRmzkzMdo5jQCLcB/s1600/Pablo_Gomez_Berkeley_2.JPG
https://westhunt.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/205.png
Maybe not guests, but they sure are careful about having an escape plan.
I’ve lived in both states as well. The biggest difference I noticed was that average Californian was considerably more open to new experiences. In MA, everyone but a small elite sort of keeps to their class and community. Doing something like eating sushi or going to a play is “faggy”, and actively discouraged. Maybe it’s changed recently, but I doubt it. I think “The Departed” does a pretty good job of capturing the subculture and feel. The violence is exaggerated but the loyalty and townee culture isn’t.
And the opiod crisis has been hitting MA hard for at least a few years. I know of 3 people in my small hometown who’ve died in the last few. I don’t see anything like that in Seattle. Plenty of weed and homeless here though.
Heh. Yet another argument from contempt. You should be ashamed.
Slavery was dependent on tropical products, which wouldn't grow north of the Mason-Dixon line. Slavery was never going to work outside of tropical and sub-tropical areas, although peonage (which apparently dominates California's Central Valley agriculture just now) can. Slavery wasn't going to work in the Great American Desert, either. It had gone about as far as it would go.
There were some speculations about a Great Slave Empire in Latin America, but that was just a fever dream, well beyond the resources of the South (or of France, as it turned out) even if the rest of the States would have permitted an attempt to establish such an Empire.
Slavery was past its prime in the South, worldwide for that matter, and it seems likely that it would have vanished (as it did in Brazil. last country in the Americas to abolish slavery (AD 1888). 0.6 megadeaths for 23 years early freedom, plus losses among the the freed slaves and poverty for the suvivors. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war).
Worth it? Think about it first.
I have more immediate concerns. New England appears to be a repeat offender, and is apparently trying (in concert with the New York City establishment) to reorganize US society yet again. No remorse for the 0.6 million Civil War dead, no "sorry about deaths and impoverishment during the Reconstruction fiasco", just "You're bad people, we're going to take over again and reconstruct you and your society, with considerable help from foreign nationals". Do you want that? Why????
Counterinsurgency
Interesting thoughts about how Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression was needless. And your thoughts about New England imposing another unwanted reorganization.
Let me offer this thought –
Slavery is back, via mass immigration.
Notice how “human trafficking” is a euphemism for the modern slave trade. Open borders, human trafficking, immigration, all those topics always run together.
Today’s slaves come from the third world and are used by every people group.
As Whites become a minority in North America and Europe, we will be sold into slavery. Unless we organize for self-defense.
Slavery is the history of the world.
All nations, all tribes on all continents for thousands of years. Especially Africans and Orientals are the champion slavers.
This brief period of representative government by Whites that briefly abolished slave trade is the aberration.
Mass multi-culti immigration will destroy White self-government. Slavery will be just one of the miseries multi-culti brings.
Let's blend that in. Trump's election increasingly seems to mark the end of Federal Government legitimacy. Not that Trump wants such an end, but because he has been treated with complete contempt and in obvious disregard of every principle of legitimacy, starting with the idea that the base population of the USA is sovereign and continuing through arrant barratry on a grand scale, with the participation of of both political parties and the Federal judiciary. As a side order, cities are renouncing obedience to Federal law and raising paramilitary forces (antifa) to enforce their will upon the local base population and Federal agents.
OK, so game this out. Three alternatives.
1) Trump loses. The Democrats probably splinter, as they reject their current leadership on racial grounds, yet can't agree on who should head their Party. The Democratic Party may get a new leader, but support will be lacking (e.g.Hillary Clinton and the POC etc. vote). In that case, they lose effectiveness. A figurehead of some sort is elected (R or D, makes no difference) and tries to please some faction of the former Democratic party. This attempt loses the allegiance of all other factions and also the White vote. Federal legitimacy becomes widely questioned.
2) Trump wins, but has to call in the military to defend the Southern border. The rest of the Federal establishment continues to oppose Trump along the lines they now pursue. At this point Trump _is_ the Federal Government (again, see Sulla's actions). If there are mass riots, obstruction of commercial traffic, a failed judicial attempt to stop the Wall, that cements Trump's position. The Marines won't let anybody take out the President, the Army won't do anything, the Navy won't do anything (how could it?).
But Trump is limited to at most another 6 or so years, if only through age. The Federal Government can't retire after 6 years, and it's remaining legitimacy would leave (in this case) with Trump. What then? In Sulla's case, the Roman Republic jolted along, getting more and more farcical and deadly to its participants, until Caesar came along to end the farce.
3) The Representative and and the Judicial branch gives Trump and the American base population that elected him the funding and support needed to stop almost all illegal immigration. Bingo. Legitimacy is restored. Trouble is, the Left won't permit that. In more concrete terms, the entire Yankee establishment (universities and corporations) will not permit that. Neither will substantial portions of the New York City establishment. Nor will the West Coast cities. Both have religious and some secular reasons for blocking Trump. They also have money, lots of it, and effectively determine what the media does. That makes (3) the least likely outcome, barring a successful appeal to Hobbe's thesis that anything is better than a "Warr of All against All".
Should Federal legitimacy be lost, then large scale trade will be lost as well because the 11 or so ethnic groups that make up North America will act in their own interests. The borderlanders (my group) will take it on the chin yet again, and I'd expect the Southwest, organized around Texas and maybe northern Mexico (el Norte) to form the most influential successor state. Water to Southern California is diverted to the Southwest, Southern California goes back to desert, and the coastal strip north of that withers without a national market. New England holds on, but nobody will listen to them anymore. New England turns inward. New York City loses both political influence and its status as a financial center. The Midwest finds agribusiness difficult without fuel and spare parts for its agricultural equipment and becomes a dependent state of whoever can defend and supply it.
In such a dystopic future, slavery may well return, and every group, whites included, will act in their own ethnic interest. Slavery would most definitely exist in New York City (it already does, covertly [1]), and might return in the South as part of an organized effort to feed everybody.
Technological society continues, and perhaps the pace of fundamental change increases a bit thanks to the resumption of technological change. China probably dosn't take over the world because it lacks raw materials, secure sea lanes, and the overland Silk Road appears to be failing.
Finally, the West works out a replacement for the Enlightenment and the Treaty of Westphalia, and things become less dystopic.
New York City and the Yankees should have left well enough alone, but the enlightenment had to fail once all peoples on Earth were brought into contact.
Counterinsurgency
1] Allison Chawa.
"The Disturbing Reality Of Human Trafficking And Children, In Today's World....".
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform, 2017/06/24/14:11
Eastern Time.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-disturbing-reality-of-human-trafficking-and-children_us_58b1d696e4b0658fc20f95fa
Steve,
A thought on the American Indians.
Their reservations served multiple purposes. One of which was to intentionally preserve that tribe as a tribe.
Compare that to government/education policies that intentionally defame Whites, make family formation and family preservation difficult with a very predictable result of group destruction.
I remember there was a county by county breakdown?
I know several. 2 of my cousins died of heroin overdose. Bobby died in 2002 at the age of 34. Lisa died in 2005 , she was 29. Also had a childhood friend die in 2015 from opiate OD at the age of 42. My childhood best friend , lived across the street from me , died of Cirrhosis of the liver in 2014, he was 44. Another high school friend died last year at the age of 45 from heroin OD. His sister died in 2012 from a drug overdose. The son of my mother’s close friend died last year from heroin.
These are all people I grew up with and knew my entire life. There are plenty more I knew as slightly.
Heh. Yet another argument from contempt. You should be ashamed.
Slavery was dependent on tropical products, which wouldn't grow north of the Mason-Dixon line. Slavery was never going to work outside of tropical and sub-tropical areas, although peonage (which apparently dominates California's Central Valley agriculture just now) can. Slavery wasn't going to work in the Great American Desert, either. It had gone about as far as it would go.
There were some speculations about a Great Slave Empire in Latin America, but that was just a fever dream, well beyond the resources of the South (or of France, as it turned out) even if the rest of the States would have permitted an attempt to establish such an Empire.
Slavery was past its prime in the South, worldwide for that matter, and it seems likely that it would have vanished (as it did in Brazil. last country in the Americas to abolish slavery (AD 1888). 0.6 megadeaths for 23 years early freedom, plus losses among the the freed slaves and poverty for the suvivors. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war).
Worth it? Think about it first.
I have more immediate concerns. New England appears to be a repeat offender, and is apparently trying (in concert with the New York City establishment) to reorganize US society yet again. No remorse for the 0.6 million Civil War dead, no "sorry about deaths and impoverishment during the Reconstruction fiasco", just "You're bad people, we're going to take over again and reconstruct you and your society, with considerable help from foreign nationals". Do you want that? Why????
Counterinsurgency
Of feeling contempt? It’s the only thing that keeps me above the rising tide of mud….
If peonage can work in an area, so can slavery…..Plus, lunatic Southerners were just so determined to try…..
The South was full of fever, dear fellow….
Of course, dear fellow. This is precisely why the whole Confederate scheme was so utterly insane. Why would anyone want to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in order to preserve slavery, an institution whose days were numbered? Further proof, I suppose that the Confederates were barking mad….
Now, if the South had wanted to do something constructive, they could have simply deported all their slaves to Liberia and freed them once they touched African soil…..
You might want to look a little harder at the ethno-religious origins of the people who are altering American society….
The Confederacy thought that it was worth it….
As opposed to what slavery did to the South?
Note that, in terms of the arts and the sciences, the South, up until 1950, produced very little to.For example, Murray notes how New England plus New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania produced 184 eminent figures in the arts and the sciences by 1950. In contrast, the states that made up the Confederacy only produced 24, a ratio of more than 7:1.
And if anyone wants to bring up population levels as a way to explain the stark disparity, it’s not going to account for all of it:
1850
Northeast: 8.5 million
South: 5.6 million Whites
1900:
Northeast: 20.6 M
South: 12.1 M Whites
1950:
Northeast: 37.4 M
South: 36.9 M Whites
Henry Cabot Lodge seems to have been the first person to closely analyze this gap, and he blamed it on slavery:
“No finer people ever existed
than those who settled and built up our Southern
States, but when slavery became, in the
course of the world’s progress, and in a free
country, nothing less than a hideous anomaly,
it warped the community in which it flourished,
limited the range of intellectual activity,
dwarfed ability, and retarded terribly the advance
of civilization. It is wonderful that the
people who labored beneath the burden of a
slave system achieved as much as they did, and
the mass of ability which they produced under
such adverse conditions is a striking proof of
the strength of the race. The effects of slavery
are painfully apparent in these tables, and only
time will enable the people who suffered by
the evil system to recover from them.”
https://www.unz.org/Pub/Century-1891sep-00687
In accordance with common military practice, US harbors were guarded by forts at their mouths. Fort Sumpter controlled access to Charlestown harbor, South Carolina. The History Channel gives an account of what happened next [1]. Note that military activity at its mouth closed Charlestown Harbor, costing shippers considerable money, and note that the supply ship Lincoln sent would have kept the harbor closed (due to continued military action) for quite some time. Lincoln did not declare war when the local militia took the incomplete fort near Sumpter: he wanted the Confederacy to declare war. Agree, the South Carolinians shouldn't have fallen for it, but they had a reputation as callous hotheads even back then. Lincoln knew how they would react. The news committed the rest of the Confederacy, which was, on upper leadership levels, less than happy about it.
My point? The Civil War would not have taken place without Lincoln's actions. Even those romantic idiots in the South (barring South Carolina) knew that a war would ruin them. The Lodge quote you supply is more or less typical of the genre: "Those poor people are sufffering under the burden of a system they quite mistakenly like. Lets ease their suffering, God will reward us". Then 0.6 megadeaths later, the real "ease" starts with Reconstruction, which subsequently fails after inflicting yet more suffering, death, and considerable poverty.
OK, that's all water under the dam (which, as I hint above, has washed out). I can look at the mud flat and think "stuff happens". _However_, I can't see doing it all over again!!!! Counting VanBuren, this would be the _third time_!!!! And that's just inside the US, _not_ counting Vietnam and Iraq and Syria!!!! Lucy and the football! I'm not Charlie Brown.
In response to Lodge (who was right as far as he went), here's my own choice of poem, composed in England during the US Civil War:
https://youtube/ys8mdoINiOQ?t=10
Counterinsurgency
1] "Fort Sumpter".
_History Channel_, no date given, accessed 2018/12/30.
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state
The per capita rate of deaths is tied with TX for having about the lowest in America, running 90% less than West Virginia, which is the hardest-hit state, while MA is also among those suffering the worst. From the map, it looks like it's mostly an East Coast or Midwest problem.
Since the huge drop in the MA life expectancy was due to Opioid, I'd think that whites in CA are probably doing fine, though I'm sure they're dissatisfied with the terrible traffic and long commutes.
Since CA is one of the most liberal states and TX one of the most conservative, there's no ideological pattern. But those are the only two large states in America where whites have already become a minority with Hispanics a huge share of the population. So maybe you could speculate that living around lots of Hispanics and becoming a racial minority is good for white mental health and life-expectancy...
Obviously, I'm mostly joking. But it's always seemed to me that Hispanics are very pleasant people to have around, so maybe it's not entirely a joke...
Dear me, Ron, dear me. The idea of Whites becoming a minority just seems to make you drool…..
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state
The per capita rate of deaths is tied with TX for having about the lowest in America, running 90% less than West Virginia, which is the hardest-hit state, while MA is also among those suffering the worst. From the map, it looks like it's mostly an East Coast or Midwest problem.
Since the huge drop in the MA life expectancy was due to Opioid, I'd think that whites in CA are probably doing fine, though I'm sure they're dissatisfied with the terrible traffic and long commutes.
Since CA is one of the most liberal states and TX one of the most conservative, there's no ideological pattern. But those are the only two large states in America where whites have already become a minority with Hispanics a huge share of the population. So maybe you could speculate that living around lots of Hispanics and becoming a racial minority is good for white mental health and life-expectancy...
Obviously, I'm mostly joking. But it's always seemed to me that Hispanics are very pleasant people to have around, so maybe it's not entirely a joke...
She was explaining how the Hispanic influx had greatly improved certain aspects of life in CA:
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2718268
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2719463
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iVIT-x0rjBg/WHOH7QH8nNI/AAAAAAAAX1M/kPvhUm0spg4wGhtG41r8mqRmzkzMdo5jQCLcB/s1600/Pablo_Gomez_Berkeley_2.JPG
https://westhunt.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/205.png
Actually, my half-joking suggestion that CA’s Hispanic plurality may help account for better social situation of CA whites reminded me of a couple of amusing recent comments by a lifelong hard-core WN in CA.
She was explaining how the Hispanic influx had greatly improved certain aspects of life in CA:
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2718268
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2719463
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state
The per capita rate of deaths is tied with TX for having about the lowest in America, running 90% less than West Virginia, which is the hardest-hit state, while MA is also among those suffering the worst. From the map, it looks like it's mostly an East Coast or Midwest problem.
Since the huge drop in the MA life expectancy was due to Opioid, I'd think that whites in CA are probably doing fine, though I'm sure they're dissatisfied with the terrible traffic and long commutes.
Since CA is one of the most liberal states and TX one of the most conservative, there's no ideological pattern. But those are the only two large states in America where whites have already become a minority with Hispanics a huge share of the population. So maybe you could speculate that living around lots of Hispanics and becoming a racial minority is good for white mental health and life-expectancy...
Obviously, I'm mostly joking. But it's always seemed to me that Hispanics are very pleasant people to have around, so maybe it's not entirely a joke...
That chart is about OD deaths. It could be that some states are classifying deaths differently. While I don’t personally know about any OD deaths, I know about plenty of people addicted to opioids and ruining their own and their families’ lives with it.
I've certainly never read anything about an Opioid problem in my CA newspapers, so I doubt it's as severe as many other parts of the country, with so many stories of local deaths.
Obviously, the best test would be to get the recent racial life expectancy figures for CA. My guess is that unlike MA it would show no decline among whites, but that's just my guess. The figures for the Central Valley would be especially interesting since that's where many of the remaining working-class/less-affluent whites are concentrated.
I do remember that a few years ago when I was organizing the Minimum Wage movement, I had lunch with a high-ranking CA union leader, who had recently relocated from the Midwest, and he said that although CA workers obviously had problems, there was nothing like the total despair he'd seen back home.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state
The per capita rate of deaths is tied with TX for having about the lowest in America, running 90% less than West Virginia, which is the hardest-hit state, while MA is also among those suffering the worst. From the map, it looks like it's mostly an East Coast or Midwest problem.
Since the huge drop in the MA life expectancy was due to Opioid, I'd think that whites in CA are probably doing fine, though I'm sure they're dissatisfied with the terrible traffic and long commutes.
Since CA is one of the most liberal states and TX one of the most conservative, there's no ideological pattern. But those are the only two large states in America where whites have already become a minority with Hispanics a huge share of the population. So maybe you could speculate that living around lots of Hispanics and becoming a racial minority is good for white mental health and life-expectancy...
Obviously, I'm mostly joking. But it's always seemed to me that Hispanics are very pleasant people to have around, so maybe it's not entirely a joke...
Again, you’re not considering (self) selection bias. The whites left in Ca are the ones who decided not to leave.
Back in the late 1960s, the CA population was 20M and almost 80% white. These days, it's 40M and maybe 30-35% white. So over a half-century period, there's only been a rather small decline in white numbers, maybe from 16M to 12-14M, or something like 0.3% per year.
I think that's much more suggestive of being due to the horrendous CA housing costs, harsh economic competition with immigrants, and two generations of below-replacement white fertility than whites fleeing the state because they're horrified of having become a shrinking minority in an overwhelmingly non-white state.
She was explaining how the Hispanic influx had greatly improved certain aspects of life in CA:
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2718268
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2719463
Being better than Blacks is an awfully low bar…..Off-hand, I’m not sure what group would fail to beat that standard…..Perhaps Australian Aborigines?
She was explaining how the Hispanic influx had greatly improved certain aspects of life in CA:
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2718268
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2719463
Incidentally, Ron, when will Latinx completely assimilate into Anglo-American society?And by completely assimilate, I’m thinking in terms of the Germans. When will being a Latinx-American be equivalent to being a German-American? You know, something that no one cares about…..
This is very stratified by social class (for which education serves as a proxy) and age – a much bigger problem in the young white lower classes. There are a few people here who come from that group but most aren’t. It’s true that even college whites are ODing now and then but not at the same rate.
There have been drug epidemics before that struck at lower class communities but usually these were urban blacks – the crack epidemic of the early 80s for example. That rural whites have now sunk lower than urban blacks really says something.
Mr. Sailer, you are really trying to stretch a link between the spirit of American Indians being broken by European values imposed on them by force and the spirit of today's white Americans being broken by their own tragic dependencies. Native Americans were mighty proud until the European came down on them hard. But that is no surprise given humanity's knack for conquering. As far as today's white Americans being a "defeated and despairing race", perhaps you hit the fermented eggnog too hard on that line.
The statistics don’t lie. Absolute declines in life expectancy are usually only seen in place like Russia after the fall of Communism where people are indeed defeated and despairing.
Only white people have agency. If non-whites are dependent on drugs, it’s because whitey is peddling drugs to them, it’s because they turn to drugs out of despair due to white racism, etc. But if whites are dying of OD’s, it’s their own damn fault.
Which I did not dispute.
"Absolute declines in life expectancy are usually only seen in place like Russia after the fall of Communism where people are indeed defeated and despairing."
Dude, the discussion was on white Americans, NOT Russians. Decline in life expectancy COULD be an indicator that people are "defeated and despairing". But there are other factors involved, especially considering that the people experienced newfound liberties. Indeed, Russian life expectancy fell sharply in the 1990's, but the impact of the major causes of death on that decline was not measured. Many factors operated simultaneously, including economic and social instability, high rates of tobacco and alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, depression, and deterioration of the health care system. Problems in data quality and reporting, however, appear unable to account for these findings.
"Only white people have agency. If non-whites are dependent on drugs, it’s because whitey is peddling drugs to them, it’s because they turn to drugs out of despair due to white racism,"
No, PEOPLE have agency. There are a number of factors why PEOPLE become dependent on drugs.
They will never give permission. Nobody ever does. If you want something badly enough you have to find a way to take it.
Sure, that’s certainly possible. Frankly, I don’t claim to know anything about the Opioid epidemic other than what I’ve read in the NYT and such. But absent any better information, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the states are classifying at similar rates and the map represents a fairly accurate representation of the regional severity of the crisis.
I’ve certainly never read anything about an Opioid problem in my CA newspapers, so I doubt it’s as severe as many other parts of the country, with so many stories of local deaths.
Obviously, the best test would be to get the recent racial life expectancy figures for CA. My guess is that unlike MA it would show no decline among whites, but that’s just my guess. The figures for the Central Valley would be especially interesting since that’s where many of the remaining working-class/less-affluent whites are concentrated.
I do remember that a few years ago when I was organizing the Minimum Wage movement, I had lunch with a high-ranking CA union leader, who had recently relocated from the Midwest, and he said that although CA workers obviously had problems, there was nothing like the total despair he’d seen back home.
https://www.athenahealth.com/insight/infographic-opioid-regulations-state-by-state
I've certainly never read anything about an Opioid problem in my CA newspapers, so I doubt it's as severe as many other parts of the country, with so many stories of local deaths.
Obviously, the best test would be to get the recent racial life expectancy figures for CA. My guess is that unlike MA it would show no decline among whites, but that's just my guess. The figures for the Central Valley would be especially interesting since that's where many of the remaining working-class/less-affluent whites are concentrated.
I do remember that a few years ago when I was organizing the Minimum Wage movement, I had lunch with a high-ranking CA union leader, who had recently relocated from the Midwest, and he said that although CA workers obviously had problems, there was nothing like the total despair he'd seen back home.
Another factor to look at involves opioid prescription rates; just eyeballing it, I wonder if doctors in some states might might have looser standards when it comes to doling them out…..
I've certainly never read anything about an Opioid problem in my CA newspapers, so I doubt it's as severe as many other parts of the country, with so many stories of local deaths.
Obviously, the best test would be to get the recent racial life expectancy figures for CA. My guess is that unlike MA it would show no decline among whites, but that's just my guess. The figures for the Central Valley would be especially interesting since that's where many of the remaining working-class/less-affluent whites are concentrated.
I do remember that a few years ago when I was organizing the Minimum Wage movement, I had lunch with a high-ranking CA union leader, who had recently relocated from the Midwest, and he said that although CA workers obviously had problems, there was nothing like the total despair he'd seen back home.
Looking at the data here, it looks as though there is a fair amount interstate variation when it comes to prescribing opioids:
https://www.athenahealth.com/insight/infographic-opioid-regulations-state-by-state
Let me offer this thought -
Slavery is back, via mass immigration.
Notice how "human trafficking" is a euphemism for the modern slave trade. Open borders, human trafficking, immigration, all those topics always run together.
Today's slaves come from the third world and are used by every people group.
As Whites become a minority in North America and Europe, we will be sold into slavery. Unless we organize for self-defense.
Slavery is the history of the world.
All nations, all tribes on all continents for thousands of years. Especially Africans and Orientals are the champion slavers.
This brief period of representative government by Whites that briefly abolished slave trade is the aberration.
Mass multi-culti immigration will destroy White self-government. Slavery will be just one of the miseries multi-culti brings.
You’re thinking about an area I hadn’t considered.
Let’s blend that in. Trump’s election increasingly seems to mark the end of Federal Government legitimacy. Not that Trump wants such an end, but because he has been treated with complete contempt and in obvious disregard of every principle of legitimacy, starting with the idea that the base population of the USA is sovereign and continuing through arrant barratry on a grand scale, with the participation of of both political parties and the Federal judiciary. As a side order, cities are renouncing obedience to Federal law and raising paramilitary forces (antifa) to enforce their will upon the local base population and Federal agents.
OK, so game this out. Three alternatives.
1) Trump loses. The Democrats probably splinter, as they reject their current leadership on racial grounds, yet can’t agree on who should head their Party. The Democratic Party may get a new leader, but support will be lacking (e.g.Hillary Clinton and the POC etc. vote). In that case, they lose effectiveness. A figurehead of some sort is elected (R or D, makes no difference) and tries to please some faction of the former Democratic party. This attempt loses the allegiance of all other factions and also the White vote. Federal legitimacy becomes widely questioned.
2) Trump wins, but has to call in the military to defend the Southern border. The rest of the Federal establishment continues to oppose Trump along the lines they now pursue. At this point Trump _is_ the Federal Government (again, see Sulla’s actions). If there are mass riots, obstruction of commercial traffic, a failed judicial attempt to stop the Wall, that cements Trump’s position. The Marines won’t let anybody take out the President, the Army won’t do anything, the Navy won’t do anything (how could it?).
But Trump is limited to at most another 6 or so years, if only through age. The Federal Government can’t retire after 6 years, and it’s remaining legitimacy would leave (in this case) with Trump. What then? In Sulla’s case, the Roman Republic jolted along, getting more and more farcical and deadly to its participants, until Caesar came along to end the farce.
3) The Representative and and the Judicial branch gives Trump and the American base population that elected him the funding and support needed to stop almost all illegal immigration. Bingo. Legitimacy is restored. Trouble is, the Left won’t permit that. In more concrete terms, the entire Yankee establishment (universities and corporations) will not permit that. Neither will substantial portions of the New York City establishment. Nor will the West Coast cities. Both have religious and some secular reasons for blocking Trump. They also have money, lots of it, and effectively determine what the media does. That makes (3) the least likely outcome, barring a successful appeal to Hobbe’s thesis that anything is better than a “Warr of All against All”.
Should Federal legitimacy be lost, then large scale trade will be lost as well because the 11 or so ethnic groups that make up North America will act in their own interests. The borderlanders (my group) will take it on the chin yet again, and I’d expect the Southwest, organized around Texas and maybe northern Mexico (el Norte) to form the most influential successor state. Water to Southern California is diverted to the Southwest, Southern California goes back to desert, and the coastal strip north of that withers without a national market. New England holds on, but nobody will listen to them anymore. New England turns inward. New York City loses both political influence and its status as a financial center. The Midwest finds agribusiness difficult without fuel and spare parts for its agricultural equipment and becomes a dependent state of whoever can defend and supply it.
In such a dystopic future, slavery may well return, and every group, whites included, will act in their own ethnic interest. Slavery would most definitely exist in New York City (it already does, covertly [1]), and might return in the South as part of an organized effort to feed everybody.
Technological society continues, and perhaps the pace of fundamental change increases a bit thanks to the resumption of technological change. China probably dosn’t take over the world because it lacks raw materials, secure sea lanes, and the overland Silk Road appears to be failing.
Finally, the West works out a replacement for the Enlightenment and the Treaty of Westphalia, and things become less dystopic.
New York City and the Yankees should have left well enough alone, but the enlightenment had to fail once all peoples on Earth were brought into contact.
Counterinsurgency
1] Allison Chawa.
“The Disturbing Reality Of Human Trafficking And Children, In Today’s World….”.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform, 2017/06/24/14:11
Eastern Time.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-disturbing-reality-of-human-trafficking-and-children_us_58b1d696e4b0658fc20f95fa
Just look at the last line: Hispanic males at 85 have a median expected life span of 14.2--living to almost 100! Uh .... no. (All the guys dying between 85 and 99 would have to be balanced by people living over 100. Yeah right.) They admit there are issues with low N population groups, but this is off the charts ridiculous.
Real life expectancy doesn't work this way at the high end. It tightly ratchets down. For instance in my early 60s, the Social Security folks give me a life expectancy out into my early 80s. But for the guy hitting 85, it's <91. Hit 90 it's <95. Hit 95<98. If you live to a ripe old age, you can always--statistically--expect to go a few more years. But once you're at these old ages, a good fraction of your cohort still alive are checking out the very next year. Modern medicine and easy low-damage occupations are pushing up life expectancy, but the body does just wear out.
The takehome here should only be general:
-- Hispanics have longer lifespans. That's been the case as long as the US has had the category.
-- The notable thing here is the whites are doing worse than blacks. That's very new. Usually there's a crossover in the elderly, where blacks who haven't killed themselves with poor choices at younger ages, live a bit longer than whites at the high ages. (Maybe a genetic thing, or maybe just selection of the blacks who get there. But definitely a real thing.) But now whites are doing worse than blacks--at least in Massachusetts--across all ages. That's really bad news for whites.
Good point about sample size on super elderly Hispanics.
Spain is projected to pass Italy for longest lifespan in Europe, that’s probably part of the hispanic advantage. I think Northern Euros may have cold weather adaptations that increase risk of the modern chronic diseases that kill most of us. It is either that or olive oil and wine are magic, as industry-funded studies keep concluding.
Actually, I’ve recently pointed out to several people that the widespread perception of massive “white flight” from CA has been wildly exaggerated.
Back in the late 1960s, the CA population was 20M and almost 80% white. These days, it’s 40M and maybe 30-35% white. So over a half-century period, there’s only been a rather small decline in white numbers, maybe from 16M to 12-14M, or something like 0.3% per year.
I think that’s much more suggestive of being due to the horrendous CA housing costs, harsh economic competition with immigrants, and two generations of below-replacement white fertility than whites fleeing the state because they’re horrified of having become a shrinking minority in an overwhelmingly non-white state.
To go from this
https://images.trvl-media.com/media/content/shared/images/travelguides/destination/178280/Griffith-Observatory-20402.jpg
http://hlblighting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SF-City-Hall_5-1310x873.jpg
to this
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/50/0b/75/500b75b4026cc977503b1c7e36f8c9f8.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ff/98/7e/ff987e392a66a81e65f710c1e67dec6a--aztec-pictures-aztec-culture.jpg
And all in the blink of an eye....
https://www.athenahealth.com/insight/infographic-opioid-regulations-state-by-state
Well, I’ll admit I don’t really know anything about the Opioid epidemic. But maybe someone will soon provide the data on racial life-expectancies in CA, which really would be very interesting.
Now, if the South had wanted to do something constructive, they could have simply deported all their slaves to Liberia and freed them once they touched African soil.....You might want to look a little harder at the ethno-religious origins of the people who are altering American society....The Confederacy thought that it was worth it....As opposed to what slavery did to the South?
Note that, in terms of the arts and the sciences, the South, up until 1950, produced very little to.For example, Murray notes how New England plus New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania produced 184 eminent figures in the arts and the sciences by 1950. In contrast, the states that made up the Confederacy only produced 24, a ratio of more than 7:1.
And if anyone wants to bring up population levels as a way to explain the stark disparity, it’s not going to account for all of it:
1850
Northeast: 8.5 million
South: 5.6 million Whites
1900:
Northeast: 20.6 M
South: 12.1 M Whites
1950:
Northeast: 37.4 M
South: 36.9 M Whites
Henry Cabot Lodge seems to have been the first person to closely analyze this gap, and he blamed it on slavery:
“No finer people ever existed
than those who settled and built up our Southern
States, but when slavery became, in the
course of the world’s progress, and in a free
country, nothing less than a hideous anomaly,
it warped the community in which it flourished,
limited the range of intellectual activity,
dwarfed ability, and retarded terribly the advance
of civilization. It is wonderful that the
people who labored beneath the burden of a
slave system achieved as much as they did, and
the mass of ability which they produced under
such adverse conditions is a striking proof of
the strength of the race. The effects of slavery
are painfully apparent in these tables, and only
time will enable the people who suffered by
the evil system to recover from them.”
https://www.unz.org/Pub/Century-1891sep-00687
We’re pretty much in agreement, _except_ that New England strongly supported abolition without compensation in the South through Federal action. While in the West settlers that practiced free farming and settlers that practices slave plantation farming came into direct contact ( web search for “Bleeding Kansas”) and violent conflict gave both sides a reason to dislike the other, the Yankees could have stayed out of it. They didn’t. The remnants of the Whigs, which were a Yankee party that had been widely reviled after Van Buren, the Whig candidate, was elected President and tried (guess what) to reconstruct the rest of the US to Yankee standards (web search for “Alien and Sedition Acts”). Whigs formed an important part of the new Republican Party, which elected Lincoln in a four way race by 40% of the popular vote. You’d think that Lincoln would have kept a low profile with 40%, especially after the Confederate States left the union peaceably, but he did not. Lincoln moved quickly to ensure that the border states (some of which had legal slavery) between Confederacy and USA remained in the USA. He also announced that he would retain control over all Federal property in the Confederacy.
In accordance with common military practice, US harbors were guarded by forts at their mouths. Fort Sumpter controlled access to Charlestown harbor, South Carolina. The History Channel gives an account of what happened next [1]. Note that military activity at its mouth closed Charlestown Harbor, costing shippers considerable money, and note that the supply ship Lincoln sent would have kept the harbor closed (due to continued military action) for quite some time. Lincoln did not declare war when the local militia took the incomplete fort near Sumpter: he wanted the Confederacy to declare war. Agree, the South Carolinians shouldn’t have fallen for it, but they had a reputation as callous hotheads even back then. Lincoln knew how they would react. The news committed the rest of the Confederacy, which was, on upper leadership levels, less than happy about it.
My point? The Civil War would not have taken place without Lincoln’s actions. Even those romantic idiots in the South (barring South Carolina) knew that a war would ruin them. The Lodge quote you supply is more or less typical of the genre: “Those poor people are sufffering under the burden of a system they quite mistakenly like. Lets ease their suffering, God will reward us”. Then 0.6 megadeaths later, the real “ease” starts with Reconstruction, which subsequently fails after inflicting yet more suffering, death, and considerable poverty.
OK, that’s all water under the dam (which, as I hint above, has washed out). I can look at the mud flat and think “stuff happens”. _However_, I can’t see doing it all over again!!!! Counting VanBuren, this would be the _third time_!!!! And that’s just inside the US, _not_ counting Vietnam and Iraq and Syria!!!! Lucy and the football! I’m not Charlie Brown.
In response to Lodge (who was right as far as he went), here’s my own choice of poem, composed in England during the US Civil War:
https://youtube/ys8mdoINiOQ?t=10
Counterinsurgency
1] “Fort Sumpter”.
_History Channel_, no date given, accessed 2018/12/30.
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter
Heh. Yet another argument from contempt. You should be ashamed.
Slavery was dependent on tropical products, which wouldn't grow north of the Mason-Dixon line. Slavery was never going to work outside of tropical and sub-tropical areas, although peonage (which apparently dominates California's Central Valley agriculture just now) can. Slavery wasn't going to work in the Great American Desert, either. It had gone about as far as it would go.
There were some speculations about a Great Slave Empire in Latin America, but that was just a fever dream, well beyond the resources of the South (or of France, as it turned out) even if the rest of the States would have permitted an attempt to establish such an Empire.
Slavery was past its prime in the South, worldwide for that matter, and it seems likely that it would have vanished (as it did in Brazil. last country in the Americas to abolish slavery (AD 1888). 0.6 megadeaths for 23 years early freedom, plus losses among the the freed slaves and poverty for the suvivors. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war).
Worth it? Think about it first.
I have more immediate concerns. New England appears to be a repeat offender, and is apparently trying (in concert with the New York City establishment) to reorganize US society yet again. No remorse for the 0.6 million Civil War dead, no "sorry about deaths and impoverishment during the Reconstruction fiasco", just "You're bad people, we're going to take over again and reconstruct you and your society, with considerable help from foreign nationals". Do you want that? Why????
Counterinsurgency
“Slavery was past its prime in the South, worldwide for that matter, and it seems likely that it would have vanished…”
No.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=462
“Slave labor was efficient, productive, and adaptable to a variety of of occupations, ranging from agriculture and mining to factory work. Slavery was the basis of the nation’s most profitable industry. During the decades before the Civil War, slave grown cotton accounted for over half the value of all United States exports, and provided virtually all the cotton used in the northern textile industry and 70 percent of the cotton used in British mills. Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the richest Americans made their fortunes from slavery. In 1860, two out of every three Americans worth $100,000 or more lived in the South. Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners’ confidence in the future.”
https://necpluribusimpar.net/slavery-and-capitalism/
https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-economics-studies/olmstead_-_cotton_slavery_and_history_of_new_capitalism_131_nhc_28_sept_2016.pdf
You are essentially predicting the economic future of the South given the counterfactual assumption that the US Civil War did not occur. That is a difficult task. There is no known reliable method of predicting profitability, especially high profitability. If there were, there would be much less miss-allocation of capital, fewer failed businesses, and the stock market would be a deal less active.
The following takes the conclusions you cite, from such works as _Time on the Cross_, which was a detailed analysis of Southern and Confederate records, and gives them a reality test by comparison to other AD 1850s economies based on tropical products.
* Slave labor was efficient, productive, and adaptable to a variety of of occupations, ranging from agriculture and mining to factory work.
But not used outside the South in the United States.
* Slavery was the basis of the nation’s most profitable industry. During the decades before the Civil War, slave grown cotton accounted for over half the value of all United States exports, and provided virtually all the cotton used in the northern textile industry and 70 percent of the cotton used in British mills.
Other sources of cotton were coming into production. Cotton may have been King, but Southern cotton wasn't going to remain King long. End of the boom. Granted that the South probably didn't see the end coming.
* Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the richest Americans made their fortunes from slavery. In 1860, two out of every three Americans worth $100,000 or more lived in the South.
Eli Whitney's cotton gin had made slavery profitable again, made it even something of a boom industry, for some 65 years. During that interval slavery had made many Southerners rich. The Southern society was aristocratic (because of settlement patterns), and the aristocracy became a slave owning aristocracy, with the extreme dominance pattern one would expect from the necessity to psychologically dominate the slave population (and impress each other). The American southeast, the South, was a _much_ more benign extension of the Carribean tropical products economy, which entirely relied on slave labor. Black slaves in the Caribbean economy were favored as they lasted about 5 years vs. the 3 years for White laborers, and cut the cost of replacement (yes, it was that brutal, and stayed that way until the British effectively banned slave imports). The Caribbean economy had started to collapse as a consequence of the French revolution with the Haitian rebellion of AD 1804 (also a very brutal affair that demonstrated the inability of European troops to cope with the disease of yellow fever), and was substantially converted to non-slavery (either peonage or non-commercial production) by AD 1834. That's not considering events in Brazil after Spanish colonial government support for Brazil ended after Napoleon invaded Spain.
The widespread disorganization in Latin America after the French Revolution destabilized colonial governments would have been expected to reduce its production of tropical products; some of that production would have shifted to the US South, causing a local boom in prices.
The Southern slave holding aristocracy in 1860 had less than 30 years before the remnants of the Caribbean slave economy would vanish from the Americas (with Brazil's abolition of slavery, AD 1888. Brazil had been the destination of some 40% of the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade. Slave labor was, says Wikipedia, replaced by more profitable European immigrants.). It seem doubtful that the South alone would have survive as a slave economy until c.a. AD 1900, as _Time on the Cross_ predicted. It would most likely have reverted, as the rest of the Americas did, to a peonage (sharecropping) economy, which is pretty much what the US Civil War accomplished at the cost of 0.6 or so combat megadeaths and a sharecropping economy characterized by universal poverty.
In short, the rich Southern American slave holders lived at the tail end of a boom. They were rich because of what _had_ happened instead of what was _going to_ happen. _Time on the Cross_ was looking at a lagging indicator, and at one region only. The actual result in the American South was roughly similar to that of the rest of the Americas, although achieved at much greater cost in lives and money.
* Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners’ confidence in the future.
Slave prices were high because of the AD 1808 US ban on importation of slaves. Slaves had to be raised, and there were plantations (in the upper South) that specialized in raising slaves for sale to the Deep South. The cost of that went into slave prices. Supposedly in the 1840s Irish immigrants were hired to clear Louisiana swampland because slaves were too valuable to risk in such dangerous work.
The increased slave prices were an indication of a system breaking down, not one that had a future.
Side comment:
The above shows the power of misdirection.
Christianity is strong in the United States, and used to be stronger. Get a bunch of preachers in front of Americans, have him call them a bunch of sinful SOBs (in nicer language), point to a parade of victims, and say "You SOBs are responsible for this because you did nothing, _but send money to this address_ to show repentance and true Christianity", and the result isn't "yet another confidence man", it's "A preacher, of all people, would not lie. he knows the truth of Christianity. This is an appeal to charity, to our love for our fellow man.". The money comes.
Yankees are experts at this, not as obvious as the Baptists. They say "Pass laws, and the IRS (with armed force if necessary) will be around to collect both your money _and that of the sinners_!! You get two for one -- you show true Christianity, and the sinners get punished!"
Under Christianity, one who gives something of another to a charitable cause isn't a true Christian, but rather a thief. Jesus the Christ never said "Sell your wife and daughters to the nearest bordello and give the money to the poor; afterwards, rob random travelers and give that to the poor also". The contradiction isn't noticed _because of misdirection_, as above. Attention is focused on charity to the injured group, and few notice the theft. This is a weakness of being religious (a weakness of o religion on which the Left has, ironically, hammered).
In this case, the wronged group being paraded is the descendants off the slaves. The part about "You SOBs are responsible for this because you did nothing, _but send money to this address_ to show repentance and true Christianity." hasn't been altered except that the address is that of the IRS.
I am so bloody sick of this stuff.
Counterinsurgency
“The statistics don’t lie.”
Which I did not dispute.
“Absolute declines in life expectancy are usually only seen in place like Russia after the fall of Communism where people are indeed defeated and despairing.”
Dude, the discussion was on white Americans, NOT Russians. Decline in life expectancy COULD be an indicator that people are “defeated and despairing”. But there are other factors involved, especially considering that the people experienced newfound liberties. Indeed, Russian life expectancy fell sharply in the 1990’s, but the impact of the major causes of death on that decline was not measured. Many factors operated simultaneously, including economic and social instability, high rates of tobacco and alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, depression, and deterioration of the health care system. Problems in data quality and reporting, however, appear unable to account for these findings.
“Only white people have agency. If non-whites are dependent on drugs, it’s because whitey is peddling drugs to them, it’s because they turn to drugs out of despair due to white racism,”
No, PEOPLE have agency. There are a number of factors why PEOPLE become dependent on drugs.
No.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=462
"Slave labor was efficient, productive, and adaptable to a variety of of occupations, ranging from agriculture and mining to factory work. Slavery was the basis of the nation's most profitable industry. During the decades before the Civil War, slave grown cotton accounted for over half the value of all United States exports, and provided virtually all the cotton used in the northern textile industry and 70 percent of the cotton used in British mills. Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the richest Americans made their fortunes from slavery. In 1860, two out of every three Americans worth $100,000 or more lived in the South. Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners' confidence in the future."
Slavery was not nearly as important as SJWs think….
https://necpluribusimpar.net/slavery-and-capitalism/
https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-economics-studies/olmstead_-_cotton_slavery_and_history_of_new_capitalism_131_nhc_28_sept_2016.pdf
industry, esp. Boston-Cambridge, are gradually being taken over
by the market-dominant minorities (Jews, Chinese, East Indians).
The continuing Chinese/Indian influx to the tune of 200,000 a year
(incl. illegals) certainly helps. So have the market-dominant minorities yet
succeeded in driving the Wasps from the stately 19th century mansions
in Boston's wealthy western suburbs like Newton and beyond? It must
be dispiriting to observe this process in action. First, the Irish and the
Italians were driven out by the high cost of real estate in the city. Are
the Wasps next? True, the Irish and the Italians gave the city a somewhat
boisterous character but at least Boston in the old days seemed full of
of life. During my recent (admittedly short) visit Boston seemed very subdued, if
not dead, gentrified to the point of nausea, and everywhere you looked (in central
Boston), you saw Chinese people.
Not that we don’t have far too many Asians already, but your impression may be influenced by Boston’s Chinatown being smack in the middle of the city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3497432,-71.0673004,16z?hl=en&authuser=0
In accordance with common military practice, US harbors were guarded by forts at their mouths. Fort Sumpter controlled access to Charlestown harbor, South Carolina. The History Channel gives an account of what happened next [1]. Note that military activity at its mouth closed Charlestown Harbor, costing shippers considerable money, and note that the supply ship Lincoln sent would have kept the harbor closed (due to continued military action) for quite some time. Lincoln did not declare war when the local militia took the incomplete fort near Sumpter: he wanted the Confederacy to declare war. Agree, the South Carolinians shouldn't have fallen for it, but they had a reputation as callous hotheads even back then. Lincoln knew how they would react. The news committed the rest of the Confederacy, which was, on upper leadership levels, less than happy about it.
My point? The Civil War would not have taken place without Lincoln's actions. Even those romantic idiots in the South (barring South Carolina) knew that a war would ruin them. The Lodge quote you supply is more or less typical of the genre: "Those poor people are sufffering under the burden of a system they quite mistakenly like. Lets ease their suffering, God will reward us". Then 0.6 megadeaths later, the real "ease" starts with Reconstruction, which subsequently fails after inflicting yet more suffering, death, and considerable poverty.
OK, that's all water under the dam (which, as I hint above, has washed out). I can look at the mud flat and think "stuff happens". _However_, I can't see doing it all over again!!!! Counting VanBuren, this would be the _third time_!!!! And that's just inside the US, _not_ counting Vietnam and Iraq and Syria!!!! Lucy and the football! I'm not Charlie Brown.
In response to Lodge (who was right as far as he went), here's my own choice of poem, composed in England during the US Civil War:
https://youtube/ys8mdoINiOQ?t=10
Counterinsurgency
1] "Fort Sumpter".
_History Channel_, no date given, accessed 2018/12/30.
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter
And I’m talking about the South taking unilateral action and shipping their slaves to Africa and then freeing them….Talk about doing something that would have benefited future generations of Americans…
So could the South. The spread of slavery was like a cancer on the land…..Just imagine if far-sighted Southern leaders had decided to block the spread of slavery, denying it room to grow in the trans-Appalachian South….Imagine if slavery had not been allowed in Alabama and Mississippi, Texas and Tennessee….
I always liked the “Alien” part…..The grand New England attempt to put limits on immigration….
As for imposing standards on the rest of the country, look up stuff like The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850….Talk about trampling on States’ rights….Then there’s the three-fifths compromise….What an assault on democracy…Of course, if the South had had its way, slaves would have counted as full people for purposes of apportionment….Really dodged a bullet there…
Lincoln wasn’t a gutless homo like Buchanan….
Lincoln was so much smarter than those degenerate plantation lords….It was a bit like fighting retards….
Then why do it? Why did the Confederacy cause the deaths of hundreds of thousand of men in the name of something as stupid as slavery…..Ah, well, something of an eternal question….
Ulysses S Grant, Memoirs
It would have been nice if the South had cleaned up after itself. It would have been nice if God had made a miracle and fixed things with no effort on any human's part. Both were about equally likely, and, even more, _the US Civil war is in the past_. We can't change what happened back then, but perhaps we can learn enough not to get suckered twice.
I'm with US Grant on this one. Grant had a war to fight, he won it, and wishes he hadn't had to. Right, I'd feel the same way. The game wasn't worth the candle. Slavery was dying, worldwide. Making it end maybe 20 years early wasn't worth 0.6 megadeaths and the failed Reconstruction, and actually left the former slaves worse off than end of slavery with out war.
But that's not my main point. My_main_ point is that the US is now in the middle of the Yankees, in alliance with NYC, trying Reconstruction yet again, with the entire present day US population playing the part of the Confederacy's slave owners. That's why the Yankees keep talking about the fundamental US sin of slavery -- it's the same issue they used in the 1800s, and yankees are frugal. As before, New York City is pursuing economic goals while the Yankees push Reconstruction II. Remember that the Transcontinental Railway was started _during_ the Civil War, an inexplicable diversion of resources from the war effort if you don't understand that NYC's support of the Yankees was contingent on an economic quid pro quo.
Last time Reconstruction worked out to have the largest casualty list of any other US war since AD 1776. (Although the per capita American Colonies casualty rate was higher in the French and Indian war, prior to AD 1776.) It also left the formerly highest income part of the US in dire poverty, intense racial hatred, and a social system arguably worse than the pre-Civil War Southern society. No apologies so far, either.
So far this time, it's "only" destabilized the Middle east (yet another Reconstruction type project) and been two decade long meatgrinder for the US Army. That and caused the "White Death" [1]. Good time to tell the Yankee / NYC alliance to mind its own business, which desperately needs minding.
Counterinsurgency
1] Olga Khazan.
"Middle-Aged White Americans Are Dying of Despair".
Forbes, 2012/11/04.
https://www.theatlantic.com/author/olga-khazan/
Comment: I can't find the original paper anymore.
Back in the late 1960s, the CA population was 20M and almost 80% white. These days, it's 40M and maybe 30-35% white. So over a half-century period, there's only been a rather small decline in white numbers, maybe from 16M to 12-14M, or something like 0.3% per year.
I think that's much more suggestive of being due to the horrendous CA housing costs, harsh economic competition with immigrants, and two generations of below-replacement white fertility than whites fleeing the state because they're horrified of having become a shrinking minority in an overwhelmingly non-white state.
That’s pretty amazing….The greatest state in the Union demographically swamped by aliens….
To go from this
to this
And all in the blink of an eye….
Back in the late 1960s, the CA population was 20M and almost 80% white. These days, it's 40M and maybe 30-35% white. So over a half-century period, there's only been a rather small decline in white numbers, maybe from 16M to 12-14M, or something like 0.3% per year.
I think that's much more suggestive of being due to the horrendous CA housing costs, harsh economic competition with immigrants, and two generations of below-replacement white fertility than whites fleeing the state because they're horrified of having become a shrinking minority in an overwhelmingly non-white state.
“Back in the late 1960s, the CA population was 20M and almost 80% white. These days, it’s 40M and maybe 30-35% white. So over a half-century period, there’s only been a rather small decline in white numbers, maybe from 16M to 12-14M, or something like 0.3% per year.”
The decrease in number of whites is much more significant considering that the white population should have doubled in that time, from 16M to 32M, if demographic proportions remained constant. Saying it went down only ~25% is misleading because you’re ignoring the huge increase in overall population during that time. Stating that the percent of whites went from 80% to 30-35% and then calling it a small decrease is contradictory.
She was explaining how the Hispanic influx had greatly improved certain aspects of life in CA:
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2718268
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/#comment-2719463
I don’t read those comments as stating any way in which the Hispanic influx has improved anything for whites.
But as for me, I'm pretty happy that the homicide rate in East Palo Alto has dropped by something like 97%, and I strongly suspect that most of the other people living in Palo Alto, including the CEOs of Google, Apple, and Facebook, feel much the same way...
The average white family in California 50 years ago probably had 3 or 4 kids, so that would normally lead to a substantial amount of population growth even long after fertility drops to 2 kids.
Probably. Do you have a source on the exact average number?
No.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=462
"Slave labor was efficient, productive, and adaptable to a variety of of occupations, ranging from agriculture and mining to factory work. Slavery was the basis of the nation's most profitable industry. During the decades before the Civil War, slave grown cotton accounted for over half the value of all United States exports, and provided virtually all the cotton used in the northern textile industry and 70 percent of the cotton used in British mills. Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the richest Americans made their fortunes from slavery. In 1860, two out of every three Americans worth $100,000 or more lived in the South. Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners' confidence in the future."
OK, let’s take a look at that. I’ll try the “reality check” method, which detects order of magnitude (10x) errors in proffered solutions by considering similar cases, or perhaps extrapolates the implications of proposed solutions to similar cases.
You are essentially predicting the economic future of the South given the counterfactual assumption that the US Civil War did not occur. That is a difficult task. There is no known reliable method of predicting profitability, especially high profitability. If there were, there would be much less miss-allocation of capital, fewer failed businesses, and the stock market would be a deal less active.
The following takes the conclusions you cite, from such works as _Time on the Cross_, which was a detailed analysis of Southern and Confederate records, and gives them a reality test by comparison to other AD 1850s economies based on tropical products.
* Slave labor was efficient, productive, and adaptable to a variety of of occupations, ranging from agriculture and mining to factory work.
But not used outside the South in the United States.
* Slavery was the basis of the nation’s most profitable industry. During the decades before the Civil War, slave grown cotton accounted for over half the value of all United States exports, and provided virtually all the cotton used in the northern textile industry and 70 percent of the cotton used in British mills.
Other sources of cotton were coming into production. Cotton may have been King, but Southern cotton wasn’t going to remain King long. End of the boom. Granted that the South probably didn’t see the end coming.
* Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the richest Americans made their fortunes from slavery. In 1860, two out of every three Americans worth $100,000 or more lived in the South.
Eli Whitney’s cotton gin had made slavery profitable again, made it even something of a boom industry, for some 65 years. During that interval slavery had made many Southerners rich. The Southern society was aristocratic (because of settlement patterns), and the aristocracy became a slave owning aristocracy, with the extreme dominance pattern one would expect from the necessity to psychologically dominate the slave population (and impress each other). The American southeast, the South, was a _much_ more benign extension of the Carribean tropical products economy, which entirely relied on slave labor. Black slaves in the Caribbean economy were favored as they lasted about 5 years vs. the 3 years for White laborers, and cut the cost of replacement (yes, it was that brutal, and stayed that way until the British effectively banned slave imports). The Caribbean economy had started to collapse as a consequence of the French revolution with the Haitian rebellion of AD 1804 (also a very brutal affair that demonstrated the inability of European troops to cope with the disease of yellow fever), and was substantially converted to non-slavery (either peonage or non-commercial production) by AD 1834. That’s not considering events in Brazil after Spanish colonial government support for Brazil ended after Napoleon invaded Spain.
The widespread disorganization in Latin America after the French Revolution destabilized colonial governments would have been expected to reduce its production of tropical products; some of that production would have shifted to the US South, causing a local boom in prices.
The Southern slave holding aristocracy in 1860 had less than 30 years before the remnants of the Caribbean slave economy would vanish from the Americas (with Brazil’s abolition of slavery, AD 1888. Brazil had been the destination of some 40% of the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade. Slave labor was, says Wikipedia, replaced by more profitable European immigrants.). It seem doubtful that the South alone would have survive as a slave economy until c.a. AD 1900, as _Time on the Cross_ predicted. It would most likely have reverted, as the rest of the Americas did, to a peonage (sharecropping) economy, which is pretty much what the US Civil War accomplished at the cost of 0.6 or so combat megadeaths and a sharecropping economy characterized by universal poverty.
In short, the rich Southern American slave holders lived at the tail end of a boom. They were rich because of what _had_ happened instead of what was _going to_ happen. _Time on the Cross_ was looking at a lagging indicator, and at one region only. The actual result in the American South was roughly similar to that of the rest of the Americas, although achieved at much greater cost in lives and money.
* Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners’ confidence in the future.
Slave prices were high because of the AD 1808 US ban on importation of slaves. Slaves had to be raised, and there were plantations (in the upper South) that specialized in raising slaves for sale to the Deep South. The cost of that went into slave prices. Supposedly in the 1840s Irish immigrants were hired to clear Louisiana swampland because slaves were too valuable to risk in such dangerous work.
The increased slave prices were an indication of a system breaking down, not one that had a future.
Side comment:
The above shows the power of misdirection.
Christianity is strong in the United States, and used to be stronger. Get a bunch of preachers in front of Americans, have him call them a bunch of sinful SOBs (in nicer language), point to a parade of victims, and say “You SOBs are responsible for this because you did nothing, _but send money to this address_ to show repentance and true Christianity”, and the result isn’t “yet another confidence man”, it’s “A preacher, of all people, would not lie. he knows the truth of Christianity. This is an appeal to charity, to our love for our fellow man.”. The money comes.
Yankees are experts at this, not as obvious as the Baptists. They say “Pass laws, and the IRS (with armed force if necessary) will be around to collect both your money _and that of the sinners_!! You get two for one — you show true Christianity, and the sinners get punished!”
Under Christianity, one who gives something of another to a charitable cause isn’t a true Christian, but rather a thief. Jesus the Christ never said “Sell your wife and daughters to the nearest bordello and give the money to the poor; afterwards, rob random travelers and give that to the poor also”. The contradiction isn’t noticed _because of misdirection_, as above. Attention is focused on charity to the injured group, and few notice the theft. This is a weakness of being religious (a weakness of o religion on which the Left has, ironically, hammered).
In this case, the wronged group being paraded is the descendants off the slaves. The part about “You SOBs are responsible for this because you did nothing, _but send money to this address_ to show repentance and true Christianity.” hasn’t been altered except that the address is that of the IRS.
I am so bloody sick of this stuff.
Counterinsurgency
* Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners’ confidence in the future.Slave prices were high because of the AD 1808 US ban on importation of slaves. Slaves had to be raised, and there were plantations (in the upper South) that specialized in raising slaves for sale to the Deep South. The cost of that went into slave prices. Supposedly in the 1840s Irish immigrants were hired to clear Louisiana swampland because slaves were too valuable to risk in such dangerous work."The increased slave prices were an indication of a system breaking down, not one that had a future."Southern plantation owners purchased additional slaves if they lacked the additional manpower to clear out new fields or expand their operations. Otherwise, plantation owners would "gently encourage" their slaves to reproduce like rabbits to keep a steady supply of pickaninnies. With each additional slave, the value of a plantation owner increased.https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php"Get a bunch of preachers in front of Americans, have him call them a bunch of sinful SOBs (in nicer language), point to a parade of victims, and say “You SOBs are responsible for this because you did nothing, _but send money to this address_ to show repentance and true Christianity”, and the result isn’t “yet another confidence man”, it’s “A preacher, of all people, would not lie. he knows the truth of Christianity. This is an appeal to charity, to our love for our fellow man.”. The money comes."It doesn't necessarily work out that way."Under Christianity, one who gives something of another to a charitable cause isn’t a true Christian, but rather a thief."Cite the relevant passages that lend support to your assertion, as well sources that explain how charities are essentially robbers."This is a weakness of being religious (a weakness of o religion on which the Left has, ironically, hammered)."From YOUR perspective.
https://necpluribusimpar.net/slavery-and-capitalism/
https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-economics-studies/olmstead_-_cotton_slavery_and_history_of_new_capitalism_131_nhc_28_sept_2016.pdf
Interesting sources that I will read. But from your second source–There is much in this big picture with which to agree. However, much that is true in the NHC story has long been common place. There is no doubting of evils of what Beckert calls “war capitalism” (as he rebrands mercantilism), whereby Europeans conquered much of the world, destroyed civilizations, and enslaved millions. There is no doubting that American slavery tore apart families, forcefully relocated people, imposed harsh work conditions, and brutalized and sexually abused many. Slave owners created a police state that benefitted a small elite at the expense of blacks and poor whites.”
To go from this
https://images.trvl-media.com/media/content/shared/images/travelguides/destination/178280/Griffith-Observatory-20402.jpg
http://hlblighting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SF-City-Hall_5-1310x873.jpg
to this
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/50/0b/75/500b75b4026cc977503b1c7e36f8c9f8.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ff/98/7e/ff987e392a66a81e65f710c1e67dec6a--aztec-pictures-aztec-culture.jpg
And all in the blink of an eye....
More beautiful artwork all the way around.
“The average white family in California 50 years ago probably had 3 or 4 kids…”
Probably. Do you have a source on the exact average number?
You are essentially predicting the economic future of the South given the counterfactual assumption that the US Civil War did not occur. That is a difficult task. There is no known reliable method of predicting profitability, especially high profitability. If there were, there would be much less miss-allocation of capital, fewer failed businesses, and the stock market would be a deal less active.
The following takes the conclusions you cite, from such works as _Time on the Cross_, which was a detailed analysis of Southern and Confederate records, and gives them a reality test by comparison to other AD 1850s economies based on tropical products.
* Slave labor was efficient, productive, and adaptable to a variety of of occupations, ranging from agriculture and mining to factory work.
But not used outside the South in the United States.
* Slavery was the basis of the nation’s most profitable industry. During the decades before the Civil War, slave grown cotton accounted for over half the value of all United States exports, and provided virtually all the cotton used in the northern textile industry and 70 percent of the cotton used in British mills.
Other sources of cotton were coming into production. Cotton may have been King, but Southern cotton wasn't going to remain King long. End of the boom. Granted that the South probably didn't see the end coming.
* Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the richest Americans made their fortunes from slavery. In 1860, two out of every three Americans worth $100,000 or more lived in the South.
Eli Whitney's cotton gin had made slavery profitable again, made it even something of a boom industry, for some 65 years. During that interval slavery had made many Southerners rich. The Southern society was aristocratic (because of settlement patterns), and the aristocracy became a slave owning aristocracy, with the extreme dominance pattern one would expect from the necessity to psychologically dominate the slave population (and impress each other). The American southeast, the South, was a _much_ more benign extension of the Carribean tropical products economy, which entirely relied on slave labor. Black slaves in the Caribbean economy were favored as they lasted about 5 years vs. the 3 years for White laborers, and cut the cost of replacement (yes, it was that brutal, and stayed that way until the British effectively banned slave imports). The Caribbean economy had started to collapse as a consequence of the French revolution with the Haitian rebellion of AD 1804 (also a very brutal affair that demonstrated the inability of European troops to cope with the disease of yellow fever), and was substantially converted to non-slavery (either peonage or non-commercial production) by AD 1834. That's not considering events in Brazil after Spanish colonial government support for Brazil ended after Napoleon invaded Spain.
The widespread disorganization in Latin America after the French Revolution destabilized colonial governments would have been expected to reduce its production of tropical products; some of that production would have shifted to the US South, causing a local boom in prices.
The Southern slave holding aristocracy in 1860 had less than 30 years before the remnants of the Caribbean slave economy would vanish from the Americas (with Brazil's abolition of slavery, AD 1888. Brazil had been the destination of some 40% of the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade. Slave labor was, says Wikipedia, replaced by more profitable European immigrants.). It seem doubtful that the South alone would have survive as a slave economy until c.a. AD 1900, as _Time on the Cross_ predicted. It would most likely have reverted, as the rest of the Americas did, to a peonage (sharecropping) economy, which is pretty much what the US Civil War accomplished at the cost of 0.6 or so combat megadeaths and a sharecropping economy characterized by universal poverty.
In short, the rich Southern American slave holders lived at the tail end of a boom. They were rich because of what _had_ happened instead of what was _going to_ happen. _Time on the Cross_ was looking at a lagging indicator, and at one region only. The actual result in the American South was roughly similar to that of the rest of the Americas, although achieved at much greater cost in lives and money.
* Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners’ confidence in the future.
Slave prices were high because of the AD 1808 US ban on importation of slaves. Slaves had to be raised, and there were plantations (in the upper South) that specialized in raising slaves for sale to the Deep South. The cost of that went into slave prices. Supposedly in the 1840s Irish immigrants were hired to clear Louisiana swampland because slaves were too valuable to risk in such dangerous work.
The increased slave prices were an indication of a system breaking down, not one that had a future.
Side comment:
The above shows the power of misdirection.
Christianity is strong in the United States, and used to be stronger. Get a bunch of preachers in front of Americans, have him call them a bunch of sinful SOBs (in nicer language), point to a parade of victims, and say "You SOBs are responsible for this because you did nothing, _but send money to this address_ to show repentance and true Christianity", and the result isn't "yet another confidence man", it's "A preacher, of all people, would not lie. he knows the truth of Christianity. This is an appeal to charity, to our love for our fellow man.". The money comes.
Yankees are experts at this, not as obvious as the Baptists. They say "Pass laws, and the IRS (with armed force if necessary) will be around to collect both your money _and that of the sinners_!! You get two for one -- you show true Christianity, and the sinners get punished!"
Under Christianity, one who gives something of another to a charitable cause isn't a true Christian, but rather a thief. Jesus the Christ never said "Sell your wife and daughters to the nearest bordello and give the money to the poor; afterwards, rob random travelers and give that to the poor also". The contradiction isn't noticed _because of misdirection_, as above. Attention is focused on charity to the injured group, and few notice the theft. This is a weakness of being religious (a weakness of o religion on which the Left has, ironically, hammered).
In this case, the wronged group being paraded is the descendants off the slaves. The part about "You SOBs are responsible for this because you did nothing, _but send money to this address_ to show repentance and true Christianity." hasn't been altered except that the address is that of the IRS.
I am so bloody sick of this stuff.
Counterinsurgency
“You are essentially predicting the economic future of the South given the counterfactual assumption that the US Civil War did not occur. That is a difficult task.”
I was not predicting anything of the sort. Recall what you stated–“Slavery was past its prime in the South, worldwide for that matter, and it seems likely that it would have vanished…” I am contending that slavery, on the eve of the Civil War, remained a potent and viable economic force for plantation owners.
“But not used outside the South in the United States.”
Yet, this form of labor was efficient, productive, and adaptable for Southerners.
“Other sources of cotton were coming into production. Cotton may have been King, but Southern cotton wasn’t going to remain King long.”
Assuming that the Civil War did not take place, it is conceivable that southern plantation owners would have entertained the notion of developing textile factories, with slaves being used to grow and harvest cotton, and then perhaps trained to make clothing. It would have began on a smaller scale, but they had the necessary capital to form corporations by which several owners pooled their resources.
“Eli Whitney’s cotton gin had made slavery profitable again, made it even something of a boom industry, for some 65 years.”
And advancements in the textile industry, along with the advent of limited liability, would have been an enticement for southern plantation owners in the late 1800’s. Consider that new textile factories became prominent in the South by the early and mid 1900’s.
“The Southern slave holding aristocracy in 1860 had less than 30 years before the remnants of the Caribbean slave economy would vanish from the Americas (with Brazil’s abolition of slavery, AD 1888. Brazil had been the destination of some 40% of the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade. Slave labor was, says Wikipedia, replaced by more profitable European immigrants.). It seem doubtful that the South alone would have survive as a slave economy until c.a. AD 1900,”
Unless, of course, southern plantation owners diversified.
* Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners’ confidence in the future.
Slave prices were high because of the AD 1808 US ban on importation of slaves. Slaves had to be raised, and there were plantations (in the upper South) that specialized in raising slaves for sale to the Deep South. The cost of that went into slave prices. Supposedly in the 1840s Irish immigrants were hired to clear Louisiana swampland because slaves were too valuable to risk in such dangerous work.
“The increased slave prices were an indication of a system breaking down, not one that had a future.”
Southern plantation owners purchased additional slaves if they lacked the additional manpower to clear out new fields or expand their operations. Otherwise, plantation owners would “gently encourage” their slaves to reproduce like rabbits to keep a steady supply of pickaninnies. With each additional slave, the value of a plantation owner increased.
https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php
“Get a bunch of preachers in front of Americans, have him call them a bunch of sinful SOBs (in nicer language), point to a parade of victims, and say “You SOBs are responsible for this because you did nothing, _but send money to this address_ to show repentance and true Christianity”, and the result isn’t “yet another confidence man”, it’s “A preacher, of all people, would not lie. he knows the truth of Christianity. This is an appeal to charity, to our love for our fellow man.”. The money comes.”
It doesn’t necessarily work out that way.
“Under Christianity, one who gives something of another to a charitable cause isn’t a true Christian, but rather a thief.”
Cite the relevant passages that lend support to your assertion, as well sources that explain how charities are essentially robbers.
“This is a weakness of being religious (a weakness of o religion on which the Left has, ironically, hammered).”
From YOUR perspective.
https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc?t=101
Counterinsurgency
Actually, it would be interesting if someone looked up the trends of average white family size in CA over the last half-century, maybe from the GSS dataset. My own guess is that it was never much above 3, and probably was dropping rapidly by the mid/late 1970s. I’d think the figure for my own LA suburb public school classmates wasn’t much above 2 during the 1970s, and it began to collapse in the next generation. Nationwide white fertility has plunged and given that includes Mormon and rural areas, I’m sure the figures for CA were much lower.
Well, I guess we’re reading those comments differently.
But as for me, I’m pretty happy that the homicide rate in East Palo Alto has dropped by something like 97%, and I strongly suspect that most of the other people living in Palo Alto, including the CEOs of Google, Apple, and Facebook, feel much the same way…
The South _did_ do nothing. The North opened hostilities.
It would have been nice if the South had cleaned up after itself. It would have been nice if God had made a miracle and fixed things with no effort on any human’s part. Both were about equally likely, and, even more, _the US Civil war is in the past_. We can’t change what happened back then, but perhaps we can learn enough not to get suckered twice.
I’m with US Grant on this one. Grant had a war to fight, he won it, and wishes he hadn’t had to. Right, I’d feel the same way. The game wasn’t worth the candle. Slavery was dying, worldwide. Making it end maybe 20 years early wasn’t worth 0.6 megadeaths and the failed Reconstruction, and actually left the former slaves worse off than end of slavery with out war.
But that’s not my main point. My_main_ point is that the US is now in the middle of the Yankees, in alliance with NYC, trying Reconstruction yet again, with the entire present day US population playing the part of the Confederacy’s slave owners. That’s why the Yankees keep talking about the fundamental US sin of slavery — it’s the same issue they used in the 1800s, and yankees are frugal. As before, New York City is pursuing economic goals while the Yankees push Reconstruction II. Remember that the Transcontinental Railway was started _during_ the Civil War, an inexplicable diversion of resources from the war effort if you don’t understand that NYC’s support of the Yankees was contingent on an economic quid pro quo.
Last time Reconstruction worked out to have the largest casualty list of any other US war since AD 1776. (Although the per capita American Colonies casualty rate was higher in the French and Indian war, prior to AD 1776.) It also left the formerly highest income part of the US in dire poverty, intense racial hatred, and a social system arguably worse than the pre-Civil War Southern society. No apologies so far, either.
So far this time, it’s “only” destabilized the Middle east (yet another Reconstruction type project) and been two decade long meatgrinder for the US Army. That and caused the “White Death” [1]. Good time to tell the Yankee / NYC alliance to mind its own business, which desperately needs minding.
Counterinsurgency
1] Olga Khazan.
“Middle-Aged White Americans Are Dying of Despair”.
Forbes, 2012/11/04.
https://www.theatlantic.com/author/olga-khazan/
Comment: I can’t find the original paper anymore.
Well, first of all I’m not a Southerner. I’m a borderlander, my ancestors (paternal line, anyway, Welsh variety) lived along borders and didn’t own anything they couldn’t move on a half day’s notice, so they could avoid troop movements. They lived that way, so do I, and I’m still alive, so it must have worked. I’m not a part of the aristocratic South, and if you don’t believe me, ask them.
Yes, Ruffin was a hothead even by borderlander standards. Heck, South Carolina was considered hotheaded by the rest of the South, and the mental disorder was attributed to early settlement by a large group of Barbados planters. Caribbean island slave economies ate slaves. 5 year average slave lifespan after arrival, and the slave owners had no ruth whatsoever.
Mainly, though, I’m not blind. The US Civil War was a disaster for the US, and so was Reconstruction. Both were the result of efforts by a coalition of New England (Yankees) and New York City (NYC, Dutch trading culture, slightly modified). We’re now undergoing what amounts to a second Reconstruction.
* Same issue: slavery (slogan being “Slavery is American’s original Sin”), same method: mobilize the underclass (former slaves back then) and make the former underclass the new governing class (search for “Union League”), while NYC picks up the commercial gains. This time the Yankees are importing massive numbers of foreign nationals to augment their effort. Last time much of Union troop strength was new immigrants.
* Yankees and NYC are augmented this time with California coastal cities, which were settled by Yankees and New York merchants in the early AD 1800s.
* Methodology is still the same: intense propaganda, reliance on paramilitary forces to kill and intimidate opposition among those being reconstructed, reconstruction based entirely on race. Classic insurgency tactics that date back to at least the French Revolution.
* Result is still the same: increased poverty, increased death rate among the group targeted for reconstruction, loss of primary source of income for the targeted area, increased racial hatred.
Reconstruction instances then and now are downright isomorphic. It’s bit disconcerting. The borderlanders took it on the chin during the Civil War and Reconstruction both. They are this time, too.
Frankly, a contemporary Reconstruction is not appealing, and I’m surprised that you’d ignore the threat. Do you really want to permit this to happen?
Counterinsurgency
But as for me, I'm pretty happy that the homicide rate in East Palo Alto has dropped by something like 97%, and I strongly suspect that most of the other people living in Palo Alto, including the CEOs of Google, Apple, and Facebook, feel much the same way...
You friends with Rob Greenberg?
Let me tell an illustrative story.
A young women that I was acquainted with, white type, managed to get herself pregnant. The man involved was close to her age, quite willing to marry her, employed at low income, and apparently she had no real objection to him. The girl’s mother, who was a Christian Lay preacher, and herself married, managed to talk the young girl out of marrying the man _because the young woman could get more money by going on welfare_.
The story here isn’t so much about “ain’t it awful” as it is that the mother firmly set the young woman’s future as poverty, her children hating her, increasing despair as the young woman grew into an old woman (In the marriage market, women are born rich, and become poor, men born poor, and get rich), and probable early death. That, on a mass scale, seems to be the source of White Death.
Counterinsurgency
You are being ridiculous. Of course whites "fight". They "fight" everyday, in their jobs, in their relationships, for their sportsball teams, and for their ideology. Just because there are white people who oppose your philosophies does not mean they lack the capacity or will to fight.
How are YOU fighting back against the elites who allegedly are demonizing "your kind"? Be specific.
I tell tedious trolls like you to fuck off, for a start.
Telling about your intellectual horsepower, or lack thereof.
I doubt that’s the conscious intent of the prescribers or the producers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if elements of the political establishment look the other way for this reason.
* Slave prices soared during the 1850s, an indication of slaveowners’ confidence in the future.Slave prices were high because of the AD 1808 US ban on importation of slaves. Slaves had to be raised, and there were plantations (in the upper South) that specialized in raising slaves for sale to the Deep South. The cost of that went into slave prices. Supposedly in the 1840s Irish immigrants were hired to clear Louisiana swampland because slaves were too valuable to risk in such dangerous work."The increased slave prices were an indication of a system breaking down, not one that had a future."Southern plantation owners purchased additional slaves if they lacked the additional manpower to clear out new fields or expand their operations. Otherwise, plantation owners would "gently encourage" their slaves to reproduce like rabbits to keep a steady supply of pickaninnies. With each additional slave, the value of a plantation owner increased.https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php"Get a bunch of preachers in front of Americans, have him call them a bunch of sinful SOBs (in nicer language), point to a parade of victims, and say “You SOBs are responsible for this because you did nothing, _but send money to this address_ to show repentance and true Christianity”, and the result isn’t “yet another confidence man”, it’s “A preacher, of all people, would not lie. he knows the truth of Christianity. This is an appeal to charity, to our love for our fellow man.”. The money comes."It doesn't necessarily work out that way."Under Christianity, one who gives something of another to a charitable cause isn’t a true Christian, but rather a thief."Cite the relevant passages that lend support to your assertion, as well sources that explain how charities are essentially robbers."This is a weakness of being religious (a weakness of o religion on which the Left has, ironically, hammered)."From YOUR perspective.
Conversation over.
Counterinsurgency
"The South _did_ do nothing. The North opened hostilities."
No. There was a series of events, with the spread of slavery being at the forefront, that led to increased tensions between North and South, and ultimately a Civil War.
"I’m with US Grant on this one. Grant had a war to fight, he won it, and wishes he hadn’t had to."
His sentiments were echoed by both Northerners and Southerners. Yet...
“THE CAUSE of the great War of the Rebellion against the United Status will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.”
― Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs, Vol. 2
"The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country; their facilities for educating their children, even up to the point of reading and writing, were very limited; their interest in the contest was very meagre--what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it, was with the North; they too needed emancipation. Under the old regime they were looked down upon by those who controlled all the affairs in the interest of slave-owners, as poor white trash who were allowed the ballot so long as they cast it according to direction.”
― Ulysses S. Grant
"Slavery was dying, worldwide."
Yet in the South it remained a potent. viable economic force.
"* Methodology is still the same: intense propaganda, reliance on paramilitary forces to kill and intimidate opposition among those being reconstructed, reconstruction based entirely on race. Classic insurgency tactics that date back to at least the French Revolution."
Reconstruction was based on several factors. Poor whites and former slaves benefitted. Moreover, the United States Army, not "paramilitary forces", was present to ensure that justice would prevail considering that ex-Confederate leaders sought to interfere with Congressional legislation.
* Result is still the same: increased poverty, increased death rate among the group targeted for reconstruction, loss of primary source of income for the targeted area, increased racial hatred.
You are being vague here. Care to elaborate?
I think transition to in-earnest “generalized psychological White Dispossession” as a feature of growing up for most White children — i.e., as we recognize it today — began in earnest no earlier than the late 1970s, and then just in spots. (The exact timing is less important than the idea of a still-ongoing transition.)
It spread steadily in the 1990s and 2000s, fanning out across the USA into communities big and small. Then in 2007-2008, the Obama campaign. His election represents a turning point for this movement (and looking back, even the alternative was the highly unsatisfactory #InvadeTheWorldInviteTheWorld clown-figure McCain), as it was probably about then that the number growing up ‘affected’ passed the 50% mark.
I would propose the psychological transition among White, Christian-origin Americans to internalized, psychological White Dispossession as, roughly:
– Born, late 1960s: <10% affected (= grew up with internalized White Dispossession)
– Born in the mid-late 1970s: 20%+ affected
– Born in the mid-late 1980s: 40% affected
– Born in the mid 1990s: 60% affected
– Born in the early 2000s (current high school students): 70%+ affected
'Affected' correlates with region, residence in a metropolitan area, and relatively higher socioeconomic status. The SWPL meme in the 2000s captured this overlap. The 10% of U.S. Whites born in 1965-1969 whom I would estimate were 'affected' growing up are also disproportionately those of higher IQ and SES, so even their impact is disproportionate to their numbers.
The corollary to this is that while most White youth born in or after the early 1990s have grown up (are growing up) 'affected,' a percentage of them go through a personal struggle and come out the other end consciously rejecting the anti-White system, in a way that those born in the 1950s, 1940s, and earlier probably never can. Say this number of 'reject the system' is three-in-ten of the 'affected'.
The situation today among Whites age 15 to 35 as we approach 2020, then,
– 35% grew up unaffected
– 20% grew up affected but came to personally reject the anti-White system
– 45% grew up affected and at-least-passively accept the anti-White system
— — of which, ca.15%? actively embrace the system, 30% passively accept
The 35% "unaffected" + 20% "affected, reject system" is the White youth Trump base. (Trump won White youth.) The ca.15% "affected, embrace system" is the White Antifa base. The Alt-Right drew from the 20% "affected, reject system" pool.
https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc?t=101
Counterinsurgency
LOL. so rather than offer a cogent rebuttal, you essentially run away.
“The South _did_ do nothing. The North opened hostilities.”
No. There was a series of events, with the spread of slavery being at the forefront, that led to increased tensions between North and South, and ultimately a Civil War.
“I’m with US Grant on this one. Grant had a war to fight, he won it, and wishes he hadn’t had to.”
His sentiments were echoed by both Northerners and Southerners. Yet…
“THE CAUSE of the great War of the Rebellion against the United Status will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that “A state half slave and half free cannot exist.” All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.”
― Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs, Vol. 2
“The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country; their facilities for educating their children, even up to the point of reading and writing, were very limited; their interest in the contest was very meagre–what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it, was with the North; they too needed emancipation. Under the old regime they were looked down upon by those who controlled all the affairs in the interest of slave-owners, as poor white trash who were allowed the ballot so long as they cast it according to direction.”
― Ulysses S. Grant
“Slavery was dying, worldwide.”
Yet in the South it remained a potent. viable economic force.
“* Methodology is still the same: intense propaganda, reliance on paramilitary forces to kill and intimidate opposition among those being reconstructed, reconstruction based entirely on race. Classic insurgency tactics that date back to at least the French Revolution.”
Reconstruction was based on several factors. Poor whites and former slaves benefitted. Moreover, the United States Army, not “paramilitary forces”, was present to ensure that justice would prevail considering that ex-Confederate leaders sought to interfere with Congressional legislation.
* Result is still the same: increased poverty, increased death rate among the group targeted for reconstruction, loss of primary source of income for the targeted area, increased racial hatred.
You are being vague here. Care to elaborate?
“I tell tedious trolls like you to fuck off, for a start.”
Telling about your intellectual horsepower, or lack thereof.
But my mentality is not to give up. No matter how bad things get, I will always try to fight back, or survive. Who are these weak whites throwing in the towel? I'm also young so I know exactly what it's like to live in the "dispossessed" country... and I don't really care. It is as bad as you think, and nobody over age 25 would really understand it. Either way it just pisses me off, but I don't despair. If I had nothing left to lose, I would form up in a militia to save the system, not waste away on drugs.
I am very worried about marijuana though. Far too many young kids, from age 15 or 16, are smoking weed on a regular basis. I think this is frankly one of the biggest threats to white people (in canada every race is smoking now though). The stuff rots out your brain.
I think it’s the deluge of attacks in media, on campus, on socials, etc. with easy access to drugs to complete the surrender.
The gays have been getting ridiculous support and coaching lately; “it gets better”. What whites need is a man of action and determination to look up to, who is willing to suffer the slings and arrows of the left mobs. A poor example was Gavin McGinnis and his pro-West Proud Boys, who was quickly chewed up and spit out. Something along those lines. It would be great if it wasn’t a politician, athlete, or entertainer, but that’s the way to appeal to a large audience. Someone without baggage though, they need to be Chick-Fil-a clean and have a willingness not to back down.
https://twitter.com/KTLA/status/1078548834412711936
Variety: