RSS
From the New York Times op-ed page:
We Can Replace Them
In Georgia, a chance to rebuke white nationalism.By Michelle Goldberg, Opinion Columnist, Oct. 29, 2018
… Right now America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power, terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority. The divide feels especially stark in Georgia, where the midterm election is a battle between Trumpist reaction and the multicultural America whose emergence the right is trying, at all costs, to forestall. …
Kemp is the candidate of aggrieved whiteness.
How dare whites feel aggrieved about being replaced? Those bastards, letting themselves get resentful over us replacing them. They deserve what they have coming. We’re not replacing whites because we love power, we are replacing whites because they are hateful. We know they are hateful because of how much they make us hate-filled toward them. If they didn’t flat-out deserve to be hated, we wouldn’t hate them so much. Our boots stamping on their inhuman faces forever is for their own good.
… In a week, American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.
In other words, a New York Times columnist is saying, “Screw the optics. I’m going in.”
Seriously, is this wise?
This is a good example of why the conspiracy theorists are so often so wrong. You can tell that there are very few grand conspiracies in this world — that instead there are just people doing whatever the hell seems like a good idea to them at the moment — because nobody important ordered Michelle Goldberg to ix-nay on her “We Can Replace Them” rant: “Damn it, Michelle, the Secret Replacement Master Plan is supposed to be secret, at least until after the November election! Why are you printing it in the New York Times in October? Are you crazy?”
Even more seriously, the Immigration Weapon needs to be driven out of American politics. It’s way too tempting to try to use immigration to elect a new people, which in turn sets off a psychologically inevitable chain of thought about how the old people deserve their replacement. Allowing one side to try to win elections through altering the electorate via immigration is like allowing a football team to bring brass knuckles, razor blades, and guns onto the field. We need a national understanding that using immigration to try to win without having to persuade the current voters is not some sacred rite, it’s incredibly destructive to democracy and it should be shunned by all.
At this point, everybody needs to take a breath and calm down.
I admire Bernie Sanders because he got to be about 75 years old seemingly without it occurring to him that morality demands that he win by replacing the electorate with more Bernie-friendly voters.
Bernie always seemed to assume that the right way to win was by persuading the existing electorate that he was right and the other side was wrong.
What a dinosaur! That’s not democracy. Everybody knows nowadays that democracy instead is the Democrats winning by rigging the election by importing a new electorate.
I wonder how many times Goldberg had to go back and change “replace whites” to “replace white nationalists” while drafting this piece.
But paranoid gentile-hating Jews like Goldberg and her ilk also want to create a nonwhite-majority country in order to prevent the rise of a Nazi-like regime, a possibility that has no chance of happening today, and had no chance of ever occuring since the defeat of the Nazis over 70-years ago or at any time in American history.
Well there it is. Our Elites are going for broke. They’re gonna try & drag the US (& as many other Western nations as they can) across the demographic tipping point. Then they can dispense with the nuisance of competitive elections.
*”May all of the the Economic Zone formerly known as the USA resemble the Uniparty/Oligopoly-controlled California.”*
At least they are being honest about it. Get it right out there in the open.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and propose that the rhetoric of the Michelle Goldbergs of the world prematurely celebrating the demise of the core American population and cheering on the brown hordes did far more to inspire the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter than anything ever said by Mr. Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVrsGHs2MCk&frags=pl%2Cwn
When Hillary “they all look alike” Clinton is supposed to be the tyranny part of anarcho-tyranny, I suspect the anarcho part is liable to start slipping through propped doors… first slowly and then… well not all at once since I don’t think anarchy is an option. The real question is what forestalls the anarchy, and some options are better than others.
“We” need separate countries.
In a week, white American voters can do to globalists what they fear most. Vote in bloc-like fashion.
“In Georgia, a chance to rebuke white nationalism.”
By electing a racist black democrat who advocated destroying Stone Mountain the way the Taliban destroyed those Buddhist statues, the same woman once photographed burning the state’s flag.
http://fortune.com/2018/04/24/stacey-abrams-debt-georgia-governor/
I wonder how much Michelle Goldbergs of the world have really game planned the future once let’s say they take power in a state like Georgia? Have they thought about the possibility of Koreans and Indians and blacks and liberal whites getting together? What would whites in Pennsylvania and Michigan feel once they see open warfare on their types down south? And what about the the perception of Goldbergs who don’t live in NY/LA?
In my really hoping for a surprise outcome next Tuesday where increased black support for Republicans puts them over the top in critical states like Georgia. It will hopefully convince Republicans to give more attention to the needs of lower and middle-class people.
Hope & Change 2.1
This is why and how people keep voting. Elections are to divide, conquer, and placate.
And why would they do that when California shows it will make the US a one party nation for the Democrats
High-income liberals can buy their way out of the masses and live just fine. The lights still work, the cities function, help is cheap and there's a myriad of ethnic restaurants to choose from. Sure, poverty has increased and middle class whites have been forced to flee, but so what. They don't deal with any of that.
Maybe they're getting pushed out a bit by Asians and Indians, but high-income Whites and Jews still are the main power brokers in politics and business. There's not much downside to this new country, but the upside - punishing bad Whites and blocking any chance of the Jewish Holocaust 2.0 - is well worth it.
Could have softened it by using “displaced”, or “dislodged”; but I suppose it’s okay now to show one’s true feelings.
I guess bragging about the economic utility of immigrants, and the virtues of multiculturalism, is too gross a lie to use anymore.
Good point. After all it was never about replacing white nationalists since that term has not been long in common usage. The immivasion and push to diversify were begun well before that term became popular, and were directed at White America, period, full stop.
Allowing one side to try to win elections through altering the electorate via immigration is like allowing a football team to bring brass knuckles, razor blades, and guns onto the field. We need a national understanding that using immigration to try to win without having to persuade the current voters is not some sacred rite, it’s incredibly destructive to democracy and it should be shunned by all.
But wouldn’t any sane immigration policy benefit republicans? Even no immigration at all would do that. It’s virtually inevitable that one side or another would benefit even under crazy systems.
OT There’s a bomb scare in Pasadena (bomb squad has been called, a large area is being evacuated), however, Pasadena once blocked a highway and deployed a robot to investigate a nonlethal jacket that somebody I guess didn’t want any more. So because it’s Pasadena possibly this is nothing.
Bingo. Direct hit. Nobody is going to do that, but they will tell people to ix-nay on other things unless they want to suffer high-tech lynchings. Only approved speech is permitted.
The ones who make the threats know that they are backed by the monopolies.
Kemp is up by 1.6% in the RCP average, and most polling has a 2-4 point bias in favor of Democrats. Kemp is going to win by 3-5%, even after voter fraud by the Democrats.
Sorry, Goldberg, this one won’t even be close.
This is what you get when you are daintily unwilling to call out the Democrats anti-white-gentile hatred and genocidal agenda. Make white voters confront that their future, their children and descendants future is being destroyed by this orgasm of racial and ethnic hatred for the people who built this great country ... and there is still time. Otherwise?... we're the frog. Not, Pepe, but the one in the boiling pot.
A certain group of “true believer types” (or, perhaps, Sheila Broflofskies) seem determined to prove that nutcake right. Yes, we’re doing it, you can do nothing to stop us now, and then, I suppose, evil laughter from a movie. Other Jews, in Pittsburgh (and one in Israel who has a large social media following), have said that these idiots don’t speak for everybody. But this certainly seems to be an unforced error revealing how they think, like when Harvey Weinstein was going to atone for sexual assault and witness tampering by attacking the Constitution.
No, Kemp is the candidate of the Republican Party, one of the two major parties in our system. The other party is the Democratic Party of which you and the newspaper for which you work seem to be affiliated.
For the public good you and your employer should openly acknowledge this conflict of interest to enable the American public to more objectively consume your product.
In financial news about companies, authors are now expected to fully disclose whether or not they have a position in the company they just discussed, or whether they intend to open a position in the near future. We are beyond the point where the MSM should do the same when discussing politics.
its only been two days but already i couldn’t care less about Pittsburgh
the problem with nepotism is even if a group has a high average IQ there’s still an awful lot of dummies they need to find jobs for.
Spotted in LA today:
“In a week, American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.”
Others beat me to it but yes, you can tell there is a conspiracy. *Somebody* forced Goldberg to change it from “replacing whites” to “replacing white nationalists.”
How Goldberg’s rant differs in any significant way from the guy who shot up the Tree of Life Synagogue I do not know, other than a) the target of her hate (whites); and b) that it’s acceptable to put in in print.
What Goldberg is doing in the manner typical of her people is conflating this small number of weirdos who are not representative of any significant movement or current in American politics with her victims - regular, everyday white people who are not thrilled with the social and cultural traumas of being inundated via mass migrations from the third world into the United States. It would be bad enough on its own, but it's positively suicidal to import people whom the Michelle Goldbergs of the world will immediately proselytize to a cult of hate for you and your children.
“irredeemably foul”
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1056577269815263232
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1050860444234207232
But apparently it's white Americans who are "embittered", not Ms Goldberg, no siree. No bitterness there.
Sorry, Goldberg, this one won't even be close.
We live in interesting times. Expect many DEMs to respond with an explosive, volcanic Rage if things don’t go their way on election night. Brace for hot spittle!
Before the 2016 elections I had a bet with my leftist cousin that the Dems would riot if Trump won. How bad will the riots be this year if Republicans emerge victorious? I won't be shocked if they are worse than two years ago. In fact that is far more likely than there being no riots at all. Stay away from Portland, folks.
And much of it bearing AIDS.
I do sometimes wonder how dumb the Left can be.
I’m a multicultural kind of guy. On our street, we have a family of Iranian immigrants, an African-American lady, a woman whose parents were immigrants from China, an elderly Southern belle, a Jewish couple from South Africa, a guy who was Army Air Corps during WW II (he was shot down over Axis territory — he managed to make it back to the Allies), an Italian-American couple who own a restaurant, and a white atheist guy descended from the Pilgrims (the last one is me).
We all get along fine.
But, this “we can replace them”? No, that is not going to play real well even out here in multicultural California.
The Left does seem to have a talent for self-destructive behavior.
Perhaps that is what happens when politics becomes a substitute for psychotherapy.
They can only exist and thrive in the context of an overwhelmingly Western White society to support them.
Mahmoud, Shaniqua, Amy, Darlene, Isaac & Shirley, Giuseppe & Maria, and you can all get along. But not when you see each other as members of collectives instead of as individual humans.
Come on. Everybody sees him/herself in orbit in Elysium living in a controlled environment while the masses can work it out earthside.
There is only “me”.
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1056577269815263232
At least you know where she stands — actually at this point the more Whites see how any White who does not worship ‘diversity’, show extreme obeisance to non-whites, and welcome/finance their own displacement (via tax slavery), all the while being harangued about their ‘privilege’, is absolutely despised, the better.
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1050860444234207232
But the Senator handled this exactly as I think he should have, including the quip at the end We all know people like the protesting lady, who probably would be a nice neighbor and perhaps even a friend. That this encounter would be presented as the act of a "monster" indicates that Ms. Goldberg is a zealot, someone who demonizes those who harbor a contrary belief
It’s truly bizarre how they get away with vacillating between ‘diversity is cultural and economic enrichment’ and ‘diversity is ethnic displacement and a burden you deserve!’.
That translates to "lots of quaint exotic restaurants for goodwhites to frequent, and rich SWPLS can pay their imported docile helot workforce lower wages than uppity native-born American citizens."
‘diversity is ethnic displacement and a burden you deserve!’
In short, "shut up and die already, evil racist badwhites!"
Plus, as the current Secretary of State, Kemp gets to count the votes. So he’s got that going for him, which is nice.
“We live in interesting times. Expect many DEMs to respond with an explosive, volcanic Rage if things don’t go their way on election night. Brace for hot spittle”
Before the 2016 elections I had a bet with my leftist cousin that the Dems would riot if Trump won. How bad will the riots be this year if Republicans emerge victorious? I won’t be shocked if they are worse than two years ago. In fact that is far more likely than there being no riots at all. Stay away from Portland, folks.
In OT Breaking News – it appears Merkel is calling it quits.
Getting all upset about how your race or group is losing out is exactly what our owners want.
They want you to blame it on powerless minorities. Anything but them.
But you people actually believe that rich people are good and your friends, and that it is people on welfare who are out to get you.
You are hopeless. Just talk amongst yourself. Nobody wants to hear you.
Most importatnly, the dominant group among those who created this mess in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries -- the endless wars, the unstable monetary and financial system, the "progressive" approach to education, the welfare Ponzi schemes, the social engineering, and all the rest -- were old-line WASPs and closely allied groups: TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and all the allied "progressive" intellectuals.
To blame blacks or Hispanics or Jews is to be conned by the elite.
The people who pull the strings have names like "Bush," "Gergen," "Clinton," "Acheson," etc., not Weinstein or Rodriguez.
The disaster we face was "made in America" and we can only turn things around if we face up to that fact.
(For a detailed history of how the rot began, see Rothbard's The Progressive Era.)
We realize the waves of Orcs are sent by the Evil One in the tower, but that's how these things go: both the Orcs and the Evil Ones need to be defeated.
We don't really care for either group. The mindless voting meat you refer to as "poor welfare" recipients are steered by the MSM which is wholly controlled by the "rich people" faction!
The general consensus I see here is that:
1. Our owners want only non-Whites to be upset about losing out. They want Whites to shut up, remain calm and die.
2.Minorities are not powerless, they are deciding the political landscape of whole sections of the country, getting every affirmative action advantage, and a massive transfer of funds. It’s just that non-Asian minorities are too dysfunctional to consistently turn that power into achievement and advancement.
3. Nobody here thinks the rich are good or their friends. In fact many of them even express the opinion that “(((the rich))” are consciously evil and are their mortal enemies. People on welfare are simply their shock troops and stooges.
Alas, some of the posters find it easier to think in terms of racial and ethnic groups than to focus on the actual facts of how all of us are controlled by the ruling elite and indeed how the US ruling elite is trying to control the entire planet, everyone everywhere of every race and ethnic group.
For the public good you and your employer should openly acknowledge this conflict of interest to enable the American public to more objectively consume your product.
In financial news about companies, authors are now expected to fully disclose whether or not they have a position in the company they just discussed, or whether they intend to open a position in the near future. We are beyond the point where the MSM should do the same when discussing politics.
In OT Breaking News – it appears Merkel is calling it quits.
But wouldn't any sane immigration policy benefit republicans? Even no immigration at all would do that. It's virtually inevitable that one side or another would benefit even under crazy systems.
Didn’t Democrats ever win elections before 1965?
Can they? We have seen no evidence of that.
“They want you to blame it on powerless minorities. Anything but them.”
True. But when guys have tried blaming them, they get called all the names Trump has been called. What about a grand bargain where white people apologize for slavery and pay poor black people to move into places like Rob Riener’s neighborhood? Totally serious, too. Maybe Michell’s neighborhood? God knows that girl could use someone to help her with that mop she’s got.
“But you people actually believe that rich people are good and your friends, and that it is people on welfare who are out to get you.”
Wrong website. They aren’t and we don’t, or at least I don’t.
“Didn’t Democrats ever win elections before 1965?”
All the time. Then Reagan came along and they switched tactics: if you can’t beat’em, cheat’em.
Before the 2016 elections I had a bet with my leftist cousin that the Dems would riot if Trump won. How bad will the riots be this year if Republicans emerge victorious? I won't be shocked if they are worse than two years ago. In fact that is far more likely than there being no riots at all. Stay away from Portland, folks.
They will take the House and claim victory. This is probably the best scenario for Trump’s re-election campaign. He then has a scapegoat for most negative stories. In any event, he already got what he was going to get from a Republican Congress this term. Slimmer Republican majorities aren’t going to deliver more funding for the wall or anything bolder.
I give them 2 more years, if they still haven't don't anything then I say fuck em .
They want you to blame it on powerless minorities. Anything but them.
But you people actually believe that rich people are good and your friends, and that it is people on welfare who are out to get you.
You are hopeless. Just talk amongst yourself. Nobody wants to hear you.
What does Pontiac stand for again?
They want you to blame it on powerless minorities. Anything but them.
But you people actually believe that rich people are good and your friends, and that it is people on welfare who are out to get you.
You are hopeless. Just talk amongst yourself. Nobody wants to hear you.
So who ARE our “owners”?
If I was a sub-saharan African like Michelle Goldberg, I’d worry about white nationalists, too.
Well, they could do no better than to take a leaf out of Britain’s New Labour (Economist©) playbook, and set fair with a policy of massive, uncontrolled unlimited immigration that *can and will* ensure automatic, permanent Labour Party political hegemony in the Britain of the near future.
The irony is, of course, that it has blown up in The Economist’s face. Rather than getting the pet eunuch poodle neo-lib Labour Party which they expected, they will get a full-blown Marxist 1968 type regime.
“Even more seriously, the Immigration Weapon needs to be driven out of American politics.”
“It’s way too tempting to try to use immigration to elect a new people, which in turn sets off a psychologically inevitable chain of thought about how the old people deserve their replacement. Allowing one side to try to win elections through altering the electorate via immigration is like allowing a football team to bring brass knuckles, razor blades, and guns onto the field.”
“We need a national understanding that using immigration to try to win without having to persuade the current voters is not some sacred rite, it’s incredibly destructive to democracy and it should be shunned by all.”
Yep, Steve, exactly.
I was reluctant to think of immigration as “displacement”—to0 inflammatory, too improbable, too conspiratorial, too patently unAmerican in a genuine sense, too brazen, too much finger-stabbing at cosmopolitan Jewish puppet masters, all that.
Then, barely a few months ago, I read an article about 3,000 Guatemalans who speak an Indian dialect who’ve been settled in the county south of me, and many of those Guatemalans work at a local meat-packing plant. That’s 3,000 very alien people in a mostly rural county of 100,000, most of whom are of Anglo or German stock..
There’s no way on the planet those folks showed up here in the course of orderly immigration policies that balance interests in a transparent, explainable way. It sure looks like “displacement immigration” is a real thing.
How will they blame it on Putin?
Not bizarre. They own the megaphone
That’s what Ezra Klein looks/sounds like?
It’s weird seeing him next to Bernie Sanders who, for all his faults, at least appears to be a normal human being. Klein sounds like a NYT editorial come to life.
I'm not amazed to hear someone express such an opinion, the world contains many weird opinions and I even agree with some of them. What astonished me was that an extremely influential and prominent pundit would raise this as a serious possibility. He was speaking a month before Merkel said "We can do this" ("Wir schaffen das"), so perhaps he can be excused on the grounds that the world had not yet seen what happens when a developed country makes such a declaration.
But if we go to his Youtube channel, "The Ezra Klein Show", as recently as October 11, there is an episode entitled "Reihan Salam makes the case against open borders" - as if "open borders" is a proposal still in need of debate. (And incidentally, throughout the 90 minutes of the video, the screen displays the words "Reihan Salam makes the case for open borders", my emphasis.)
So I conclude that Mr Klein, one of the most connected and influential Democratic pundits, even three years after Europe's experiment in open borders produced a springtime of rightwing nationalism across that continent, still thinks that "open borders" - a proposal to effectively abolish all national specificity, and reduce all governments to landlords and toll collectors - is a concept in need of debate.
I haven't listened to the interview; perhaps he had someone on to make the case against open borders, because some of his audience need convincing. What it does say to me is that the policy-making elites of the United States of America, under Democratic rule, embraced visions as global and radical as those of the Soviet Union in its earliest and most revolutionary period.
People like Lenin, at the helm of the Soviet Union, saw Russia as a vehicle to promote world socialist revolution. Ezra Klein does not say that all nations should follow America's lead in opening their borders, but he does view America as a vehicle for alleviating world poverty, so the idea that all nations should open to all-comers won't be far away.
If I were to continue and say that Russia was severely damaged by these utopian dreams, and that the same has happened to America; or if I were to point out the prominence of European Jews in both episodes, and speculate about why it is that secular Jews were at the heart of two transborder movements aimed at radical leveling of all lives throughout the world... I would not be saying anything unusual for this site.
Still, I struggle to come to grip with these facts. They are still shocking, and all the more so for not being common knowledge and public knowledge. Also, while they are definitely in need of explanation, I hesitate to embrace the often malign interpretations that freely circulate amongst the redpilled population - e.g. that this is all about Jewish self-interest, whether perceived consciously or unconsciously; that Jews feel free to undermine all national or racial identity, because they see that their own nation or race will still prosper in such a world.
Consider Michelle Goldberg's headline, "We can replace them". Is she really saying, "we" can and should replace the existing people of the USA with a different people more to "our" liking? Or is she just saying, "we" can replace Republican government with Democratic government? If it's the latter, she may just think she's being clever in her choice of words, not knowing or just not caring that many of the other side will see this as an overt embrace of "white genocide".
I don't rule out that the "malign interpretations" may be true for some parts of organized Jewry. (I would like to know, for example, if there is precedent in Jewish scripture for the idea that other nations will die while Israel lives. I once saw David Goldman at "The Asia Times" addressing Iranians and saying, Israel will go on while your nation perishes, which leads me to think that there must be such a theme.) But sometimes I think other elements of Jewish character are responsible for these damaging utopian adventures, like the idea of a messiah, and perhaps a tendency to moral fanaticism.
Something else that I still seek clarity about, is the core of the "problem". Stormfront will tell you it's Jews, Ann Coulter will tell you it's liberals, Donald Trump will tell you it's Democrats. If you want to see this latest iteration of nation-abolishing utopianism defeated, it makes a difference as to where one locates the heart of that movement.
The Old Commumists believed as a matter of dogma that the revolution was an historical inevitability. The Bourgeoisie would eventually get their commupance and be replaced by the new Socialist Man.
It’s clearer every day how the SJWs are directly descended from the old commies. They still believe that the “science is settled,” they are on “the right side of history,” and the revolution is nigh.
Anyone who stands in their way is just a reactionary, “bitter clinger.”
However, their sense of inevitability also tends to makes them lazy and sloppy. So they do things like openly admit their “replacement” strategy before they have gotten their new majority in place. This has given the legacy Americans an opening to fight back before it’s too late.
“It will hopefully convince Republicans to give more attention to the needs of lower and middle-class people.”
Hope & Change 2.1
This is why and how people keep voting. Elections are to divide, conquer, and placate.
I think it’s important to stop using “whites” and be clear that what is meant is Christian-heritage whites or Christian-ancestry whites, as opposed to Jews. Whenever racial or ethnic disparities or disparate impact is discussed, the two categories of whites need to be clearly distinguished.
It’d be nice to see a disparate impact lawsuit be filed over disparities in representation in a company or a university between Christian and Jewish whites. It will be laughed out of court, amid allegations of antisemitism, the first few times, but in the long run it’s the same fight blacks are engaged in: slave-heritage African Americans versus recent immigrant family Caribbean-heritage and continental African-heritage African Americans. The latter supply 50 percent of Harvard’s “black” students, and the slave descendants are not happy.
To build a case that this is not antisemitic, accurate relative data about differences in values and views, from polling, should be soberly presented. These are two cultures as different from each other as Christian-heritage whites are from Hispanics, and arguably from blacks.
I'm a multicultural kind of guy. On our street, we have a family of Iranian immigrants, an African-American lady, a woman whose parents were immigrants from China, an elderly Southern belle, a Jewish couple from South Africa, a guy who was Army Air Corps during WW II (he was shot down over Axis territory -- he managed to make it back to the Allies), an Italian-American couple who own a restaurant, and a white atheist guy descended from the Pilgrims (the last one is me).
We all get along fine.
But, this "we can replace them"? No, that is not going to play real well even out here in multicultural California.
The Left does seem to have a talent for self-destructive behavior.
Perhaps that is what happens when politics becomes a substitute for psychotherapy.
Dave, you sound like a nice guy, so I really don’t mean to insult you, but if, in relation to a story like this, your first impulse is stress your multicultural bona fides, then, as manly as it can feel to strike a blow on a comment thread, we both know that in real life people like you are not going to do anything different to what you’ve done up until now, which is to keep on cucking. This momentary spurt of anger will pass and then you’ll be right back to enjoying the good life (as cucks like you apparently define it) with those wonderful, dear Iranian and African friends of yours. Why upset the apple cart?
Ironically white nationalism is virtually non-existent. Economic nationalism is making something of a comeback, and Jared Taylor is having modest success with white advocacy (white identity politics consciously decoupled from ethno-nationalism) but actual white nationalism only really exists in prisons and on obscure internet sites.
If white racial conservatism does make a comeback in the US is won’t be through white nationalism.
Eleven Rabbis have told Trump he is not welcome in Pittsburgh unless he denounces white nationalism.
More anti white Jews.
What’s truly disturbing is that it’s not just barren Jewish journalists who subscribe to the “white people are the problem” view, it’s moderates like Blair and Merkel.
These moderates are extraordinarily dangerous. Blair put a radical Jew in charge of immigration policy and allowed her to do her worst, making sure that she was muzzled from announcing what she was doing. She shut up, (likely a major sacrifice for a radical Jew), and the 3rd world flooded in quietly.
Merkel instantly imported a 3rd world population of men in their twenties EQUAL TO the existing population of white German men in their twenties. Rather than a mistake, she likely viewed it as an opportunity for instant diversity. Her finance minister (a conservative, to her right) piped up with an infamous statement claiming that without diversity, Germans would become inbred. This suggests that Merkel knew what she was doing – not making a mistake. She sees herself as a 21st century Helmut Kohl; where Kohl is revered for unifying Germany, Merkel will be revered for diversifying Germany.
Instant cucking’s gonna get you. And a moderate like George P. Bush or Eric Garcetti will string you up.
It’s amazing how they’ve convinced the 73% or so white Americans that they are actually a doomed minority long before it is a fait accompli.
But if you believe everything you see on the idiot box … and too many do … you’d think that half the US is black and the other half is LGBTQQIAPQWERTYUIOP.
According to official government statistics, White non-Hispanic Americans, where such definition of White includes Jews, Iranians, various Arabs and other Mohammedans, those South Americans and sub-continentals who like to flatter themselves that they are White - constitute 60.9% of the U.S. population. So, in reality, perhaps 55%.
It’s important to note that this phrase Goldberg has repeated here was used prominently by racist counter-protesters are Charlottesville. She knew exactly what she was doing by using it.
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1050860444234207232
I no longer vote, and have no particular regard for Senator Corker. And I would have voted not to confirm Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of his unconstitutional warmongering, violation of the Fourth Amendment, and rationalized torture on behalf of the Cheney administration.
But the Senator handled this exactly as I think he should have, including the quip at the end We all know people like the protesting lady, who probably would be a nice neighbor and perhaps even a friend. That this encounter would be presented as the act of a “monster” indicates that Ms. Goldberg is a zealot, someone who demonizes those who harbor a contrary belief
That's a good one...
“They” have several continents full of countries.
In fact, it’ll be in spite of white nationalists, not because of them.
As I’m sure other people have pointed out already, her title is referring to the Charlottetown chant “The Jews Will Not Replace Us! The Jews Will Not Replace Us! The Jews Will Not Replace Us!”
I haven’t read her article or yours (I am confident I already know the precise content of both), but you are trumpeting her headline to make your point and it does not. It did make your point the last 50 times you pointed to elites electing a new populace but here it is correct and it doesn’t come close to the sort of hypertension-causing headlines antisems deserve today.
Michelle Goldberg has clearly been injecting raw sewage into the cavity where normal people store their brain, but some moral clarity is needed.
While the NYT is not some spree killer’s GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn’t advocating genocide of white people. She’s advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
I suspect an honest answer from her on the subject would be "I really don't think that will be necessary".
That does not quite reach the level of enslavement, but it is subjugation. Jews worked very hard to avoid just this situation by creating their own homeland, yet many elite Jews wish to impose it upon gentile Whites in their homelands.
Bowers was a nut case. But history has shown that migration and subjugation usually leads to massive violence, the kind of violence that makes the Pittsburgh shooting an everyday occurrence. You know that. Goldberg knows that. Moshe knows that.
But elite Jews - far more than any other group proportionally - continue to push for these policies, and then chastize gentile Whites as violent racists or anti-Semites for wanting exactly what Jews have and what Jews fight for every day.
Is Goldberg advocating genocide of White people? No. Is Goldberg advocating for policies that could lead to the subjugation of my people and a much higher chance of racial/ethnic violence, even to the level of genocide? You bet.
Bowers “and his ilk” would not care one whit about Jews qua Jews but for the fact that so many prominent Jews continue to push for the evil policies he objects to.
For the public good you and your employer should openly acknowledge this conflict of interest to enable the American public to more objectively consume your product.
In financial news about companies, authors are now expected to fully disclose whether or not they have a position in the company they just discussed, or whether they intend to open a position in the near future. We are beyond the point where the MSM should do the same when discussing politics.
Agreed. Reporters and columnists need full disclosure — including whether they have a family member working for a relevant government agency.
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1056577269815263232
“you must know you’re going to be remembered as a farcical footnote to something irredeemably foul”
But apparently it’s white Americans who are “embittered”, not Ms Goldberg, no siree. No bitterness there.
No mention of Leo Frank…?
They’ll narrowly take the House… or narrowly lose it. And I’m holding out hope, the 40 House retirements were anti-Trumpers. Flake, Corker, and McCain are gone. Paul Ryan is leaving. Things could change.
I give them 2 more years, if they still haven’t don’t anything then I say fuck em .
It’s happening:
I appreciate the gesture even if it will face a tough legal challenge. This is a bit like a mirror image of Obama’s DACA order.
There was an 1898 case, US v Wong Kim Ark, where the court ruled that a man born to Chinese parents in San Francisco did have citizenship. But I think you could argue for a distinction between between lawful residents and tourists and illegal aliens without even challenging that precedent.
CONSTITUTIONAL!
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Zina-Bash-judge-Brett-kavanaugh-hearing-ok-white-power-4-chan-hoax.png
How dare whites feel aggrieved about being replaced?
“Whites” aren’t being replaced. White people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing just fine, better than ever actually, which is why Hillary thought she had them in the bag.
For all the talk about whites being replaced, immigrants are hardly moving the needle in terms of elections. As Steve has often pointed out, Hispanic immigrants can barely be bothered to vote, and when they do vote they vote Republican in far larger numbers than the black population whom they are actually replacing. (Remember, Latino immigration was mostly encouraged by business owners to find people to do service jobs blacks wouldn’t do, or at least wouldn’t do well, blacks have far more to lose from immigration than whites do).
Asian and Eastern European immigrants do vote, and tend to vote Republican. Net/net it is hard to argue that immigration has actually hurt the Republicans.
I think the Dems actually get this. The immigration rhetoric is really designed to get blacks and young white people to the polls – that is the Dems core electoral strength. It is also obvious that the GOP (apart from Trump) spends a lot more effort keeping black people in red states from voting than actually worrying about immigrants, and that makes tactical sense.
“Right now America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power …. Kemp is the candidate of aggrieved whiteness. ”
Psychological projection masquerading as deep thought. Almost every insult and slur emitted by the NYT and WP scribblers is a projection of their own pathological personalities. Bitterness and grievances are the mainstays of the SJWs, not to mention hate and violence. With the Pittsburgh shootings the “hate” and “violence” that Trump promotes is 24×7 coming from the MSM, the not so subliminal message to the voters being that voting Republican is the next step to joining a KKK lynch mob. Last year’s attempted mass murder and wounding of Steve Scalise by James Hodgkinson, a documented Bernie supporter got about 10 minutes of “nothing here to see” coverage from the MSM and has gone lickity split down the memory hole. Every Republican running for office should have a joint photo of Hodgkinson and Bernie to remind the voters of Democrat hypocrisy and projection.
We need to replace the New York Times, the ownership of NBC, CBS, and ABC also.
Seriously, if a white country with conservative voters bordered us and sent us 50 million voters, this same writer would be screaming bloody murder about it.
This toxic Jewishness is what causes synagogues to get shot up,
If things don’t go the Democrat way, expect many op-ed writers to say republican democracy is a flawed system which needs replacement. They will certainly call for elimination of the Senate (“RI has as many seats as CA, it’s a crime, blah blah blah) and they will call for adding seats to the S.Ct as soon as Democrats take over. More honest ones will say we cannot let a racist holdover of old, soon to be replaced, white America block progress into the perfect Shiny Bright Future. At that point you are veering close to conditions which I don’t want to think about. It’s a condition precedent to violence.
I give them 2 more years, if they still haven't don't anything then I say fuck em .
So just one last chance, then?
America: you still have a week. Please consider withholding your consent.
“Bernie always seemed to assume that the right way to win was by persuading the existing electorate that he was right and the other side was wrong.”
He must have learned that on his honeymoon in Moscow back in the 80′s. Ethical debaters, those communists.
"Whites" aren't being replaced. White people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing just fine, better than ever actually, which is why Hillary thought she had them in the bag.
For all the talk about whites being replaced, immigrants are hardly moving the needle in terms of elections. As Steve has often pointed out, Hispanic immigrants can barely be bothered to vote, and when they do vote they vote Republican in far larger numbers than the black population whom they are actually replacing. (Remember, Latino immigration was mostly encouraged by business owners to find people to do service jobs blacks wouldn't do, or at least wouldn't do well, blacks have far more to lose from immigration than whites do).
Asian and Eastern European immigrants do vote, and tend to vote Republican. Net/net it is hard to argue that immigration has actually hurt the Republicans.
I think the Dems actually get this. The immigration rhetoric is really designed to get blacks and young white people to the polls - that is the Dems core electoral strength. It is also obvious that the GOP (apart from Trump) spends a lot more effort keeping black people in red states from voting than actually worrying about immigrants, and that makes tactical sense.
A lie. And a non-sequitur.
Another lie.
Went through passport control at Bush International last weekend, and it was very educational. On a flight back from Europe more than half the people on the plane we carrying Central American passports and speaking Spanish. Gigantic mob scene at passport control, well over a thousand people trying to pass through. By my observation, at least 75% of the people there carrying passports from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Mexico etc. Typically assuming quite incorrectly that Texans don’t speak Spanish, listening to their plans to simply walk in on tourist Visas, AND STAY. (At least Texas is a theoretical must show ID at the polls to vote…. in person.)
An enormous amount of organization would have had to go into moving that many people from one small area of the world to a single US city. Simple fact – the entire population of Central America is coming right in to the USA, determined to stay, and they are receiving all kinds of help from…somebody.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who votes Democratic, regardless of the putative reason for doing so, is committing treason, pure and simple.
While the NYT is not some spree killer's GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn't advocating genocide of white people. She's advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
She is advocating the race-replacement of white people.
How does one know if one is a “white nationalist” and not just a white person who adheres to the belief that a constitutional republic is the best form of government so far developed?
Do “white nationalists” belong in Hillary’s “basket of deplorables?”
Are there “nationalists” who are not “white?” If so, how do we identify them?
They want you to blame it on powerless minorities. Anything but them.
But you people actually believe that rich people are good and your friends, and that it is people on welfare who are out to get you.
You are hopeless. Just talk amongst yourself. Nobody wants to hear you.
obwandiyag wrote:
Indeed. The ruling elite is overwhelmingly white. And, for those who are obsessed with Jewish people, no, the top ranks of the elite are not predominantly Jewish: Hillary, Biden, Bill Gates, Pelosi… one could go on and on without mentioning a Jewish person (yes, I know: some are Jewish… and some are Italian and some are Anglos and some are Irish and some are…).
Most importatnly, the dominant group among those who created this mess in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries — the endless wars, the unstable monetary and financial system, the “progressive” approach to education, the welfare Ponzi schemes, the social engineering, and all the rest — were old-line WASPs and closely allied groups: TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and all the allied “progressive” intellectuals.
To blame blacks or Hispanics or Jews is to be conned by the elite.
The people who pull the strings have names like “Bush,” “Gergen,” “Clinton,” “Acheson,” etc., not Weinstein or Rodriguez.
The disaster we face was “made in America” and we can only turn things around if we face up to that fact.
(For a detailed history of how the rot began, see Rothbard’s The Progressive Era.)
You mentioned four people. I was able to instantly match three of the four with names of comparable stature. If you were to fill out the list by enumerating the implied etc., I could do likewise without much trouble.
You're a smart guy, but this particular contention of yours is obviously wrong.
The modern era began with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. WWI and WWII were its mere aftershocks.
Who founded the Federal Reserve?
Paul Warburg.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753
The IRS could put the brakes on this “anchor baby” abuse by enforcing existing tax law on all these “citizens.” American citizens are responsible for filing income tax returns annually on global income regardless of whether that income was earned in the US or not. Everyone entering the US on an American passport should have their tax filing compliance verified on the spot. Also, it’s illegal for dual citizens to enter the US on their foreign passport. If they enforced these laws on everyone like the do with Canadian dual citizens you would see armies of Mexican, Filippino and Chinese dual citizens dump their US citizenship like a hot potato. Oh and, Surprise! Their kids are subject to these laws also, even if they’ve never set foot in the US.
Ending birthright citizenship would be an outright triumph for the people of the United States, and enforcing tax laws is no substitute.
Similarly, green card holders are required to reside in the U.S. and should accordingly be held to that choice by paying U.S. taxes on all worldwide income.Indeed. It does not take a genius to figure out who is who by checking passenger manifests and a myriad other databases already in the possession of the U.S. authorities. U.S. citizens and green card holder must be FORCED to identify as such - no double-dipping by claiming U.S. citizenship for some purposes (U.S. education) but "forgetting" about it on April 15.
Seriously, if a white country with conservative voters bordered us and sent us 50 million voters, this same writer would be screaming bloody murder about it.
Yes, hordes of Russians crossing the Aleutians would be a much greater threat to our elections than fakebook ads–by orders of magnitude.
Steve asked a week or so ago when the Dems started to lose their minds. Isn’t the more precise question, when did the Dems start to openly sound like genocidal maniacs?
The answer is still the same: the 2012 election and Obama’s victory. This was the most open demonstration possible that they could start talking about eliminating whites. I think the horror of how openly racist most of the elites are against whites had a big role in the 2016 election.
And now it’s completely out in the open. I doubt something as ghastly as “we can replace them” would be tolerated in the NYT as recently as 2010.
Speaking of populations in the process of being replaced, here’s the outgoing French Minister of the Interior on the situation in France’s inner cities:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/france-is-fracturing-but-macron-remains-in-denial/
I’d like to hit the “Agree” button for this remark by commenter “Michelle Goldberg,” but I can’t seen to find it at the moment.
The Progressive movement decisively rejected Steve Sailer’s Citizenism moral philosophy. “Crush the non-woke cis white males” rolls off the tongue much more easily.
At this point in our culture’s Bataan march towards the Progressives’ promised land, I wonder what proportion of white-collar non-woke cis white males have felt it necessary to write a Letter To File, in order to document the details of some workplace interaction. An encounter that started as routine, but ended with a threat (implied or explicit) from an aggrieved colleague, boss, subordinate, or client in a position of privilege.
Ms. Goldberg is correct; reflecting on that experience can lead to embitterment. Especially if one is a participant in the Gig Economy, where the mandatory hour or two at the keyboard is both unpleasant and unpaid.
Steve is fighting the last war. Mocking elites and pointing out their hypocrisies didn't work in the past, and it won't work in the future. Things have just gotten worse. Time for a new strategy, Steve.
Others beat me to it but yes, you can tell there is a conspiracy. *Somebody* forced Goldberg to change it from "replacing whites" to "replacing white nationalists."
How Goldberg's rant differs in any significant way from the guy who shot up the Tree of Life Synagogue I do not know, other than a) the target of her hate (whites); and b) that it's acceptable to put in in print.
In my understanding, “white nationalists” believe in the construction of a pure white ethnostate within the extant boundaries of the United States. Presumably they’d expel non-whites from whatever territory they had chosen upon which to build their project. The percentage of the population that is on board with such a thing is infinitesimal. If one were a white nationalist, would he live in Georgia of all places? It’s the third blackest State in the union by percentage of population. A “white nationalist” would most happily live out his days in Vermont or Idaho.
What Goldberg is doing in the manner typical of her people is conflating this small number of weirdos who are not representative of any significant movement or current in American politics with her victims – regular, everyday white people who are not thrilled with the social and cultural traumas of being inundated via mass migrations from the third world into the United States. It would be bad enough on its own, but it’s positively suicidal to import people whom the Michelle Goldbergs of the world will immediately proselytize to a cult of hate for you and your children.
I had an hour long program from propaganda radio (NPR) on in the background last night; it was a careful explanation in how "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are the same thing, and anyone who supported any part of that agenda needs to painted with the same brush.
Am I a member of the Alt Right or a white nationalist simply by virtue of reading people like Sailer? If so then Alt Right can't be remotely close to as bad as they're portraying it. I have no objection to interracial marriage, I believe in respecting and celebrating other cultures, and I believe in allowing *some* immigration. I think the current levels of 1.1 million per year is insanely high, but that's just an argument over a number. Even 300,000 immigrants per year would be an enormous number, a return to a level of immigration we had just a few decades ago, and most of them would still come from non-white countries. I *do* think it's important for reasons of political stability for whites to maintain a comfortable majority, and I do think it important to keep out cultures which have failed to shown an ability to assimilate to American values, which mostly just means Muslims. And of course I oppose racial quotas/affirmative action. And I think all those views are pretty much the norm for the majority of people who regularly read these sites.
Do those beliefs make us white nationalists or does it simply make us pragmatists? Does it make us bigots or does it just make us people who believe in genuine equality, as advertised by the civil rights leaders of the 60s?
That's the problem with Michelle Goldberg and her ilk. They have taken people with perfectly normal disagreements over policy, branded us "white nationalists," and declared that we must be genocided out of existence and have our political power ripped from us by swamping our communities with outsiders. That's not the argument of a kind or rational person. It's the argument of a bigot and, yes, a monster.
"Whites" aren't being replaced. White people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing just fine, better than ever actually, which is why Hillary thought she had them in the bag.
For all the talk about whites being replaced, immigrants are hardly moving the needle in terms of elections. As Steve has often pointed out, Hispanic immigrants can barely be bothered to vote, and when they do vote they vote Republican in far larger numbers than the black population whom they are actually replacing. (Remember, Latino immigration was mostly encouraged by business owners to find people to do service jobs blacks wouldn't do, or at least wouldn't do well, blacks have far more to lose from immigration than whites do).
Asian and Eastern European immigrants do vote, and tend to vote Republican. Net/net it is hard to argue that immigration has actually hurt the Republicans.
I think the Dems actually get this. The immigration rhetoric is really designed to get blacks and young white people to the polls - that is the Dems core electoral strength. It is also obvious that the GOP (apart from Trump) spends a lot more effort keeping black people in red states from voting than actually worrying about immigrants, and that makes tactical sense.
While we lose money on each sale, we’ll make it up with volume! Brilliant!
It's clearer every day how the SJWs are directly descended from the old commies. They still believe that the "science is settled," they are on "the right side of history," and the revolution is nigh.
Anyone who stands in their way is just a reactionary, "bitter clinger."
However, their sense of inevitability also tends to makes them lazy and sloppy. So they do things like openly admit their "replacement" strategy before they have gotten their new majority in place. This has given the legacy Americans an opening to fight back before it's too late.
My guess is that you don’t need to go very far up Michelle Goldberg’s family tree to find actual Bolsheviks and red diaper babies.
Hey, y’all want to get in on my super-secret reverse replacement plan? Ok then!
The left hasn’t realized that we can do the exact same thing to them, all be it on a smaller scale and over a slightly longer period of time. We can find lots of young, white, mostly right-leaning people to bring over by… building military bases for NATO countries in the U.S. There’s a lot of mostly unused land in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah that would be perfect to hand over to the Germans, Brits, French or Polish as an incentive to up their defense budgets. Their service members would come over, see the desert southwest is actually very nice compared to their cold and rainy homes, and then stay and integrate with the culture. The numbers would be small at first, but would gradually build over the decades.
They want you to blame it on powerless minorities. Anything but them.
But you people actually believe that rich people are good and your friends, and that it is people on welfare who are out to get you.
You are hopeless. Just talk amongst yourself. Nobody wants to hear you.
Not so powerless. There is quite a bit of logistics on their side.
We realize the waves of Orcs are sent by the Evil One in the tower, but that’s how these things go: both the Orcs and the Evil Ones need to be defeated.
What Goldberg is doing in the manner typical of her people is conflating this small number of weirdos who are not representative of any significant movement or current in American politics with her victims - regular, everyday white people who are not thrilled with the social and cultural traumas of being inundated via mass migrations from the third world into the United States. It would be bad enough on its own, but it's positively suicidal to import people whom the Michelle Goldbergs of the world will immediately proselytize to a cult of hate for you and your children.
Yes, that’s how it’s done.
I had an hour long program from propaganda radio (NPR) on in the background last night; it was a careful explanation in how “white supremacist” and “white nationalist” are the same thing, and anyone who supported any part of that agenda needs to painted with the same brush.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753
I am in favor of eliminating birthright citizenship for children illegally in the country, but how would that work in practice? Would you have a box on a birth certificate for the parents’ citizenship or residency status?
Birth tourism, anchor babies, and illegal immigrants giving birth in the US for the purpose of citizenship is obviously a torturing of the 14th amendment, if not a fraud. The children of diplomats (temporary residents) born in the US do not become US citizens--why should other transients (not permanent resident visa holders) giving birth be granted citizenship to the new born?
That’s what whites do in Mississippi these days.
Most importatnly, the dominant group among those who created this mess in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries -- the endless wars, the unstable monetary and financial system, the "progressive" approach to education, the welfare Ponzi schemes, the social engineering, and all the rest -- were old-line WASPs and closely allied groups: TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and all the allied "progressive" intellectuals.
To blame blacks or Hispanics or Jews is to be conned by the elite.
The people who pull the strings have names like "Bush," "Gergen," "Clinton," "Acheson," etc., not Weinstein or Rodriguez.
The disaster we face was "made in America" and we can only turn things around if we face up to that fact.
(For a detailed history of how the rot began, see Rothbard's The Progressive Era.)
I honestly don’t know if you are being serious are joking. In case you really believe this, in terms of raw numbers, the top elite in Hollywood, Wall Street, political donors, media pundits and owners, then they easily make up at least 50% of any of these.
Well, all I know about this Georgia race is what I read in the NYT and the rest of my morning newspapers. But Georgia used to be one of the strongest Republican states, but I predicted exactly this possible trajectory in my long analytical article seven years ago:
http://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/#p_1_57
You should Google for "Political Party Strength in Georgia" at Wikipedia and browse the ocean of solid Blue from the 1840s up until 2004. And the intermittent Blue through 2010.
Georgia went solid Red the first time in 2010 and has been so for less than a decade. Few of the Red-leaning elections have been by wide margins and all of them have been in reaction to Obama. A move back to Blue now that Obama is gone would be the natural thing in the Peach State.
A few Latinos with low voter turnout are not driving Georgia's turn back toward Blue. A mild snap back after such a radical historical discontinuity of Red is just what the historic pattern would predict.
USA is only 63% white. 17% Hispanic. 12.5% black. 6.5 % Oriental. approx. Of those whites, 3% are Jews so they are allies of the browns.
In fact it appears that unlike some animal in an ecosystem whom conservationists wish to maintain at certain levels, no such concern for maintaining a percentage of Europeans in the population exists.
Already the demographics of our high schools indicate 49% are White, 26% are hispanic, 16% are Black and 9% are Asian or mixed race.
What Goldberg is doing in the manner typical of her people is conflating this small number of weirdos who are not representative of any significant movement or current in American politics with her victims - regular, everyday white people who are not thrilled with the social and cultural traumas of being inundated via mass migrations from the third world into the United States. It would be bad enough on its own, but it's positively suicidal to import people whom the Michelle Goldbergs of the world will immediately proselytize to a cult of hate for you and your children.
Good comment. I would click the “Agree” button if it were available.
Agree.
At this early stage, there is a bumper crop of thoughtful, intelligent comments. By, among others, indocon, istevefan, Wilkey, PhysicistDave, eah, Hypnotoad666, dvorak, Tyrion 2, Alec Leamas, Citizen of a Silly Country, Arclight, Almost Missouri
, obiwandiyag, and Peter Akuleyev.You predicted it, but how do you feel about it?
Tyler “cheap chalupas” Cowen or some similar blogger once lamented that far more Americans would agree with Steve Sailer’s views on immigration than with the unrestrained Open Bordersism of Libertarians and the Left. That is, if people actually took the time to understand the two positions and their respective implications.
Fortunately, “Steve Sailer racism” garners 102,000 hits on Google (“be evil”), with factual Wikipedia at bat and impartial RationalWiki on deck. This compares to a paltry 4,690 for “Steve Sailer citizenism.” So the risk that susceptible citizen intellects may be exposed to this strain is being well managed, at present.
I wish for an iSteve post comprised of the quoted paragraph alone, for easy linking. Closed comments would be even better, as Sailer is plenty generous in putting WNs, Progressives, anti-Semites, and assorted fruitbats on an equal footing with the thoughtful commentariat, below every other post.
This is a point that I’ve tried to make several times. For your typical NYT reading leftist – Jew and gentile – the destruction of bad whites will make the country look like California. They’re fine with that.
High-income liberals can buy their way out of the masses and live just fine. The lights still work, the cities function, help is cheap and there’s a myriad of ethnic restaurants to choose from. Sure, poverty has increased and middle class whites have been forced to flee, but so what. They don’t deal with any of that.
Maybe they’re getting pushed out a bit by Asians and Indians, but high-income Whites and Jews still are the main power brokers in politics and business. There’s not much downside to this new country, but the upside – punishing bad Whites and blocking any chance of the Jewish Holocaust 2.0 – is well worth it.
It works great, until you and your family are murdered in your own luxurious home.
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/daron-wint-indicted-in-dc-mansion-murders
Steve
Off topic:
Have you read Ted Hill’s book….Pushing Limits:From West Point to Berkeley and Beyond……
Yes, it’s the same Ted Hill……
Be careful what you wish for.
The general idea underpinning open borders is that might makes right. Whichever group can take possession of the land takes possession of the ballot box. But once that is achieved what incentive would the losing minority have to go along with the formal process of elections? There’s none. The obvious conclusion is that democracy will only work when borders are relatively impermeable.
Liberals have not thought this through far enough. Once you have enthroned the might makes right principle, then anything goes. There are no rules. Mass violence looms.
One of the things that distinguishes the old Conservatism from the new right is that the new right has learned that for the left, it's always a question of who/whom? You can still read conservative types at instapundit or other mainstream conservative websites that write about how "the left won't like the new rules." But the left WILL like the new rules. The new rules are the whole point.
The only latino immigrants who vote Republican (about one-third) are the ones smart enough to realize it does them no good to flood their new home with the democratic rabble they ran away from. I don’t know where you get this idea that you’re going to convince mestizo and indigenous peasants into voting Republican by importing even more of them.
While the NYT is not some spree killer's GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn't advocating genocide of white people. She's advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
Goldberg isn’t advocating genocide of white people
I suspect an honest answer from her on the subject would be “I really don’t think that will be necessary”.
High-income liberals can buy their way out of the masses and live just fine. The lights still work, the cities function, help is cheap and there's a myriad of ethnic restaurants to choose from. Sure, poverty has increased and middle class whites have been forced to flee, but so what. They don't deal with any of that.
Maybe they're getting pushed out a bit by Asians and Indians, but high-income Whites and Jews still are the main power brokers in politics and business. There's not much downside to this new country, but the upside - punishing bad Whites and blocking any chance of the Jewish Holocaust 2.0 - is well worth it.
The lights still work, the cities function, help is cheap and there’s a myriad of ethnic restaurants to choose from.
It works great, until you and your family are murdered in your own luxurious home.
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/daron-wint-indicted-in-dc-mansion-murders
It works great, until you and your family are murdered in your own luxurious home.'
The relevant line here comes from an old joke.
A man jumped off a thirty story building. As he passed the windows on the second floor, he was heard to say, 'well, everything's okay so far.'
While the NYT is not some spree killer's GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn't advocating genocide of white people. She's advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
Tyrion, who are you talking to?
These people, at least in print and here, are not your friends. Steve won’t allow it (and certainly not while the conversation remains live) but WHILE PEOPLE WERE STILL DYING OF THEIR FATAL WOUNDS some of the local commentators were calling for Jews to receive many more such bloody noses. Even right here on other unz threads and under the same names they are using here.
That’s who you’re talking to.
The internet is weird in a great many ways but an understudied one is that, like radio and then television, the internet makes people feel less lonely – or at least they think it will and are repeatedly deflated when it doesn’t. We want approval. We want to be appreciated. We don’t want to be hated…etc. I am writing to you here because you are NOT a bot. The day may come when we can get emotionally jerked off by perfect bots who will bring out the best in us and admire it like an ideal date or audience or comment thread to a televised interview. But so far we only have each other and if you are in the minority on some particular site you are more likely to get hate than love there.
Now that may be a small price to pay if you think that rational intelligent discussion is better than a bimbo one. But are you getting the vibe that that is happening here?
Many of the vocal commentators here are washed in the blood haters. They revel in the blood. They love the hate.
And the others are receiving a mis-impression from Steve himself.
Steve has a fairly good handle on reality and feels like it’s okay to imagine that he’s speaking to people who know just as much as he does and who are as intellectually stable and knowledgeable as he is. But his output regarding Jews has been so selective (because the other side has its say elsewhere) that people who don’t balance those forbidden truths that Steve shares with the non-forbidden truths that others share end up with a view of Jews that, as they themselves say and have said over and over, isn’t dissimilar from Bowers.
What can you write that will make them hate you less or (for the non-odious) be less suspicious of you?
More importantly, why are you begging ro be a member in a club that doesn’t want you and is in no way superior to you? It’s cringe.
If this were an AMA of my own rather rhan a fly-by comment thread I’d write more, particularly to the fair-minded people who have noticed how interesting The Jewish Story is and how the only legal (in some countries LITERALLY the only legal) explanations about it don’t fully satisfy their intellects.
And besides, even if it WOULD fully satisfy their intellects, it can’t do so because censorship is odious and a good cause for suspicion.
If you love Mencken as much as I do then look up his piece on socialism and how its professors (in his day) were hounded out of American universities. Mencken was widely read on economic matters and had a mind that was pretty good at working things through on its own as well. And he concluded th….
Screw it, I’ll find it myself and share a small bit of it. I hesitated to do so because quotes of his serious pieces never do Mencken justice. But my paraphrasing him would do less of it so here:
And this moves a lot of people here. And rightly so.
But they are the more silent or semitic part of the crowd and when Steve himself gets carried away in his opposition to the censorship to the extent that he comes to speak solely that which is forbidden to say then there is no way for his readers who aren’t razibs or pinkers to come away with an accurate perception regarding “the jewish people”.
I protect the security and comfort of those who confide in me so I will unfortunately have to leave out the juicy particulars but I have had intimate conversations and even relationships with people around the world regarding “the jews”, including with people who regard the subject as very central to their interests a….
Well, I have things to do and I can’t think of a way to say this that doesn’t invade the privacy of other particular people so I’ll take it as a sign to leave the matter unfinished.
I apologize for doing so. I hope someone enjoyed any part of what I shared above but if no one did I’m cool with that and wish you happiness and health anyhow.
That's mighty white of you! Shalom.
The sea change has happened (cf. Brazil). None of the supposed givens have place now. Things may get ugly, as they did in Pittsburgh. You need allies and not enemies. Your response will enable your enemies, and gain you no allies, and not protect you or yours. You are a Jew that has needlessly committed another unforced error, because you cannot see the forest for the trees.
I wish you well, but you are the latest instance of a Jew intentionally alienating me. You must think that you don't need those who wish you well, but don't want to lose our country.
Or maybe you think you are the scorpion, and your reactionary response is predetermined.
"Whites" aren't being replaced. White people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing just fine, better than ever actually, which is why Hillary thought she had them in the bag.
For all the talk about whites being replaced, immigrants are hardly moving the needle in terms of elections. As Steve has often pointed out, Hispanic immigrants can barely be bothered to vote, and when they do vote they vote Republican in far larger numbers than the black population whom they are actually replacing. (Remember, Latino immigration was mostly encouraged by business owners to find people to do service jobs blacks wouldn't do, or at least wouldn't do well, blacks have far more to lose from immigration than whites do).
Asian and Eastern European immigrants do vote, and tend to vote Republican. Net/net it is hard to argue that immigration has actually hurt the Republicans.
I think the Dems actually get this. The immigration rhetoric is really designed to get blacks and young white people to the polls - that is the Dems core electoral strength. It is also obvious that the GOP (apart from Trump) spends a lot more effort keeping black people in red states from voting than actually worrying about immigrants, and that makes tactical sense.
Asian immigrants largely vote democrat.
It's weird seeing him next to Bernie Sanders who, for all his faults, at least appears to be a normal human being. Klein sounds like a NYT editorial come to life.
I played the interview in order to hear what a “NYT editorial come to life” sounds like – and was staggered to hear Klein say flat out that it might be a moral imperative for America to “sharply [raise] the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders”.
I’m not amazed to hear someone express such an opinion, the world contains many weird opinions and I even agree with some of them. What astonished me was that an extremely influential and prominent pundit would raise this as a serious possibility. He was speaking a month before Merkel said “We can do this” (“Wir schaffen das”), so perhaps he can be excused on the grounds that the world had not yet seen what happens when a developed country makes such a declaration.
But if we go to his Youtube channel, “The Ezra Klein Show”, as recently as October 11, there is an episode entitled “Reihan Salam makes the case against open borders” – as if “open borders” is a proposal still in need of debate. (And incidentally, throughout the 90 minutes of the video, the screen displays the words “Reihan Salam makes the case for open borders”, my emphasis.)
So I conclude that Mr Klein, one of the most connected and influential Democratic pundits, even three years after Europe’s experiment in open borders produced a springtime of rightwing nationalism across that continent, still thinks that “open borders” – a proposal to effectively abolish all national specificity, and reduce all governments to landlords and toll collectors – is a concept in need of debate.
I haven’t listened to the interview; perhaps he had someone on to make the case against open borders, because some of his audience need convincing. What it does say to me is that the policy-making elites of the United States of America, under Democratic rule, embraced visions as global and radical as those of the Soviet Union in its earliest and most revolutionary period.
People like Lenin, at the helm of the Soviet Union, saw Russia as a vehicle to promote world socialist revolution. Ezra Klein does not say that all nations should follow America’s lead in opening their borders, but he does view America as a vehicle for alleviating world poverty, so the idea that all nations should open to all-comers won’t be far away.
If I were to continue and say that Russia was severely damaged by these utopian dreams, and that the same has happened to America; or if I were to point out the prominence of European Jews in both episodes, and speculate about why it is that secular Jews were at the heart of two transborder movements aimed at radical leveling of all lives throughout the world… I would not be saying anything unusual for this site.
Still, I struggle to come to grip with these facts. They are still shocking, and all the more so for not being common knowledge and public knowledge. Also, while they are definitely in need of explanation, I hesitate to embrace the often malign interpretations that freely circulate amongst the redpilled population – e.g. that this is all about Jewish self-interest, whether perceived consciously or unconsciously; that Jews feel free to undermine all national or racial identity, because they see that their own nation or race will still prosper in such a world.
Consider Michelle Goldberg’s headline, “We can replace them”. Is she really saying, “we” can and should replace the existing people of the USA with a different people more to “our” liking? Or is she just saying, “we” can replace Republican government with Democratic government? If it’s the latter, she may just think she’s being clever in her choice of words, not knowing or just not caring that many of the other side will see this as an overt embrace of “white genocide”.
I don’t rule out that the “malign interpretations” may be true for some parts of organized Jewry. (I would like to know, for example, if there is precedent in Jewish scripture for the idea that other nations will die while Israel lives. I once saw David Goldman at “The Asia Times” addressing Iranians and saying, Israel will go on while your nation perishes, which leads me to think that there must be such a theme.) But sometimes I think other elements of Jewish character are responsible for these damaging utopian adventures, like the idea of a messiah, and perhaps a tendency to moral fanaticism.
Something else that I still seek clarity about, is the core of the “problem”. Stormfront will tell you it’s Jews, Ann Coulter will tell you it’s liberals, Donald Trump will tell you it’s Democrats. If you want to see this latest iteration of nation-abolishing utopianism defeated, it makes a difference as to where one locates the heart of that movement.
I would point you to the Aleynu prayer, "which begins with the word "Aleynu" (we must), has, since the thirteenth century, functioned as a closing prayer for every Jewish service".https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/Aleynu.htm
This is a despicable, even evil sentiment: they hate their political adversaries so deeply, their plan isn’t to persuade anyone that they would be better governors, but to demographically replace, crush, and humiliate the voters that they don’t like.
I’m actually disappointed that the NYT commenters almost completely agree with the author. Usually, when there is a ridiculous NYT article, the NYT commenters will have a sane reaction to it. Here, they do not.
Before the 2016 elections I had a bet with my leftist cousin that the Dems would riot if Trump won. How bad will the riots be this year if Republicans emerge victorious? I won't be shocked if they are worse than two years ago. In fact that is far more likely than there being no riots at all. Stay away from Portland, folks.
Not to keep sounding the same note, but how close are we to a re-enactment of Spain’s Red Terror of 1936? Between this election and the coming apocalypse-lite known as “2020″, I’d say somewhere between cautionary example and complete inevitability.
Way back in 2016, my thoughts on Bernie were that although he had no foreign policy vision and is economically illiterate, I’d prefer him as president to Clinton any day of the week. For all his faults, he doesn’t seem to resent his own countrymen the way Clinton and most of the Democratic party does, and he would be unlikely to get excited about using the military to topple various ME states like Secretary Clinton.
The Michelle Goldbergs of the left not only hate the largest demographic in this country, but like Mutti Merkel they tend to be childless and don’t really care about what kind of country and culture they are leaving behind. The only goal is to shatter the current one.
Exactly so. Only the (((Goldbergs))) have the right to complain about this. In fact, they wrote a book about it:
After affliction and harsh labor,
Judah has gone into exile.
She dwells among the nations;
she finds no resting place.
All who pursue her have overtaken her
in the midst of her distress.
The roads to Zion mourn,
for no one comes to her appointed festivals.
All her gateways are desolate,
her priests groan,
her young women grieve,
and she is in bitter anguish.
Her foes have become her masters;
her enemies are at ease.
Lamentations 1:3-5
Very relevant to this topic- there’s a rumor going around that Trump might issue an Executive Order trying to end the granting of citizenship to offspring of illegals i.e. anchor babies/ As webzine vdare has said, this is the jugular of the Left’s attempt to demographically transformation the country. Consider- According to the Pew Hispanic Center (not a right-wing source) upwards of 10% of births are of so-called anchor babies, and I think we can safely assume nearly all are non-white. If Trump really, really, really wants to energize his base for the midterms he’d issue this rumored Exec. Order.
60,000,000 Germans weren’t wrong.
I'm a multicultural kind of guy. On our street, we have a family of Iranian immigrants, an African-American lady, a woman whose parents were immigrants from China, an elderly Southern belle, a Jewish couple from South Africa, a guy who was Army Air Corps during WW II (he was shot down over Axis territory -- he managed to make it back to the Allies), an Italian-American couple who own a restaurant, and a white atheist guy descended from the Pilgrims (the last one is me).
We all get along fine.
But, this "we can replace them"? No, that is not going to play real well even out here in multicultural California.
The Left does seem to have a talent for self-destructive behavior.
Perhaps that is what happens when politics becomes a substitute for psychotherapy.
You have to go back.
What Goldberg is doing in the manner typical of her people is conflating this small number of weirdos who are not representative of any significant movement or current in American politics with her victims - regular, everyday white people who are not thrilled with the social and cultural traumas of being inundated via mass migrations from the third world into the United States. It would be bad enough on its own, but it's positively suicidal to import people whom the Michelle Goldbergs of the world will immediately proselytize to a cult of hate for you and your children.
Precisely. I’ve been reading Steve and other, similar sites for years, yet to this day I still have no idea exactly what a “white nationalist” or member of the “Alt Right” is or what they believe. I had never even heard the term “Alt Right” until around the time Trump was running for re-election.
Am I a member of the Alt Right or a white nationalist simply by virtue of reading people like Sailer? If so then Alt Right can’t be remotely close to as bad as they’re portraying it. I have no objection to interracial marriage, I believe in respecting and celebrating other cultures, and I believe in allowing *some* immigration. I think the current levels of 1.1 million per year is insanely high, but that’s just an argument over a number. Even 300,000 immigrants per year would be an enormous number, a return to a level of immigration we had just a few decades ago, and most of them would still come from non-white countries. I *do* think it’s important for reasons of political stability for whites to maintain a comfortable majority, and I do think it important to keep out cultures which have failed to shown an ability to assimilate to American values, which mostly just means Muslims. And of course I oppose racial quotas/affirmative action. And I think all those views are pretty much the norm for the majority of people who regularly read these sites.
Do those beliefs make us white nationalists or does it simply make us pragmatists? Does it make us bigots or does it just make us people who believe in genuine equality, as advertised by the civil rights leaders of the 60s?
That’s the problem with Michelle Goldberg and her ilk. They have taken people with perfectly normal disagreements over policy, branded us “white nationalists,” and declared that we must be genocided out of existence and have our political power ripped from us by swamping our communities with outsiders. That’s not the argument of a kind or rational person. It’s the argument of a bigot and, yes, a monster.
The proper level of immigration is thus zero. If we want to improve the lives of foreigners, we pick up the white mans burden. If we want their skills, we provide work visas.Only because the definitions have changed. American values used to mean British values and none of the other cultures assimilated to them. The current definition of American values is so vague as to be meaningless and thus is incapable of being defined and defended.
Your positions are simply long-standing, mainstream positions regarding the national interest. They were commonly held by elected Democrats at least into the late 1990s. But they're now deemed heretical to the messianic event they're all invested in - viz, the Browning of America and the Great Racial Revenge.
OT but I am just listening to Morning Joe this Tuesday morning. The whole show is going all out on proposition that Trump is a racist, David Duke lover, and potential fascist for making mass illegal immigration on the border the big issue in the upcoming election. Nationalism means white nationalism in their opinion and the word “globalism” is now code for anti-Semitism. Furthermore, that Trump might challenge birthright citizenship with an executive order is a direct threat to our constitution.
Just as interesting, his morning guests are all in with this line of reasoning: Richard Haas, head of the Council of Foreign Relations; Jeffery Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic magazine; and Katy Kay, lead anchor of BBC America.
The problem is that dysfunctional and parasitic people aren’t happy living amongst themselves. Why else would anyone be worried about there being single race, religion, whatever countries on earth? They need to be a minority amongst more functional, productive people.
High-income liberals can buy their way out of the masses and live just fine. The lights still work, the cities function, help is cheap and there's a myriad of ethnic restaurants to choose from. Sure, poverty has increased and middle class whites have been forced to flee, but so what. They don't deal with any of that.
Maybe they're getting pushed out a bit by Asians and Indians, but high-income Whites and Jews still are the main power brokers in politics and business. There's not much downside to this new country, but the upside - punishing bad Whites and blocking any chance of the Jewish Holocaust 2.0 - is well worth it.
I agree that this is how they see it, but maybe they are shortsighted. It is seems that the POC’s are becoming unwilling to play the role of the good whites’s pawns, at least in terms of elected office. The brown people are starting to replace geriatric whites in Democrat politics. For now, the white fossils are still mostly in control of the party. But as they die off, won’t they be replaced with POC’s? Maybe people with names like Goldberg should worry about their own replacement.
What's more, they will be openly tribal, overtly demanding a "fair" slice of the pie for their group. (That may not be true of Asians, but we'll see.) The Left made a big mistake allowing Asians, Indians and Muslims to immigrate in large numbers. They should have stuck with Mexicans and Central Americans. I could see lefty gentile Whites and Jews running that show forever, but Asians, Indians and Muslims are a different story.
iirc some time ago i read Compton (?) still had black local politicians even though it had become majority hispanic.
the big exception to this is Muslims cos bloc voting - one of the advantages of a clan based marriage systemi think they'll probably be able to handle most groups but south Asians generally (cos not dumb and equally clannish) and especially Muslims will be their downfall.
She looks kinda Chewnish to me.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/23/nyts_michelle_goldberg_we_dont_know_if_putin_is_his_handler_his_hero_or_his_co-conspirator.html
This is obviously a variation on the same theme:
OCT. 28, 2018
Trump’s Ideology Is Anti-Semitism Without Jews
By Jonathan Chait
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/trump-pittsburgh-shooting-anti-semitism.html
So making political arguments that Jews don’t like is anti-Semitism as well?
And falling. They are already predicting which year it will become fifty percent, 2040-ish, and there is no floor expected, or desired.
In fact it appears that unlike some animal in an ecosystem whom conservationists wish to maintain at certain levels, no such concern for maintaining a percentage of Europeans in the population exists.
While the NYT is not some spree killer's GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn't advocating genocide of white people. She's advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
The 1948 Convention on Genocide, which defines genocide in international law, includes as genocide
Since the convention also defines as punishable crimes,
we have an open declaration of genocide from Ms. Goldberg.
On Genocide Watch’s Stages of Genocide ladder, the steps of Discrimination, Dehumanization and Polarization have now been taken by the megaphone holders. The only steps remaining are the execution stages.
Michelle Goldberg and her ilk are actually advocating genocide.
Anyone who chooses to live in a white country is a white nationalist.
This comment was the second highest rated when I looked at the Goldberg’s piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/stacey-abrams-georgia-governor-election-brian-kemp.html#permid=29212021
As of today ending birthright citizenship is a mainstream political conversation
#wedidit fam
What Goldberg is doing in the manner typical of her people is conflating this small number of weirdos who are not representative of any significant movement or current in American politics with her victims - regular, everyday white people who are not thrilled with the social and cultural traumas of being inundated via mass migrations from the third world into the United States. It would be bad enough on its own, but it's positively suicidal to import people whom the Michelle Goldbergs of the world will immediately proselytize to a cult of hate for you and your children.
Another conflation they do is to link white nationalists with white supremacists. The former wish to live alone from others, the latter wish to rule over them.
But look at the demographics of our High School students, which will be our demographics in 20 years when all the boomers have passed away. The boomers are still 80% white, we will miss them when they are gone.
Already the demographics of our high schools indicate 49% are White, 26% are hispanic, 16% are Black and 9% are Asian or mixed race.
Another manifestation of bringing brass knuckles to a supposedly fair game.
While the NYT is not some spree killer's GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn't advocating genocide of white people. She's advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
Did you ever look up the UN definition of genocide..it’s interesting to say the least.
Buzz to Alec Leamas: “Good comment. I would click the ‘Agree’ button if it were available.”
Agree.
At this early stage, there is a bumper crop of thoughtful, intelligent comments. By, among others, indocon, istevefan, Wilkey, PhysicistDave, eah, Hypnotoad666, dvorak, Tyrion 2, Alec Leamas, Citizen of a Silly Country, Arclight, Almost Missouri
, obiwandiyag, and Peter Akuleyev.By electing a racist black democrat who advocated destroying Stone Mountain the way the Taliban destroyed those Buddhist statues, the same woman once photographed burning the state's flag.
Stacey Abrams has over $200,000 in personal debt, included back taxes owed to the IRS. She is trying to spin it as a positive for her, claiming it shows she can better relate to the average person’s struggles. I’m sure the elites would have no trouble getting what they wanted out of her.
http://fortune.com/2018/04/24/stacey-abrams-debt-georgia-governor/
Sorry to give you a task but is there a specific sentence of Goldberg’s you identify as fitting the definition of genocide you helpfully provided?
Am I a member of the Alt Right or a white nationalist simply by virtue of reading people like Sailer? If so then Alt Right can't be remotely close to as bad as they're portraying it. I have no objection to interracial marriage, I believe in respecting and celebrating other cultures, and I believe in allowing *some* immigration. I think the current levels of 1.1 million per year is insanely high, but that's just an argument over a number. Even 300,000 immigrants per year would be an enormous number, a return to a level of immigration we had just a few decades ago, and most of them would still come from non-white countries. I *do* think it's important for reasons of political stability for whites to maintain a comfortable majority, and I do think it important to keep out cultures which have failed to shown an ability to assimilate to American values, which mostly just means Muslims. And of course I oppose racial quotas/affirmative action. And I think all those views are pretty much the norm for the majority of people who regularly read these sites.
Do those beliefs make us white nationalists or does it simply make us pragmatists? Does it make us bigots or does it just make us people who believe in genuine equality, as advertised by the civil rights leaders of the 60s?
That's the problem with Michelle Goldberg and her ilk. They have taken people with perfectly normal disagreements over policy, branded us "white nationalists," and declared that we must be genocided out of existence and have our political power ripped from us by swamping our communities with outsiders. That's not the argument of a kind or rational person. It's the argument of a bigot and, yes, a monster.
The former. Alt right is an alternative to the mainstream right that is noted for admitting the existence of ethnic issues.
There is an issue (the rate of abandonment in black men/white women is insanely high), but this is more of a feminism issue then a race one. Mixed children tend to have issues fitting in, but this is more of an issue with the disintegration of a stable American culture.
Any level of immigration that leads to a shift in the ethnic balance (which would be anything greater then zero when TFR is below replacement) eventually leads to the countries destruction.
The proper level of immigration is thus zero. If we want to improve the lives of foreigners, we pick up the white mans burden. If we want their skills, we provide work visas.
Only because the definitions have changed. American values used to mean British values and none of the other cultures assimilated to them. The current definition of American values is so vague as to be meaningless and thus is incapable of being defined and defended.
Are the 20-30 million illegal aliens -virtually all nonwhite, overwhelming Mestizos and pure Amerindians from Mexico and Central American with a large minority of blacks, including mulattos, zambos, and pardos like George Zimmerman- included in these statistics? And what of Muslims?
That Michelle Goldberg is amazing!!
She wrote:
“… Right now America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power, terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority.”
I presume one must be a woman to really know what women think.
Why isn’t being a ‘white nationalist’ a requirement to read their minds?
Michelle Goldberg knows what women think, because she is a woman.
Michelle Goldberg knows what conservative whites think because she is not one.
That woman is utterly fantastic!
… the midterm election is a battle between Trumpist reaction …
Now that takes me way back. Labour Party politicians in 1960s and 1970s Britain used to describe Conservative Party arguments as “Blimpist reaction”, named after the fictional Colonel Blimp, a reactionary geriatric military veteran. Using such an expression generally indicated that the speaker was pretty much a gasbag on a rant.
http://fortune.com/2018/04/24/stacey-abrams-debt-georgia-governor/
Wasn’t Brett Kavanaugh much in debt until quite recently? He’s a big spender on sports season tickets.
Carrying some debt isn't necessarily irresponsible. Carrying a lot of debt on a credit card is pretty irresponsible. Carrying debt to feed a sportsball habit is pretty stupid. And then there is the question of how he was suddenly able to pay it off.
"Whites" aren't being replaced. White people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing just fine, better than ever actually, which is why Hillary thought she had them in the bag.
For all the talk about whites being replaced, immigrants are hardly moving the needle in terms of elections. As Steve has often pointed out, Hispanic immigrants can barely be bothered to vote, and when they do vote they vote Republican in far larger numbers than the black population whom they are actually replacing. (Remember, Latino immigration was mostly encouraged by business owners to find people to do service jobs blacks wouldn't do, or at least wouldn't do well, blacks have far more to lose from immigration than whites do).
Asian and Eastern European immigrants do vote, and tend to vote Republican. Net/net it is hard to argue that immigration has actually hurt the Republicans.
I think the Dems actually get this. The immigration rhetoric is really designed to get blacks and young white people to the polls - that is the Dems core electoral strength. It is also obvious that the GOP (apart from Trump) spends a lot more effort keeping black people in red states from voting than actually worrying about immigrants, and that makes tactical sense.
The second statement, even if true, does not support the assertion in your first statement.
This is not true. More Asian votes go for Democrats than Republicans.
That’s punchy.
They want you to blame it on powerless minorities. Anything but them.
But you people actually believe that rich people are good and your friends, and that it is people on welfare who are out to get you.
You are hopeless. Just talk amongst yourself. Nobody wants to hear you.
But you people actually believe that rich people are good and your friends, and that it is people on welfare who are out to get you.
We don’t really care for either group. The mindless voting meat you refer to as “poor welfare” recipients are steered by the MSM which is wholly controlled by the “rich people” faction!
If you look at California, whites are doing okay at holding on to high office. A San Francisco white guy is likely to move up to governor, the current mayor of LA claims to be a little bit Mexican but he looks like the dad on “Modern Family,” Senator Feinstein is ahead in her race, despite being a million years old, etc.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/general/bos.html
There are Globalizer Whites and Patriotic Whites and the Whites without a clue.
Patriotic Whites stand not a chance of winning statewide races in California.
We are about 2 or 3 percent on the federal funds rate from a financial implosion and Civil War II, and somebody is saying politician Whites running in statewide elections are doing OK in California?
California will be de-populated of its current residents and re-populated with Patriotic Whites when the time comes.
California and New York and Virginia and many other states will be fought over when Civil War II breaks out.
The census counts illegal aliens the same as citizens…no distinction is made and the 9 million non-citizen aliens in California help increase the number of House seats allocated to California while reducing the seats allocated to states like Ohio which have fewer non-citizens.
These moderates are extraordinarily dangerous. Blair put a radical Jew in charge of immigration policy and allowed her to do her worst, making sure that she was muzzled from announcing what she was doing. She shut up, (likely a major sacrifice for a radical Jew), and the 3rd world flooded in quietly.
Merkel instantly imported a 3rd world population of men in their twenties EQUAL TO the existing population of white German men in their twenties. Rather than a mistake, she likely viewed it as an opportunity for instant diversity. Her finance minister (a conservative, to her right) piped up with an infamous statement claiming that without diversity, Germans would become inbred. This suggests that Merkel knew what she was doing - not making a mistake. She sees herself as a 21st century Helmut Kohl; where Kohl is revered for unifying Germany, Merkel will be revered for diversifying Germany.
Instant cucking's gonna get you. And a moderate like George P. Bush or Eric Garcetti will string you up.
You really think Blair and Merkel are moderates? They set their nations on a course where the native populations are being replaced. What would an extremist do, nuke their own countries?
I'm not amazed to hear someone express such an opinion, the world contains many weird opinions and I even agree with some of them. What astonished me was that an extremely influential and prominent pundit would raise this as a serious possibility. He was speaking a month before Merkel said "We can do this" ("Wir schaffen das"), so perhaps he can be excused on the grounds that the world had not yet seen what happens when a developed country makes such a declaration.
But if we go to his Youtube channel, "The Ezra Klein Show", as recently as October 11, there is an episode entitled "Reihan Salam makes the case against open borders" - as if "open borders" is a proposal still in need of debate. (And incidentally, throughout the 90 minutes of the video, the screen displays the words "Reihan Salam makes the case for open borders", my emphasis.)
So I conclude that Mr Klein, one of the most connected and influential Democratic pundits, even three years after Europe's experiment in open borders produced a springtime of rightwing nationalism across that continent, still thinks that "open borders" - a proposal to effectively abolish all national specificity, and reduce all governments to landlords and toll collectors - is a concept in need of debate.
I haven't listened to the interview; perhaps he had someone on to make the case against open borders, because some of his audience need convincing. What it does say to me is that the policy-making elites of the United States of America, under Democratic rule, embraced visions as global and radical as those of the Soviet Union in its earliest and most revolutionary period.
People like Lenin, at the helm of the Soviet Union, saw Russia as a vehicle to promote world socialist revolution. Ezra Klein does not say that all nations should follow America's lead in opening their borders, but he does view America as a vehicle for alleviating world poverty, so the idea that all nations should open to all-comers won't be far away.
If I were to continue and say that Russia was severely damaged by these utopian dreams, and that the same has happened to America; or if I were to point out the prominence of European Jews in both episodes, and speculate about why it is that secular Jews were at the heart of two transborder movements aimed at radical leveling of all lives throughout the world... I would not be saying anything unusual for this site.
Still, I struggle to come to grip with these facts. They are still shocking, and all the more so for not being common knowledge and public knowledge. Also, while they are definitely in need of explanation, I hesitate to embrace the often malign interpretations that freely circulate amongst the redpilled population - e.g. that this is all about Jewish self-interest, whether perceived consciously or unconsciously; that Jews feel free to undermine all national or racial identity, because they see that their own nation or race will still prosper in such a world.
Consider Michelle Goldberg's headline, "We can replace them". Is she really saying, "we" can and should replace the existing people of the USA with a different people more to "our" liking? Or is she just saying, "we" can replace Republican government with Democratic government? If it's the latter, she may just think she's being clever in her choice of words, not knowing or just not caring that many of the other side will see this as an overt embrace of "white genocide".
I don't rule out that the "malign interpretations" may be true for some parts of organized Jewry. (I would like to know, for example, if there is precedent in Jewish scripture for the idea that other nations will die while Israel lives. I once saw David Goldman at "The Asia Times" addressing Iranians and saying, Israel will go on while your nation perishes, which leads me to think that there must be such a theme.) But sometimes I think other elements of Jewish character are responsible for these damaging utopian adventures, like the idea of a messiah, and perhaps a tendency to moral fanaticism.
Something else that I still seek clarity about, is the core of the "problem". Stormfront will tell you it's Jews, Ann Coulter will tell you it's liberals, Donald Trump will tell you it's Democrats. If you want to see this latest iteration of nation-abolishing utopianism defeated, it makes a difference as to where one locates the heart of that movement.
I would like to know, for example, if there is precedent in Jewish scripture for the idea that other nations will die while Israel lives. I once saw David Goldman at “The Asia Times” addressing Iranians and saying, Israel will go on while your nation perishes, which leads me to think that there must be such a theme.
I would point you to the Aleynu prayer, “which begins with the word “Aleynu” (we must), has, since the thirteenth century, functioned as a closing prayer for every Jewish service”.
https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/Aleynu.htm
It’s almost as if those guys in Charlottesville chanting “You will not replace us!” were on to something.
While the NYT is not some spree killer's GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn't advocating genocide of white people. She's advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
Bowers “and his ilk” aren’t advocating genocide.
http://imgur.com/a/LHVbZOi
Eh, I’d just as soon not have to go through a political impeachment where the Senate would never convict.
Sorry, Goldberg, this one won't even be close.
You’re crowing about Kemp eking out a narrow victory in Georgia? A state Trump won by 5 points. Over an unpleasant looking, fat black woman, AA “public service” parasite, who–judged by her personal finances–is an incompetent? You’re crowing about that?
Mid-terms and all this should be a relatively good year for Republicans. The economy has noticeably picked up. And the Democrats have gone batshit crazy yapping about Russia and swooning over illegals and ramping up and brining into the open their anti-white “we will replace you” rhetoric. This ought to be good times.
And the US Senate cycle brings up a heavily Democratic (2012 victors) cohort. The Republicans ought to be grabbing up seats in “red” states–ND, MO, MT, IN, WV, grabbing up a few in swing states–FL, OH–and with the Dems anti-white stuff, be in play even in NH, NJ, PA, MI, WI, MN.
Instead, they look set in North Dakota. And will probably pick up a couple toss ups. But haven’t even nailed down their own seats in NV and AZ!
This is what you get when you are daintily unwilling to call out the Democrats anti-white-gentile hatred and genocidal agenda. Make white voters confront that their future, their children and descendants future is being destroyed by this orgasm of racial and ethnic hatred for the people who built this great country … and there is still time. Otherwise?… we’re the frog. Not, Pepe, but the one in the boiling pot.
While the NYT is not some spree killer's GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn't advocating genocide of white people. She's advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
This is true. But she is advocating the importation of non-Whites for the purpose of creating a voting bloc that will overwhelm Whites. In essence, she is advocating a policy that will leave me and my people being ruled by another people – many of whom are quite hostile to Whites.
That does not quite reach the level of enslavement, but it is subjugation. Jews worked very hard to avoid just this situation by creating their own homeland, yet many elite Jews wish to impose it upon gentile Whites in their homelands.
Bowers was a nut case. But history has shown that migration and subjugation usually leads to massive violence, the kind of violence that makes the Pittsburgh shooting an everyday occurrence. You know that. Goldberg knows that. Moshe knows that.
But elite Jews – far more than any other group proportionally – continue to push for these policies, and then chastize gentile Whites as violent racists or anti-Semites for wanting exactly what Jews have and what Jews fight for every day.
Is Goldberg advocating genocide of White people? No. Is Goldberg advocating for policies that could lead to the subjugation of my people and a much higher chance of racial/ethnic violence, even to the level of genocide? You bet.
"Whites" aren't being replaced. White people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing just fine, better than ever actually, which is why Hillary thought she had them in the bag.
For all the talk about whites being replaced, immigrants are hardly moving the needle in terms of elections. As Steve has often pointed out, Hispanic immigrants can barely be bothered to vote, and when they do vote they vote Republican in far larger numbers than the black population whom they are actually replacing. (Remember, Latino immigration was mostly encouraged by business owners to find people to do service jobs blacks wouldn't do, or at least wouldn't do well, blacks have far more to lose from immigration than whites do).
Asian and Eastern European immigrants do vote, and tend to vote Republican. Net/net it is hard to argue that immigration has actually hurt the Republicans.
I think the Dems actually get this. The immigration rhetoric is really designed to get blacks and young white people to the polls - that is the Dems core electoral strength. It is also obvious that the GOP (apart from Trump) spends a lot more effort keeping black people in red states from voting than actually worrying about immigrants, and that makes tactical sense.
Asians vote Democrat more than Republican.
That’s why the US eventually breaks up into more racially homogenous countries. Lots of counties out there are over 90% white.
https://www.gq.com/story/scotus-kavanaugh-credit-card-debt
Carrying some debt isn’t necessarily irresponsible. Carrying a lot of debt on a credit card is pretty irresponsible. Carrying debt to feed a sportsball habit is pretty stupid. And then there is the question of how he was suddenly able to pay it off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Estes_Kavanaugh
Yes and she isn’t.
His GAB was full of calls to genocide.
http://imgur.com/a/LHVbZOi
I bet East Anglia is nice.
I'm not amazed to hear someone express such an opinion, the world contains many weird opinions and I even agree with some of them. What astonished me was that an extremely influential and prominent pundit would raise this as a serious possibility. He was speaking a month before Merkel said "We can do this" ("Wir schaffen das"), so perhaps he can be excused on the grounds that the world had not yet seen what happens when a developed country makes such a declaration.
But if we go to his Youtube channel, "The Ezra Klein Show", as recently as October 11, there is an episode entitled "Reihan Salam makes the case against open borders" - as if "open borders" is a proposal still in need of debate. (And incidentally, throughout the 90 minutes of the video, the screen displays the words "Reihan Salam makes the case for open borders", my emphasis.)
So I conclude that Mr Klein, one of the most connected and influential Democratic pundits, even three years after Europe's experiment in open borders produced a springtime of rightwing nationalism across that continent, still thinks that "open borders" - a proposal to effectively abolish all national specificity, and reduce all governments to landlords and toll collectors - is a concept in need of debate.
I haven't listened to the interview; perhaps he had someone on to make the case against open borders, because some of his audience need convincing. What it does say to me is that the policy-making elites of the United States of America, under Democratic rule, embraced visions as global and radical as those of the Soviet Union in its earliest and most revolutionary period.
People like Lenin, at the helm of the Soviet Union, saw Russia as a vehicle to promote world socialist revolution. Ezra Klein does not say that all nations should follow America's lead in opening their borders, but he does view America as a vehicle for alleviating world poverty, so the idea that all nations should open to all-comers won't be far away.
If I were to continue and say that Russia was severely damaged by these utopian dreams, and that the same has happened to America; or if I were to point out the prominence of European Jews in both episodes, and speculate about why it is that secular Jews were at the heart of two transborder movements aimed at radical leveling of all lives throughout the world... I would not be saying anything unusual for this site.
Still, I struggle to come to grip with these facts. They are still shocking, and all the more so for not being common knowledge and public knowledge. Also, while they are definitely in need of explanation, I hesitate to embrace the often malign interpretations that freely circulate amongst the redpilled population - e.g. that this is all about Jewish self-interest, whether perceived consciously or unconsciously; that Jews feel free to undermine all national or racial identity, because they see that their own nation or race will still prosper in such a world.
Consider Michelle Goldberg's headline, "We can replace them". Is she really saying, "we" can and should replace the existing people of the USA with a different people more to "our" liking? Or is she just saying, "we" can replace Republican government with Democratic government? If it's the latter, she may just think she's being clever in her choice of words, not knowing or just not caring that many of the other side will see this as an overt embrace of "white genocide".
I don't rule out that the "malign interpretations" may be true for some parts of organized Jewry. (I would like to know, for example, if there is precedent in Jewish scripture for the idea that other nations will die while Israel lives. I once saw David Goldman at "The Asia Times" addressing Iranians and saying, Israel will go on while your nation perishes, which leads me to think that there must be such a theme.) But sometimes I think other elements of Jewish character are responsible for these damaging utopian adventures, like the idea of a messiah, and perhaps a tendency to moral fanaticism.
Something else that I still seek clarity about, is the core of the "problem". Stormfront will tell you it's Jews, Ann Coulter will tell you it's liberals, Donald Trump will tell you it's Democrats. If you want to see this latest iteration of nation-abolishing utopianism defeated, it makes a difference as to where one locates the heart of that movement.
I just meant his voice and such. He’s so soft and humourless, he’s like a robot made of velvet
Am I a member of the Alt Right or a white nationalist simply by virtue of reading people like Sailer? If so then Alt Right can't be remotely close to as bad as they're portraying it. I have no objection to interracial marriage, I believe in respecting and celebrating other cultures, and I believe in allowing *some* immigration. I think the current levels of 1.1 million per year is insanely high, but that's just an argument over a number. Even 300,000 immigrants per year would be an enormous number, a return to a level of immigration we had just a few decades ago, and most of them would still come from non-white countries. I *do* think it's important for reasons of political stability for whites to maintain a comfortable majority, and I do think it important to keep out cultures which have failed to shown an ability to assimilate to American values, which mostly just means Muslims. And of course I oppose racial quotas/affirmative action. And I think all those views are pretty much the norm for the majority of people who regularly read these sites.
Do those beliefs make us white nationalists or does it simply make us pragmatists? Does it make us bigots or does it just make us people who believe in genuine equality, as advertised by the civil rights leaders of the 60s?
That's the problem with Michelle Goldberg and her ilk. They have taken people with perfectly normal disagreements over policy, branded us "white nationalists," and declared that we must be genocided out of existence and have our political power ripped from us by swamping our communities with outsiders. That's not the argument of a kind or rational person. It's the argument of a bigot and, yes, a monster.
Well, I think to some extent the epithet “white nationalist” is a stand-in for “heretic,” like former stand-ins such as “racist.” They incrementally change the meaning of the word from its common meaning to something which encompasses mainstream opinions with which they disagree and with which they do not want to engage. “White nationalist” is probably a stopover point, and the intent is to encompass all nationalists and nationalist policies within the moniker, and then drop the “white” predicate at some point so that “nationalist” always implies or denotes “white nationalist.”
Your positions are simply long-standing, mainstream positions regarding the national interest. They were commonly held by elected Democrats at least into the late 1990s. But they’re now deemed heretical to the messianic event they’re all invested in – viz, the Browning of America and the Great Racial Revenge.
Sanders wants to turn America in a Scandinavian style socialist country and realizes you can’t do that it you are inundated with poor people from the rest of the world.
OCT. 28, 2018
Trump’s Ideology Is Anti-Semitism Without Jews
By Jonathan Chait
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/trump-pittsburgh-shooting-anti-semitism.html
So making political arguments that Jews don't like is anti-Semitism as well?
The other day Bret Stephens wrote that attacks on “globalists,” “banks,” and “media” are inherently anti-Semitic.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/bret-stephens-in-nyt-wants-to-deport-americans-to-make-more-room-for-immigrants/
Most importatnly, the dominant group among those who created this mess in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries -- the endless wars, the unstable monetary and financial system, the "progressive" approach to education, the welfare Ponzi schemes, the social engineering, and all the rest -- were old-line WASPs and closely allied groups: TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and all the allied "progressive" intellectuals.
To blame blacks or Hispanics or Jews is to be conned by the elite.
The people who pull the strings have names like "Bush," "Gergen," "Clinton," "Acheson," etc., not Weinstein or Rodriguez.
The disaster we face was "made in America" and we can only turn things around if we face up to that fact.
(For a detailed history of how the rot began, see Rothbard's The Progressive Era.)
………..Lieberman, Brin, Schumer…… one could go on and on…….
You mentioned four people. I was able to instantly match three of the four with names of comparable stature. If you were to fill out the list by enumerating the implied etc., I could do likewise without much trouble.
You’re a smart guy, but this particular contention of yours is obviously wrong.
But to jump from that fact to the idea that the Jews somehow rule the country or that the elite is predominantly Jewish is just factually wrong.
How many Jewish Presidents has the USA had? Vice-Presidents? What fraction of the Senate or the House is Jewish? What fraction of Senate and House majoirty/minority leaders and House Speakers have been Jewish (yeah, I know: Schumer)? Look back over Cabinets of the last fifty years: how many Cabinet members were Jewish?
If Jews really ruled the roost, surely they could have gotten at least a couple of Presidents and Vice-Presidents!
In fact, if the Jews are in charge, shouldn't they have had most of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents and House Speakers and Seante Majority Leaders during the last few decades?
On the other hand, what fraction of the people filling those positions during the last few decades have been non-Jewish white folks?
Divide and conquer: one way for the elite to gut any serious opposition is to divert that opposition into hatred not of the elite itself but of groups with very littlle power (blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, Asian-Americans, etc.) or at least onto some successful minority group, such as Jews, who do indeed have some of its members in the elite, but still do not dominate the elite.
And, how can the elite encourage such a diversion? By publicly and repeatedly proclaiming that the most radical of the dissidents are the people who hate blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc.
I do not know how to put this more clearly: The Jews do not rule the country. The Clintons and Bushes and LBJ and JFK and Truman and FDR going all the way back to the founding progreessives around the turn of the last century were not Jewish.
We need to face up to the fact that the mess this country is in was, as a matter of historical fact, created by Old Stock white Americans: the endless wars, the unstable monetary and financial system, the corrupt education system, and all the rest.
It's "our people" who did this to themselves: not some other race, not some foreigners, not people of some other strange religion.
The fault is in ourselves.
The good news is that there are still a huge number of Americans of good will of all backgrounds who know that something is wrong and want to fix it.
But, if their anger is diverted away from the elite and onto groups that are not responsibel for what has happened, then decent Americans will lose.
(The original progerssives were essentially secularized offspring of New England pietists and Puritans: see, e.g., Robert Crumden's famouns Ministers of Reform for a detailed discussion.)
http://fortune.com/2018/04/24/stacey-abrams-debt-georgia-governor/
One clue that our high officials don’t really make the decisions is how many incompetents and losers the powerful and elite help put in office. Powerful people with a lot to lose don’t hire dummies to make executive decisions, but they do hire obedient servants to carry out their orders.
Obviously high elected office doesn’t really require any brains or good judgement if you’re tied to people who will do your thinking for you and tell you who to put on your team.
Somebody wants Stacey Abrams in office. She didn’t get this far on her own. The same could be said for uncountable others, all the way up to Barack Obama.
Perhaps one reason there is so much scheming against Donald Trump is because even though he made some of his own deals with devils, nobody with real power feels like he can be controlled or that his actions can be predicted.
And the greatest White supremacists are the people who choose migrate to White countries. The second greatest White supremacists are the people who think their country is strong enough to take all those migrants in.
Makes ya wonder. Kavanaugh was a Bush lackey, wasn’t he? A lot of the support for him as he moved up came from power elites for whom he worked, didn’t it? Do all Supreme Court justices get there that way? Honestly I don’t know, because I have blind spots of naïveté like most Americans.
I’m just glad a conservative of some sort got in who might not legislate from the bench. As for what his judgements regarding big business, cheap labor, monopolies, neoconservative interests and other things might be in the future… I don’t know.
What you will find is that the vast majority of Federal Court Judges were politically active in one way or another with one of their home state U.S. Senators. The tradition has generally but not exclusively been one of Senators lobbying the President of the same party to appoint a candidate that they're friendly with to the Federal bench.
Of course, Kavanaugh's home State was Maryland, which I don't think has had a Republican United States Senator since the 1980s. Any young lawyer would have taken a position with the Special Counsel's office, and I think it was from there that he landed the SCOTUS Clerkship, followed by service in the W White House. You'd have to think his preexisting political connections got him into the White House, and then the Bush connections got him to the top of the DC Circuit short list with a view towards future SCOTUS consideration. It's perhaps more accurate to say that there was a mutual advantage gained there.
“If you look at California, whites are doing okay at holding on to high office.”
Once the republican party boogeyman is destroyed in the rest of the country via mass immigration, will that continue to be the case? Besides, is it not fair to characterize some of these people as white in name only? Literally. We’re supposed to celebrate office holders now merely because they are of the same race as us? Not all of us look forward to elections that are in name only.
Our Constitution will replace us, according to the Washington Post.
The Washington Post, “Trump eyeing executive order to end birthright citizenship, a move most legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution.”
I’d love to type what I really think but cuck Steve would whim it. Suffice to say that I wouldn’t piss on this female were she on fire.
Arrogance
Start your own university.
Start your own countryclub.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753
Hell to the yes.
I appreciate the gesture even if it will face a tough legal challenge. This is a bit like a mirror image of Obama’s DACA order.
There was an 1898 case, US v Wong Kim Ark, where the court ruled that a man born to Chinese parents in San Francisco did have citizenship. But I think you could argue for a distinction between between lawful residents and tourists and illegal aliens without even challenging that precedent.
http://imgur.com/a/LHVbZOi
When one reads sh*t like that GAB example, it is obvious that it came out of a moron.
He and others like him would never be able to persuade anybody. He got his ideas from others who evidently can persuade morons. What this shows is that however much effect comes from the initial sources, it stops after one iteration. There cannot be exponential growth.
Furthermore, since the thoughts of morons like that are so easily molded, free speech will simultaneously allow better ideas to compete for the small spaces inside moron minds.
Freedom of speech should never be sacrificed for anything, and certainly not for something so weak.
The general idea underpinning open borders is that might makes right. Whichever group can take possession of the land takes possession of the ballot box. But once that is achieved what incentive would the losing minority have to go along with the formal process of elections? There's none. The obvious conclusion is that democracy will only work when borders are relatively impermeable.
Liberals have not thought this through far enough. Once you have enthroned the might makes right principle, then anything goes. There are no rules. Mass violence looms.
You are correct, but I think you neglect the left’s innate hypocrisy. It’s systemic racism when it doesn’t benefit them, meritocracy when it does. Free speech when it’s for the left, hate speech when it isn’t. The examples are numerous.
One of the things that distinguishes the old Conservatism from the new right is that the new right has learned that for the left, it’s always a question of who/whom? You can still read conservative types at instapundit or other mainstream conservative websites that write about how “the left won’t like the new rules.” But the left WILL like the new rules. The new rules are the whole point.
How does it work in almost every other country in the world, where they practice jus sanguinis?
I agree that freedom of speech should not be sacrificed and I agree that people like him won’t have a serious political movement but they will murder innocents and damn nationalism by association.
This shows how Lefties unconsciously believe their own rhetoric and stance, which I call Strict Constrictionism. Here’s how it works:
Their argument is like a boa constrictor or python. They start by asking the Right
“Well, you denounce Nazis, don’t you? I mean come on, Nazis? They tried to kill everyone who wasn’t a white Aryan, right?”
And the Right admits that Nazis are bad, and no they don’t support them.
Then the Left squeezes a bit tighter, and says
“OK, so you denounce white supremacists, don’t you? I mean, come on, people who think that whites are the only real human beings?”
And the Right says, no we don’t support White supremacy.
And the Left squeezes a bit tighter, and says
“White Nationalists are the worst sort of bigots. They want to reserve the USA for themselves alone. They’re only in favor of white people. You don’t support them, do you?”
And the Right caves on that one.
And the Left squeezes a bit tighter, and says
“Well, it’s not enough to just say you’re against these horrible people, you need to actively support multiculturalism and open borders, right?
Strict Constrictionists. They’re sneaky. And if you feel like you can’t breathe, this is why.
The International Financing of Engineered Migration –
Carrying some debt isn't necessarily irresponsible. Carrying a lot of debt on a credit card is pretty irresponsible. Carrying debt to feed a sportsball habit is pretty stupid. And then there is the question of how he was suddenly able to pay it off.
And then there is the question of how he was suddenly able to pay it off.
Perhaps Kavanaugh’s last surviving parent died and he inherited some money? Or perhaps his elderly parents bailed him out of a hole. But baseball season tickets are a notorious burden due to 81 home games per year. I can remember after the White Sox division championship in 1983, winning 99 and losing 63, my boss Jodi’s husband bought 4 Chicago White Sox season tickets. But then they went 74-88 in 1984 and suddenly nobody wanted to go. I can remember going to 4 or 5 games that year to help him out, but 81 X 4=324 tickets is a huge number of tickets to take on. Supreme Court justices should know better than to buy season tickets and then Bryce Harper has one of his usual bad seasons.
If you are responsible and organized, you can pay off mortgages or invest in bonds that pay 5% using these promos, and just keep rolling them over. It has been like this for 15+ years, but if the gravy train ends, just get a HELOC if you don't have ready cash.
My surmise would be that the other three ticket buyers may have been some buddies who are whiteshoe DC lawyer big shots whom you wouldn't worry about being short of cash when the credit card bill rolls in next month.
That's sort of consonant with his organizational and party planning skills from high school, where his Prep school buddies left him to make the plans and collect the cash for Beach Week etc. Some people are just made that way and offer their time to organize social events.
I wonder how a parent would feel, knowing that the legacy they intended to pass on to their child was going to be used to pay off a credit card debt incurred to buy baseball tickets.
San Diego County is 46% non hispanic white, 33% hispanic, 11% Asian, 4% black. This is what the county supervisors looks like:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/general/bos.html
It must be that whatever government entity registers birth certificates would have to validate the parents’ status at the same time.
#wedidit fam
The judiciary will thwart him at every turn of course, and President Kamala will undo the order on day 1. Still, important that it’s entered the conversation, as you say.
These people complaining that Kav had 60k of credit card debt seem like they never heard of 0% for 18 month card promos that also pay cash back or miles.
If you are responsible and organized, you can pay off mortgages or invest in bonds that pay 5% using these promos, and just keep rolling them over. It has been like this for 15+ years, but if the gravy train ends, just get a HELOC if you don’t have ready cash.
That would be nice, no doubt. He should have done that in January of 2017 frankly.
What are we to do about it?
In business and life, there is the concept of ‘the cost of doing business.’ There will be some losses. In this case, those losses are very, very sad; mostly elderly friends and neighbors who never hurt anybody and probably did a lot of good in their lives.
Just as we cannot allow every sad case to cross our borders into our country without losing our country, we unfortunately cannot prevent every tragedy from happening. Random innocent people get killed in all kinds of places by deranged or evil people. It is part of life.
The white goyim of America are the best friends Jewish people ever had. I really believe that. We should never, ever be silenced. On the contrary, whatever it is about us that has made our homeland a safe haven should be respected, protected and preserved.
Free speech is one of those things that we must preserve. What this means is not just that we must preserve the First Amendment, but also that we must prevent monopolistic powers from ruining the lives of people who express views not approved by those very monopolies.
The time is already late for the government that supposedly comprises us, supposedly represents us, and supposedly serves us to apply anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws toward the breakup and reduction of power of the tech monopolies and media oligopolies that now police our thoughts.
if it makes you ppl feel better Jews have a low birth rate and high outmarriage rate so they’ll be one of the first “white” groups to be replaced
That's just it. It doesn't make me feel better.
That these Jews are destroying their own community as well does absolutely nothing for me.
A article briefly appeared a few weeks ago in a rival New York newspaper about a labor dispute at the Times, supposedly at the Metro desk. The employees called the Times‘ position a “totally manufactured narrative.”
Interesting choice of words, applied to the flagship of the American press. I was of course intrigued, but nothing further leaked out.
It’s a good bet the everything in the Times is written and/or edited with a deeper agenda in mind. Any bright young aspiring journalist who enters the profession out of idealism is no doubt quickly disillusioned. There is zero investigative reporting that attacks powerful commercial or political interests at The Times or anywhere else.
As far as Michelle Goldberg is concerned, perhaps she was careless lumping all white males together with a small subset that wants to bring back segregated lunch counters and lynching parties. Not unlike many of the posters here who think the Jewish dentist next door and the local deli owner gets distribution checks from the Rothschilds.
Oh, and - hey - say hello to the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion for me.
sunnis think shia discriminate against them (and they do) and shia think sunnis discriminate against them (and they do) but the actual mechanism is familial - both discriminate in favor of their relatives (who happen to either be all sunni or all shia)
i expect media nepotism works the same way.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753
President Trump birthright citizenship Executive Order?
CONSTITUTIONAL!
There aren’t many ways to get on the radar for a political appointment other than getting involved in politics. There’s not some big leatherbound book somewhere with a list of lawyers who would objectively make great judges.
What you will find is that the vast majority of Federal Court Judges were politically active in one way or another with one of their home state U.S. Senators. The tradition has generally but not exclusively been one of Senators lobbying the President of the same party to appoint a candidate that they’re friendly with to the Federal bench.
Of course, Kavanaugh’s home State was Maryland, which I don’t think has had a Republican United States Senator since the 1980s. Any young lawyer would have taken a position with the Special Counsel’s office, and I think it was from there that he landed the SCOTUS Clerkship, followed by service in the W White House. You’d have to think his preexisting political connections got him into the White House, and then the Bush connections got him to the top of the DC Circuit short list with a view towards future SCOTUS consideration. It’s perhaps more accurate to say that there was a mutual advantage gained there.
Thank you for your informative reply.
I’m not sure if Kav had Nats or O’s season tickets, but both teams (and I’d guess most other MLB clubs) have various combinations of season tickets that don’t include tickets to all 81 home games. There are versions where you get 20 games, or X number of games to every division opponent plus tickets to some of the more in demand visiting teams (Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Cardinals), etc.
If I recall the answer given when this was first raised was that Kav charged the tickets to his credit card for the points or whatever, and collected cash from his buddies to pay for all but his portion of the tickets.
My surmise would be that the other three ticket buyers may have been some buddies who are whiteshoe DC lawyer big shots whom you wouldn’t worry about being short of cash when the credit card bill rolls in next month.
That’s sort of consonant with his organizational and party planning skills from high school, where his Prep school buddies left him to make the plans and collect the cash for Beach Week etc. Some people are just made that way and offer their time to organize social events.
I am damn sure that what was reported was true (that Kavanaugh collected cash from his buddies to pay for all but his portion of the tickets).
Why am I so sure? Because the Anti-Kav Press & Media had obviously looked into this and could find nothing amiss. Otherwise it would have been reported as the cause celebre of cause celebres.
I agree. The situation in California is transitional, not a permanent state of affairs. Well-off gentile Whites and Jews will hold on to power for some time, but, eventually, Asians, Indians, Muslims and, to a degree, Hispanics will start to push them out.
What’s more, they will be openly tribal, overtly demanding a “fair” slice of the pie for their group. (That may not be true of Asians, but we’ll see.) The Left made a big mistake allowing Asians, Indians and Muslims to immigrate in large numbers. They should have stuck with Mexicans and Central Americans. I could see lefty gentile Whites and Jews running that show forever, but Asians, Indians and Muslims are a different story.
https://twitter.com/QuanSai/status/1057295290309455872
"Start your own internet"
That could have been said to a lot of people:
Start your own university.
Start your own countryclub.
Oh, we did that already. And now we're told we're not welcome in it.
Sooner or later you can't just move on down the road and start over somewhere elese. You have to keep the ground you have.
So I don't want to start my own internet. I want the one I'm on to respect my rights.
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1050860444234207232
yes, we’ve been ruled by the media for 60 years
>Brace for hot spittle!
And much of it bearing AIDS.
It works great, until you and your family are murdered in your own luxurious home.
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/daron-wint-indicted-in-dc-mansion-murders
I agree. As I replied someplace else, the situation in California is transition, not permanent. Sooner or later, California and the rest of the country will resemble the 3rd world with all of its problems. It’ll just take awhile, and rich people won’t notice the change for a generation or two.
also the vacillating between “hate speech is bad” and “die whitey, die!!”
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/general/bos.html
The political class must know of such examples and it must comfort them. They can keep pushing on the accelerator knowing they and their entourage are going to be fine.
No they won’t. Neither of the things you mentioned matter. Jared Kushner (for example) outmarried.
It works great, until you and your family are murdered in your own luxurious home.
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/daron-wint-indicted-in-dc-mansion-murders
‘The lights still work, the cities function, help is cheap and there’s a myriad of ethnic restaurants to choose from.
It works great, until you and your family are murdered in your own luxurious home.’
The relevant line here comes from an old joke.
A man jumped off a thirty story building. As he passed the windows on the second floor, he was heard to say, ‘well, everything’s okay so far.’
Or perhaps he has a friend like Tony Rezko.
I wonder how a parent would feel, knowing that the legacy they intended to pass on to their child was going to be used to pay off a credit card debt incurred to buy baseball tickets.
‘if it makes you ppl feel better Jews have a low birth rate and high outmarriage rate so they’ll be one of the first “white” groups to be replaced’
That’s just it. It doesn’t make me feel better.
That these Jews are destroying their own community as well does absolutely nothing for me.
I'm a multicultural kind of guy. On our street, we have a family of Iranian immigrants, an African-American lady, a woman whose parents were immigrants from China, an elderly Southern belle, a Jewish couple from South Africa, a guy who was Army Air Corps during WW II (he was shot down over Axis territory -- he managed to make it back to the Allies), an Italian-American couple who own a restaurant, and a white atheist guy descended from the Pilgrims (the last one is me).
We all get along fine.
But, this "we can replace them"? No, that is not going to play real well even out here in multicultural California.
The Left does seem to have a talent for self-destructive behavior.
Perhaps that is what happens when politics becomes a substitute for psychotherapy.
Your neighborhood sounds like exactly the sort of upper-middle-clasd outlier that cloud people think of as an endorsement of multi-culturalism. Those of us with more experience of mote common vibrant urban neighborhoods grit our teeth when we hear people extolling these multi-culturalism theme parks.
They can only exist and thrive in the context of an overwhelmingly Western White society to support them.
Very well put. I'm going to use that - America as a multi-cultural theme park.
When I go to the local Walmart and see Mideastern women paying for their food with foodstamps, I wonder why the rest of us have to pay for their food. But, "the rest of us" includes my immigrant neighbors: the Jewish guy from South Africa is a physician; the Iranian guy is a civil engineer and his wife works in biotech. I think it is fair to say that my immigrant neighbors are a net positive for American society: they are not the folks using foodstamps.
Indeed, my immigrant neighbors are paying for the foodstamp users just as we are.
The problem is not multiculturalism; it is parasitism.
And, the biggest enablers of such parasitism, and indeed the worst parasites themselves, are the (largely white) ruling elite.
It's Clinton, Bush, Pelosi, and all the rest who are the real problem. My immigrant neighbors are not a problem at all. And, the immigrants who do present a problem are simply tools of the ruling elite.
We cannot criticise the ruling class because doing so would be anti-Semitic? Hmmmm…
The Greek name for a society ruled by its sacred victims would be something like: “a pharmakocracy”*. The reason the word doesn’t exist is that no such thing has ever worked, anywhere. Bret Stephens and his chums are apparently giving it a try nevertheless.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmakos
I wonder how a parent would feel, knowing that the legacy they intended to pass on to their child was going to be used to pay off a credit card debt incurred to buy baseball tickets.
I think having a Supreme Court Justice for a son would provide more than enough succour. Their two grandchildren even more so.
Interesting choice of words, applied to the flagship of the American press. I was of course intrigued, but nothing further leaked out.
It's a good bet the everything in the Times is written and/or edited with a deeper agenda in mind. Any bright young aspiring journalist who enters the profession out of idealism is no doubt quickly disillusioned. There is zero investigative reporting that attacks powerful commercial or political interests at The Times or anywhere else.
As far as Michelle Goldberg is concerned, perhaps she was careless lumping all white males together with a small subset that wants to bring back segregated lunch counters and lynching parties. Not unlike many of the posters here who think the Jewish dentist next door and the local deli owner gets distribution checks from the Rothschilds.
Nobody here thinks that. Probably nobody anywhere thinks that.
Oh, and – hey – say hello to the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion for me.
Mixed feelings. I’ll admit I do feel some satisfaction of the “I Told You So!” variety.
On the other hand, that black woman running a close race seems absolutely dreadful, owing huge amounts of back taxes and having all sorts of ridiculous and obnoxious views, like an ISIS/Maoist promise to destroy that huge national monument honoring leading Confederates.
Then again, that Kemp guy running against her seems like an idiot as well, at least based upon what I’ve read of some of his TV commercials.
My main conclusion is that I’m very glad I live here in California rather than in Georgia. Admittedly, the ultra-liberal legislature just outlawed plastic straws for environment reasons, but in most other regards it’s a pretty sane state these days.
https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/17/californian-income-inequality-tops-mexico/
I guess, at least, it is cheap to get someone to mow your lawn.
Michelle Goldberg, “hold my beer”
What you will find is that the vast majority of Federal Court Judges were politically active in one way or another with one of their home state U.S. Senators. The tradition has generally but not exclusively been one of Senators lobbying the President of the same party to appoint a candidate that they're friendly with to the Federal bench.
Of course, Kavanaugh's home State was Maryland, which I don't think has had a Republican United States Senator since the 1980s. Any young lawyer would have taken a position with the Special Counsel's office, and I think it was from there that he landed the SCOTUS Clerkship, followed by service in the W White House. You'd have to think his preexisting political connections got him into the White House, and then the Bush connections got him to the top of the DC Circuit short list with a view towards future SCOTUS consideration. It's perhaps more accurate to say that there was a mutual advantage gained there.
One of my wife’s friends is married to a Federal Court of Appeals judge (Jewish, BTW) who was nominated by Clinton. I’ve met the couple, and they seem like ordinary local people. Whatever political connections they might have are invisible to me, but that’s not saying much.
Thank you for your informative reply.
I appreciate the gesture even if it will face a tough legal challenge. This is a bit like a mirror image of Obama’s DACA order.
There was an 1898 case, US v Wong Kim Ark, where the court ruled that a man born to Chinese parents in San Francisco did have citizenship. But I think you could argue for a distinction between between lawful residents and tourists and illegal aliens without even challenging that precedent.
US didn’t even require passports for entry when Wong as born in 1873. There was no federal immigration system at until 1891. Presumably, enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was carried out by the States initially.
“Right now America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power”
She’s projecting. It’s really media types like Goldberg who are frantically clinging to their undeserved and unpopular control over the majority.
Which “Whites” are doing OK at holding on to high office in California?
There are Globalizer Whites and Patriotic Whites and the Whites without a clue.
Patriotic Whites stand not a chance of winning statewide races in California.
We are about 2 or 3 percent on the federal funds rate from a financial implosion and Civil War II, and somebody is saying politician Whites running in statewide elections are doing OK in California?
California will be de-populated of its current residents and re-populated with Patriotic Whites when the time comes.
California and New York and Virginia and many other states will be fought over when Civil War II breaks out.
The answer is still the same: the 2012 election and Obama's victory. This was the most open demonstration possible that they could start talking about eliminating whites. I think the horror of how openly racist most of the elites are against whites had a big role in the 2016 election.
And now it's completely out in the open. I doubt something as ghastly as "we can replace them" would be tolerated in the NYT as recently as 2010.
yes – they keep talking about Trump radicalizing people but if you’ve followed what’s been happening with normie MAGA people it’s the media doing the radicalizing.
on the other hand there is a point to it – if you accept that guilt-trippable white suburban soccer moms are the key demographic they may have calculated that guilt-bullying suburban soccer moms into line is worth the cost of radicalizing the white blue collar voters.
(given that they only need to keep the soccer moms in line for a few more years before they can throw them under the bus)
Thanks … I forgot that 11% of the white folks ID as hispanic.
"Whites" aren't being replaced. White people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing just fine, better than ever actually, which is why Hillary thought she had them in the bag.
For all the talk about whites being replaced, immigrants are hardly moving the needle in terms of elections. As Steve has often pointed out, Hispanic immigrants can barely be bothered to vote, and when they do vote they vote Republican in far larger numbers than the black population whom they are actually replacing. (Remember, Latino immigration was mostly encouraged by business owners to find people to do service jobs blacks wouldn't do, or at least wouldn't do well, blacks have far more to lose from immigration than whites do).
Asian and Eastern European immigrants do vote, and tend to vote Republican. Net/net it is hard to argue that immigration has actually hurt the Republicans.
I think the Dems actually get this. The immigration rhetoric is really designed to get blacks and young white people to the polls - that is the Dems core electoral strength. It is also obvious that the GOP (apart from Trump) spends a lot more effort keeping black people in red states from voting than actually worrying about immigrants, and that makes tactical sense.
Asians voted Republic historically, but have voted Democratic since Obama.
Asian voters have only been of any significance in the last few decades.
Old stocker Americans might have old cars and boots that have been around longer than have been Asian voters as a significant bloc in USA politics.
Trump's Asian outreach plots have been part of the problem in why Trumpy won't call for an immigration moratorium.
White Core Americans(WCA) who are set to take over the GOP want the votes of White Democrats, not Asian votes.
White government workers who vote Democrat to keep their jobs will have to be fired when the WCA comes to power.
What to do with White government workers is a big issue. Fire them all and take away their pensions and benefits is a start.
Random thoughts of some consequence above.
So, does that mean the US will do a replay of India/Pakistan and that will later be followed by a replay of Pakistan/Bengladesh?
Have you downloaded and installed the CrapApp?
But the Senator handled this exactly as I think he should have, including the quip at the end We all know people like the protesting lady, who probably would be a nice neighbor and perhaps even a friend. That this encounter would be presented as the act of a "monster" indicates that Ms. Goldberg is a zealot, someone who demonizes those who harbor a contrary belief
LOL. “I no longer vote–but let me tell you my vote were I a US Senator.” Hahahaha.
That’s a good one…
Interesting choice of words, applied to the flagship of the American press. I was of course intrigued, but nothing further leaked out.
It's a good bet the everything in the Times is written and/or edited with a deeper agenda in mind. Any bright young aspiring journalist who enters the profession out of idealism is no doubt quickly disillusioned. There is zero investigative reporting that attacks powerful commercial or political interests at The Times or anywhere else.
As far as Michelle Goldberg is concerned, perhaps she was careless lumping all white males together with a small subset that wants to bring back segregated lunch counters and lynching parties. Not unlike many of the posters here who think the Jewish dentist next door and the local deli owner gets distribution checks from the Rothschilds.
the way nepotism works in places like Iraq is familial.
sunnis think shia discriminate against them (and they do) and shia think sunnis discriminate against them (and they do) but the actual mechanism is familial – both discriminate in favor of their relatives (who happen to either be all sunni or all shia)
i expect media nepotism works the same way.
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1050860444234207232
It’s not being “ruled by” that bothers Goldberg–it’s the wrong monsters are doing it…
California’s Income Inequality Now Worse Than Mexico’s; Poverty Level Highest In America
https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/17/californian-income-inequality-tops-mexico/
I guess, at least, it is cheap to get someone to mow your lawn.
The Globalizer Whites in California must be financially wiped out!
You never hear these smug bastard California baby boomer scoundrels talk about what their actions will mean for future generations.
Raise the federal funds rate to 20 percent and financially wipe the White California baby boomers out!
God bless Ron Unz and Steve Sailer, but their baby boomer cheery confidence in California will be smashed when the next phase of the global financial implosion hits.
California will be hit hard because this next phase of the global financial implosion will last a long time, and the military will most likely take complete control of all technology companies in California for national security purposes. California is highly reliant on plutocrats and certain corporations to pay for government at the local, county and state level. If the plutocrats and certain corporations were wiped out, California would go bust.
Placid White enclaves in California will not remain so when the manure hits the fan blade.
Patriotic Whites in the rest of the United States will demand that plutocrats in California be wiped out. This means the pissants on the Russian River who are 3rd or 4th generation California plutocrats and the new plutocrats as well.
California real estate might switch ownership in a manner similar to the Saxons losing control of England to the Normans.
Young White Core Americans are watching the complacent greed of the baby boomers in California and they will be heard from.
Peasant’s Lament:
If you baby boomers think the economy is doing so good, then why don’t you call for the federal funds rate to go to the normal level of 6 percent?
The answer is that many baby boomers understand that they will be financially wiped out if the federal funds rate goes to the normal level of 6 percent.
Carrying some debt isn't necessarily irresponsible. Carrying a lot of debt on a credit card is pretty irresponsible. Carrying debt to feed a sportsball habit is pretty stupid. And then there is the question of how he was suddenly able to pay it off.
That is a big range on Kavanaugh’s debts. If it was closer to $60k his wife’s income could have helped clear it up quickly. According to her Wikipedia page, she started a job as the town manager of Chevy Chase Section Five and is able to do most of the work from home. Her salary is listed at $66,000 a year. Drop the Nationals tickets and you can pay down a lot of debt quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Estes_Kavanaugh
https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/17/californian-income-inequality-tops-mexico/
I guess, at least, it is cheap to get someone to mow your lawn.
Smug Baby Boomer California Complacency Gets On My Nerves
The Globalizer Whites in California must be financially wiped out!
You never hear these smug bastard California baby boomer scoundrels talk about what their actions will mean for future generations.
Raise the federal funds rate to 20 percent and financially wipe the White California baby boomers out!
Careful what you wish for. 25% APR money market funds are not exactly the kind of economic events that wipe out retirees.
there’s a time lag but eventually yes – especially in the areas where the new majority is relatively recent as it takes time to get their electoral act together.
iirc some time ago i read Compton (?) still had black local politicians even though it had become majority hispanic.
the big exception to this is Muslims cos bloc voting – one of the advantages of a clan based marriage system
i think they’ll probably be able to handle most groups but south Asians generally (cos not dumb and equally clannish) and especially Muslims will be their downfall.
"Whites" aren't being replaced. White people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing just fine, better than ever actually, which is why Hillary thought she had them in the bag.
For all the talk about whites being replaced, immigrants are hardly moving the needle in terms of elections. As Steve has often pointed out, Hispanic immigrants can barely be bothered to vote, and when they do vote they vote Republican in far larger numbers than the black population whom they are actually replacing. (Remember, Latino immigration was mostly encouraged by business owners to find people to do service jobs blacks wouldn't do, or at least wouldn't do well, blacks have far more to lose from immigration than whites do).
Asian and Eastern European immigrants do vote, and tend to vote Republican. Net/net it is hard to argue that immigration has actually hurt the Republicans.
I think the Dems actually get this. The immigration rhetoric is really designed to get blacks and young white people to the polls - that is the Dems core electoral strength. It is also obvious that the GOP (apart from Trump) spends a lot more effort keeping black people in red states from voting than actually worrying about immigrants, and that makes tactical sense.
Some/many of us prefer the American culture to remain intact, for the country not to become more crowded other than by organic growth that varies over time, and that the amount of immigration be limited–limited to those who are self-sufficient, not a potential social welfare burden, and fully intent on assimilating to American culture and way of life.
Immigration, such as it is legal and illegal, puts downward pressure on domestic wages of both the skilled (via H1-b visa) and unskilled (via illegal aliens) variety, a burden borne by the existing population, for the benefit of business enterprises of all sizes whose owners reap the gains.
To assume or proclaim or speculate the manner in which foreign immigrants would vote in the future is entirely immaterial. To do so reeks of invidious racial ethnic stereotyping.
Exactly right.
Jeez, you could look up Goldberg’s skirt to see the red diaper…
I had an hour long program from propaganda radio (NPR) on in the background last night; it was a careful explanation in how "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are the same thing, and anyone who supported any part of that agenda needs to painted with the same brush.
FIFY.
High-income liberals can buy their way out of the masses and live just fine. The lights still work, the cities function, help is cheap and there's a myriad of ethnic restaurants to choose from. Sure, poverty has increased and middle class whites have been forced to flee, but so what. They don't deal with any of that.
Maybe they're getting pushed out a bit by Asians and Indians, but high-income Whites and Jews still are the main power brokers in politics and business. There's not much downside to this new country, but the upside - punishing bad Whites and blocking any chance of the Jewish Holocaust 2.0 - is well worth it.
For a generation or two. But each generation, the tax burden will go up, and the income will go down with the result that the situation of their white lineage will regress quickly. Not to mention the quickly expanding likelihood of intermarriage by their descendants. No, the destruction of “bad whites” is ineluctably connected to the destruction of “good whites”. “Good whites” absolutely cannot survive without “bad whites”. No way in hell.
The primary features of a white nationalist are that he (1) notices his people are being exploited while being replaced and (2) objects to it. Replacing “whites” and replacing “white nationalists” are precisely the same thing.
Children take on the citizenship of their parents, irrespective of where they’re born…it’s quite the same as children born to US citizens abroad. They take the citizenship of their parents, not that of the country of their birth. It’s the way citizenship works in most of the world.
Birth tourism, anchor babies, and illegal immigrants giving birth in the US for the purpose of citizenship is obviously a torturing of the 14th amendment, if not a fraud. The children of diplomats (temporary residents) born in the US do not become US citizens–why should other transients (not permanent resident visa holders) giving birth be granted citizenship to the new born?
She is advocating the replacement of white nationalists. Or rather, she isn’t even doing that, she is trolling, as replacement includes deletion and cannot just be dilution.
If you destroy the core. You destroy the group.
How about I say. Most Jews are fine, but the community activist Jews that run the synagogues, send their children to Jewish schools, etc. have to go. Don't tell me you'd be fooled for a minute. We aren't either.
How’s your magic high-speed choo-choo coming along?
Then again, I don't think any other state has built a high-speed rail line either, so CA isn't that much more of a failure than all the others, though admittedly we'll be wasting more money along the way.
I'd assume the Tech Bubble will burst within the next year or two, CA will end up with horrendous budget deficits, and the rail construction will immediately stop...
legal definition of genocide (paraphrased)
we don’t need to debate it – we just state the definition and let people attack it until eventually they get bored and say we deserve it.
"Well, yes, we know there won't be any more White people left as a result of our actions, but it doesn't quite meet the definition of genocide, so there!"
It doesn't go over very well.
What the heck is the time frame for the use of the word historically?
Asian voters have only been of any significance in the last few decades.
Old stocker Americans might have old cars and boots that have been around longer than have been Asian voters as a significant bloc in USA politics.
Trump’s Asian outreach plots have been part of the problem in why Trumpy won’t call for an immigration moratorium.
White Core Americans(WCA) who are set to take over the GOP want the votes of White Democrats, not Asian votes.
White government workers who vote Democrat to keep their jobs will have to be fired when the WCA comes to power.
What to do with White government workers is a big issue. Fire them all and take away their pensions and benefits is a start.
Random thoughts of some consequence above.
That does not quite reach the level of enslavement, but it is subjugation. Jews worked very hard to avoid just this situation by creating their own homeland, yet many elite Jews wish to impose it upon gentile Whites in their homelands.
Bowers was a nut case. But history has shown that migration and subjugation usually leads to massive violence, the kind of violence that makes the Pittsburgh shooting an everyday occurrence. You know that. Goldberg knows that. Moshe knows that.
But elite Jews - far more than any other group proportionally - continue to push for these policies, and then chastize gentile Whites as violent racists or anti-Semites for wanting exactly what Jews have and what Jews fight for every day.
Is Goldberg advocating genocide of White people? No. Is Goldberg advocating for policies that could lead to the subjugation of my people and a much higher chance of racial/ethnic violence, even to the level of genocide? You bet.
I don’t know about that. It’s not just immigration. It’s also forced integration that is the problem. Jews know perfectly well that a minority thais allowed it’s own institutions identity will not survive.
Anti-White Jews know that allowing such groups to form is a slippery slope. Once these groups started to form, self-identifying Whites would have a beachhead to forming larger networks and institutions of their own. Next thing you know, they will have created their own society within the larger society, and sooner or later, that leads to calls for more independence.
Anti-White Jews would much prefer that Whites simply get bred out of existence.
The trouble is that ethnic groups revolve around their most ethnocentric members. It is the ethnocentric core that exerts a gravitational pull on the rest of the group and keeps it together.
If you destroy the core. You destroy the group.
How about I say. Most Jews are fine, but the community activist Jews that run the synagogues, send their children to Jewish schools, etc. have to go. Don’t tell me you’d be fooled for a minute. We aren’t either.
I don’t know how it plays out, but middle class white people are abandoning California in droves for places like Idaho and Utah.
Michelle Goldberg has been driven into full-bore anti-White Bolshevism by the Pittsburgh attack.
I was driven to write this about the Pittsburgh attack:
The attack in Pittsburgh should bring about a much needed discussion of the role of certain Jews in pushing nation-wrecking mass immigration in European Christian nations.
There should be nationally televised debates in which Jews can push for more mass immigration and multicultural mayhem and White Core Americans can put forward the proposal that an immigration moratorium and a mass deportation of all illegal alien invaders will be highly beneficial to the United States of America.
It is well known that high percentages of Jews push nation-wrecking mass immigration. We know that.
Many Jews push nation-wrecking mass immigration even though mass immigration is highly destructive to European Christian nations.
Leading Jew politicians should be on television nightly for months or years on end pushing for more mass immigration. Let Americans of European Christian ancestry hear the arguments and ideas of the Jews who push mass immigration. But we must also have White Core American leaders on national television making the case that the Jews who push mass immigration are wrong to do so.
MORE DEBATE
MORE FREE SPEECH
AIR OUT THE ISSUE OF MASS IMMIGRATION
Mass immigration lowers wages, increases housing costs, increases income inequality, swamps schools, overwhelms hospitals, harms the environment, increases urban sprawl, destroys habitat for wildlife and destroys cultural cohesion in the United States.
Mass immigration brings crime, infectious diseases, multicultural mayhem and Islamic terrorism to the United States.
Truth. The White genocide allegation is a no-lose for Whites. It’s bad optics to rely on technicalities in an attempt to persuade a group to acquiesce in its own destruction.
“Well, yes, we know there won’t be any more White people left as a result of our actions, but it doesn’t quite meet the definition of genocide, so there!”
It doesn’t go over very well.
Ha, ha… My impression is that just about everyone in the Legislature, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, knows it’s a ridiculous waste of money that will never be close to being completed. But the budget is strong right now, and Brown is a very popular outgoing governor cashing in his political chits for a “legacy.”
Then again, I don’t think any other state has built a high-speed rail line either, so CA isn’t that much more of a failure than all the others, though admittedly we’ll be wasting more money along the way.
I’d assume the Tech Bubble will burst within the next year or two, CA will end up with horrendous budget deficits, and the rail construction will immediately stop…
If you destroy the core. You destroy the group.
How about I say. Most Jews are fine, but the community activist Jews that run the synagogues, send their children to Jewish schools, etc. have to go. Don't tell me you'd be fooled for a minute. We aren't either.
If you said that the Hassidim and their beliefs should not be influential in the running of any country, I would concur.
There's no way to ensure that White nationalism remain uninfluential but by ruthlessly suppressing White identity, White political mobilization, and White self-assertion. There is, in short, no way to engineer multiculturalism against the interests of the majority population without violating their political rights.
Agreed. It’s not just the subjugation of Whites but a push to not allow Whites the ability to form their own ethnic organizations. Try organizing a European-American branch of your business association no different from similar existing branches for Jews, blacks, Hispanics or Asians and see how that goes.
Anti-White Jews know that allowing such groups to form is a slippery slope. Once these groups started to form, self-identifying Whites would have a beachhead to forming larger networks and institutions of their own. Next thing you know, they will have created their own society within the larger society, and sooner or later, that leads to calls for more independence.
Anti-White Jews would much prefer that Whites simply get bred out of existence.
Yesterday I saw a bumpersticker I’d never seen before. It read:
“It’s not the people who vote that counts, it’s the people counting the vote.”
Then again, I don't think any other state has built a high-speed rail line either, so CA isn't that much more of a failure than all the others, though admittedly we'll be wasting more money along the way.
I'd assume the Tech Bubble will burst within the next year or two, CA will end up with horrendous budget deficits, and the rail construction will immediately stop...
I didn’t mean CA is crazy for not completing the train, but for approving it in the first place. The Badwhites were actually living there (bay area) at the time it passed (we voted against it). The entire concept – soup to nuts – was a liberal fantasy.
The cash in versus cash out this year is “strong”. The overall fiscal situation is a time bomb. As I’m sure you know CA is overly dependent on capital gains taxes as well as incomes taxes paid by a relatively small slice of the populace. If/when times get bad and capital gains dry up or “rich” people come to hard times, the house of cards comes down. Layer in the estimated $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt plus unfunded liabilities (pensions, etc) and its pretty grim.
California is formerly first world place with a fairly large percentage of its people that still think they live in the first world, but with an increasingly 3rd world population. Those two things don’t go together unfortunately.
Yep, what we’re seeing here is the slow death of Citizenism and Civic Nationalism. Steve fought the good fight, but he needs to accept that his appeals to elite gentile Whites and Jews to show some noblesse oblige to their fellow American citizens has failed. Elite Gentile Whites are too caught up in virtue signaling while elite Jews never saw those poor non-Jews as part of their group in the first place.
Steve is fighting the last war. Mocking elites and pointing out their hypocrisies didn’t work in the past, and it won’t work in the future. Things have just gotten worse. Time for a new strategy, Steve.
I don't agree with Sailer on everything, but I am frankly stunned at his batting average in nailing social and political trends during the last decade.
More anti white Jews.
On the other hand, the rabbi of the synagogue where the shooting happened said Trump is welcome.
(The Chief Rabbi in Israel said the shooting happened in “a place with a profoundly Jewish flavour”. The Orthodox don’t recognise non-Orthodox places of worship as synagogues)
Wow, that's might White of him.
Bernie Sanders vs Ezra Klein on immigration
The old Left against the adolescent Left
Tweet from 2015:
"We are a nation of immigrants" BS.
That’s a poor analogy, but let’s set that aside for a moment.
There’s no way to ensure that White nationalism remain uninfluential but by ruthlessly suppressing White identity, White political mobilization, and White self-assertion. There is, in short, no way to engineer multiculturalism against the interests of the majority population without violating their political rights.
@56 The Alarmist: “It’s amazing how they’ve convinced the 73% or so white Americans that they are actually a doomed minority long before it is a fait accompli.”
According to official government statistics, White non-Hispanic Americans, where such definition of White includes Jews, Iranians, various Arabs and other Mohammedans, those South Americans and sub-continentals who like to flatter themselves that they are White – constitute 60.9% of the U.S. population. So, in reality, perhaps 55%.
What we desperately need now is for respected mainstream figures to step up and state clearly that this kind of rhetoric is dangerous and must stop. Is anyone going to do that? Is anyone in the respectable media going to draw the connection, however subtly?
The Jewish Elite Strategy.
Replace Wasp elites with Jewish elites. Do this by championing white masses against Wasp elites represented by media as hopeless Country Club snobs.
As the new elites, the next step for Jewish elites is to replace the white masses with POC.
Replace the head, and then replace the body.
If replacement is so good, then it’s about time we replaced the Jewish elites with New Elites. I nominate Palestinian-Americans. Change is good.
If there’s no rule that US must be a white majority nation, there is no rule that US must be a Jewish-elite nation. We need a new elite. People should picket the NYT and demand that Palestinian-American columnists be hired.
What white people should do is unite with Arabs and Palestinians against Zionists. Whites must join with People of Color against Jewish supremacy.
I appreciate the gesture even if it will face a tough legal challenge. This is a bit like a mirror image of Obama’s DACA order.
There was an 1898 case, US v Wong Kim Ark, where the court ruled that a man born to Chinese parents in San Francisco did have citizenship. But I think you could argue for a distinction between between lawful residents and tourists and illegal aliens without even challenging that precedent.
Birthright citizenship was meant to deal with the citizenship of the slaves gaining freedom. It was never meant for birth tourism and illegals to exploit. The founders were pretty clear on establishing the country for themselves and their posterity and thought alien influence was destructive
They can only exist and thrive in the context of an overwhelmingly Western White society to support them.
I also live in the Bay Area. Vallejo, currently. Two nights ago while I was at the market with my wife and infant daughter, an old filipina woman was robbed at knife point of her purse. As I was getting my daughter out of her car seat I heard the woman scream on the other end of the market parking lot. But at least there were plenty of shitty ethnic restaurants in the strip mall!
“I hope someone enjoyed any part of what I shared above but if no one did I’m cool with that and wish you happiness and health anyhow.”
That’s mighty white of you! Shalom.
There's no way to ensure that White nationalism remain uninfluential but by ruthlessly suppressing White identity, White political mobilization, and White self-assertion. There is, in short, no way to engineer multiculturalism against the interests of the majority population without violating their political rights.
Historical records disagree very strongly with your pronouncements. Perhaps you got your historical impressions solely from SJW sources? None of those elements of white action you mentioned were serious social forces, ever.
White Australia policy.
Just off the top of my head.
They can only exist and thrive in the context of an overwhelmingly Western White society to support them.
@199 Cloudbuster: “Those of us with more experience of mote common vibrant urban neighborhoods grit our teeth when we hear people extolling these multi-culturalism theme parks.”
Very well put. I’m going to use that – America as a multi-cultural theme park.
I'm a multicultural kind of guy. On our street, we have a family of Iranian immigrants, an African-American lady, a woman whose parents were immigrants from China, an elderly Southern belle, a Jewish couple from South Africa, a guy who was Army Air Corps during WW II (he was shot down over Axis territory -- he managed to make it back to the Allies), an Italian-American couple who own a restaurant, and a white atheist guy descended from the Pilgrims (the last one is me).
We all get along fine.
But, this "we can replace them"? No, that is not going to play real well even out here in multicultural California.
The Left does seem to have a talent for self-destructive behavior.
Perhaps that is what happens when politics becomes a substitute for psychotherapy.
Yes. People, left to their own devices, can along fine. But “members of collectives” cannot.
Mahmoud, Shaniqua, Amy, Darlene, Isaac & Shirley, Giuseppe & Maria, and you can all get along. But not when you see each other as members of collectives instead of as individual humans.
unfortunately we probably can’t, but its becoming more and more of a possibility that we can.
Bernie is right: open borders is a libertarian wet dream. Cultural Marxists also favor open borders. Another thing the libertarians and cultural Marxists have in common: a disinterest in the rather profitable war on terror. Both movements are based on fragile ideologies.
@239 Yet Another Anon: “On the other hand, the rabbi of the synagogue where the shooting happened said Trump is welcome.”
Wow, that’s might White of him.
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1050860444234207232
She’s right, of course, but not in the way she wants us to think.
I’m afraid you’re correct. The Republican house has proven utterly obstructionist.
Free white persons
White Australia policy.
Just off the top of my head.
If white nationalism were limited to those policies, it would actually be no more than a relaxation of the immigration norms in most of the world (now) and Europe in the past, where substantial immigration was/is restricted to much narrower groups.
No, they would not drop their citizenship like hot potatoes, or at all. Most of these people either wouldn’t owe any taxes, because they are either poor, or children. Or they can easily hide whatever income they have, because they earn it all in China and the IRS has no hooks in Chinese banks.
Ending birthright citizenship would be an outright triumph for the people of the United States, and enforcing tax laws is no substitute.
I guess that’s their new strategy. No more whites means no more white nationalists.
A Democrat president won’t undo anything if the case makes it to SCOTUS, and Kavanugh and crew score one for the American people.
In fact it appears that unlike some animal in an ecosystem whom conservationists wish to maintain at certain levels, no such concern for maintaining a percentage of Europeans in the population exists.
Well, the globalists view people as widgets, an inter-breeding commodity to be exploited for economic gain, having only utilitarian value. Taking note of their superficial identity merely advances the identity politics of all against all, dog eat dog, where the elite rule over everyone else–’cuz they just know better.
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/10/27/stability/
An enormous amount of organization would have had to go into moving that many people from one small area of the world to a single US city. Simple fact - the entire population of Central America is coming right in to the USA, determined to stay, and they are receiving all kinds of help from...somebody.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who votes Democratic, regardless of the putative reason for doing so, is committing treason, pure and simple.
Central Americans with tourist visas. That’s one way to by-pass the Wall.
Goldberg appears to be describing the replacement of white nationalists with white liberals and various other groups. In other words, the definition you’ve provided doesn’t apply to what Goldberg describes. The white nationalists are not a racial group, anymore than the white communists or white tuba players are.
The deal (credit card debt) on baseball tickets is relatively straight froward. Among middle-aged sports fans, very many like to buy as groups because they want to sit together as groups among family and work friends, and attend multiple games per season. In this way, game attendance conflicts can be worked out by swapping games/seats among the group. Baseball teams also have group and multi-game discount packages available.
My younger brother does this with NHL hockey tickets. He shares four season tickets with three other guys. They each get two tickets to half the games, so their wives can attend games with them. One of them pays for four season tickets and gets reimbursed by the others in the group.
Someone has to be the point person to buy the group tickets–Kavanaugh did this for his group of baseball fans.
In fact, this is the major way I get Yankee tickets as I know a number of people that participate in these group purchases, and often there’s an extra ticket available on short notice.
It surprises me that so few people are aware of this very common practice. Perhaps the iSteve audience is not into the national pastime.
Without Sanders acknowledging Vermont couldn’t be turned socialist–they passed on universal, one-payer health care as too expensive.
Yes, Jews are not a monolith.
Hey Michelle Goldberg, how did the Jews fare after the Visigoths sacked Rome? At least in Visigoth dominated Spain, not so well. Was the break up of the Soviet Union along ethnic national lines good for Jews? I don’t know but many of them came here or to Israel. What about the former Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia? Be careful what you ask for Michelle as your playing with fire.
Seems to me Trump has the better argument, as globalists, international banks and corrupt media have a lot to answer for in the 21st century. Lectures on responsible rhetoric coming from the NYT is called chutzpah, using vernacular familiar to Stephens.
While the NYT is not some spree killer's GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn't advocating genocide of white people. She's advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
What’s the arrow of causation, though?
Bowers “and his ilk” would not care one whit about Jews qua Jews but for the fact that so many prominent Jews continue to push for the evil policies he objects to.
Schumer, Feinstein & their fellow Dems calling for elimination of the Senate? No way. They yield way too much power even in the minority to casually give up. The Senate Dems are scheming to change Senate rules and increase their power (like Harry Reid did) when they eventually regain the Senate for severe retribution against deplorables and Republicans.
Yes, you are 100% correct on that.
Thank you for your informative reply.
One of the other features of Judicial politicking is that once they’re on the bench, Judges sort of become political neuters by the usual outward appearances – this is compelled by the canons of judicial ethics and other federal and state laws. Sometimes they can skirt around that through a spouse but their ability to self-promote is highly circumscribed.
You first.
Fortunately, "Steve Sailer racism" garners 102,000 hits on Google ("be evil"), with factual Wikipedia at bat and impartial RationalWiki on deck. This compares to a paltry 4,690 for "Steve Sailer citizenism." So the risk that susceptible citizen intellects may be exposed to this strain is being well managed, at present.
I wish for an iSteve post comprised of the quoted paragraph alone, for easy linking. Closed comments would be even better, as Sailer is plenty generous in putting WNs, Progressives, anti-Semites, and assorted fruitbats on an equal footing with the thoughtful commentariat, below every other post.
Is not American ‘citizenism’ racist at its core? Citizenists may not be advocating policy against anyone already a citizen, but essential racial/ethnic and subsequent cultural and political concerns drive citizenist restrictive immigration stances. Secondary immigration concerns touch on issues like population levels agnostic of race, etc, but those are far down the list of hot topics on this blog.
High-income liberals can buy their way out of the masses and live just fine. The lights still work, the cities function, help is cheap and there's a myriad of ethnic restaurants to choose from. Sure, poverty has increased and middle class whites have been forced to flee, but so what. They don't deal with any of that.
Maybe they're getting pushed out a bit by Asians and Indians, but high-income Whites and Jews still are the main power brokers in politics and business. There's not much downside to this new country, but the upside - punishing bad Whites and blocking any chance of the Jewish Holocaust 2.0 - is well worth it.
Or maybe accidentally(?) setting off a civil war.
We aren’t anywhere near leftist violence on a wide scale. How much in common with violent revolutionaries do American leftists have? How many of them have lived on a farm, worked manual labor, or fired a rifle? Basically none of them.
http://nj1015.com/hundreds-unpunished-lakewood-fraud-insider-says-nj-authorities-misled-public/
My surmise would be that the other three ticket buyers may have been some buddies who are whiteshoe DC lawyer big shots whom you wouldn't worry about being short of cash when the credit card bill rolls in next month.
That's sort of consonant with his organizational and party planning skills from high school, where his Prep school buddies left him to make the plans and collect the cash for Beach Week etc. Some people are just made that way and offer their time to organize social events.
Alec Leamas (hard at work):
I am damn sure that what was reported was true (that Kavanaugh collected cash from his buddies to pay for all but his portion of the tickets).
Why am I so sure? Because the Anti-Kav Press & Media had obviously looked into this and could find nothing amiss. Otherwise it would have been reported as the cause celebre of cause celebres.
Between Michelle Goldberg, Bret Stephens, et al., it seems the NYT‘s is hell bent on getting rid of white gentiles in the USA. Just a friendly reminder to the NYT’s, when their Bolshevik kinfolk tried to do this 100 years ago in Russia it really didn’t end well for them.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/bret-stephens-in-nyt-wants-to-deport-americans-to-make-more-room-for-immigrants/
Michelle Goldberg wins the Barbara Specter Award of the Year for Spilling Beans.
The fact that they called it “nationalism” rather than “supremacism” is telling.
Maybe people are getting tired of the latter, or figuring out how absurd calling separatists supremacist is. A report on (I think) All Things Considered today used the latter term over and over. My six-year-old told me to turn it off.
Moshe, who are you talking to? Because your post, unfortunately, confirms the negative stereotypes those you condemn hold. And now you want Tyrion to be silent. And Tyrion had the good sense to be in the Arena.
The sea change has happened (cf. Brazil). None of the supposed givens have place now. Things may get ugly, as they did in Pittsburgh. You need allies and not enemies. Your response will enable your enemies, and gain you no allies, and not protect you or yours. You are a Jew that has needlessly committed another unforced error, because you cannot see the forest for the trees.
I wish you well, but you are the latest instance of a Jew intentionally alienating me. You must think that you don’t need those who wish you well, but don’t want to lose our country.
Or maybe you think you are the scorpion, and your reactionary response is predetermined.
No, she is advocating the replacement of white people. The only distinction between white “nationalists’ and white “people” is that white nationalists have noticed and oppose the program to replace white people in general.
More than 40 Republican never-Trumpers retired. If Rs have the house next term, the house interests, desires, and perspective will be dramatically different.
They can only exist and thrive in the context of an overwhelmingly Western White society to support them.
I razzed you a few years ago about Mr W and Rangley Maine. Remain in light as winter temps descend! I have hiked there or nearby on the Appalachian Trail.
The Globalizer Whites in California must be financially wiped out!
You never hear these smug bastard California baby boomer scoundrels talk about what their actions will mean for future generations.
Raise the federal funds rate to 20 percent and financially wipe the White California baby boomers out!
“Raise the federal funds rate to 20 percent and financially wipe the White California baby boomers out!”
Careful what you wish for. 25% APR money market funds are not exactly the kind of economic events that wipe out retirees.
It’s no more possible to destroy White nationalists but not Whites in general than it is to push a person off the cliff and have him only fall half the way down.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/general/bos.html
What are the ethnic percentages of registered and recently active voters? How many of the Hispanics are ineligible (even in Kalifornicado) to vote?
Oh, don’t forget to come with a plausible estimate of how many minority voters have been intimidated away from the polls by the local San Diego Klavern in the past 50 years.
Take a look-see at those numbers before getting too far down the road with whatever your thesis is.
Forced integration inevitably results in deletion.
"Whites" aren't being replaced. White people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing just fine, better than ever actually, which is why Hillary thought she had them in the bag.
For all the talk about whites being replaced, immigrants are hardly moving the needle in terms of elections. As Steve has often pointed out, Hispanic immigrants can barely be bothered to vote, and when they do vote they vote Republican in far larger numbers than the black population whom they are actually replacing. (Remember, Latino immigration was mostly encouraged by business owners to find people to do service jobs blacks wouldn't do, or at least wouldn't do well, blacks have far more to lose from immigration than whites do).
Asian and Eastern European immigrants do vote, and tend to vote Republican. Net/net it is hard to argue that immigration has actually hurt the Republicans.
I think the Dems actually get this. The immigration rhetoric is really designed to get blacks and young white people to the polls - that is the Dems core electoral strength. It is also obvious that the GOP (apart from Trump) spends a lot more effort keeping black people in red states from voting than actually worrying about immigrants, and that makes tactical sense.
It’s false that “white people in the upper 10% income bracket are doing . . . better than ever”, but suppose it were true: What the hell would that have to do with anything?
We are talking about the future, not the present, and the foreseeable future of “white people in the upper 10% income bracket” is two or three generations. And then they’re gone.
I guess Michelle Goldberg might lost her sense of humor if she see that meme. https://imgflip.com/i/2lc1e8
You know why players on other NBA teams hated Bill Laimbeer?
Because Laimbeer was an un-athletic white guy (he didn’t want Billy Paultz of the Spurs to retire because Paultz was the only guy in the NBA Laimbeer could beat in a footrace) who could shoot, rebound and pass better than just about all of the other big men in the league.
Laimbeer was obnoxious, mouthy, and very, very confident in his own abilities – which were very, very real.
In short, his personality was just like virtually every other player in the NBA at the time, and certainly ever since.
The Pistons should have beaten the Lakers in six in the 1988 Finals, save for the infamous “phantom” foul on Laimbeer. Kareem missed the skyhook on his own, but the refs gave the Lakers every call down the stretch.
Why?
Because Pat Riley had guaranteed a “repeat”, that’s why.
( I didn’t hijack this thread – Lot brought up the original Bad Boy, Bill Laimbeer!)
Reg Caesar, feel free to comment!
In order to win after sane immigration reforms they would have to change significantly or be replaced by another party. Just like republicans are if the current system keeps up.
Asian voters have only been of any significance in the last few decades.
Old stocker Americans might have old cars and boots that have been around longer than have been Asian voters as a significant bloc in USA politics.
Trump's Asian outreach plots have been part of the problem in why Trumpy won't call for an immigration moratorium.
White Core Americans(WCA) who are set to take over the GOP want the votes of White Democrats, not Asian votes.
White government workers who vote Democrat to keep their jobs will have to be fired when the WCA comes to power.
What to do with White government workers is a big issue. Fire them all and take away their pensions and benefits is a start.
Random thoughts of some consequence above.
not all of us vote D
White government workers who do not, for the most part, vote Democrat such as firemen, cops, road guys, soldiers and the like should be given big fat raises to be paid for with massive tax increases on the plutocrats and the upper middle class.
White government workers in general is a tough one to figure out.
White lady public school teachers and other White lady government workers are a source of big numbers of White votes for the Democrats.
Plenty of federal government worker Whites vote for the Democrats too.
There will have to be an Andrew Jackson-type spoils system in the future where White government voters who vote Democrat are fired and lose all their other future benefits.
By and large, conspiracies are not needed to explain the vast number of such pieces of writing. Simply put, many are called and few are chosen. So many people want sinecures working as Social Justice Warriors. They work long hours trying to internalize what the Zeitgeist is saying, what the Mainstream is concerned with. (Isn’t this what being a Good Student in school was all about; learning what the teacher thinks and regurgitating it on paper?
But it’s so discouraging, seeing a clueless person advocate for open race war. Scary too—
What this person learned is that race hatred is GOOD, as long as you hate the right race-
The Left-Deep State has had the Deplorable-Bitter Clingers safely neutered and silenced for decades, now that they have become audible, they are called “radicalized by Trump”. Just disagreeing with the plan for the NWO-DeepState-One world plantation ruled by shadowy elites far away makes one “radical”, “racist”, “White Supremacist”, blah, blah. How DARE white Christians even voice disagreement with Those Who Know Best, like this elitist commie NYT windbag.
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1056577269815263232
We know that our Redeemer liveth.
Sucks to be a post-Jew like you, Goldberg. Get back to where you once belonged.
While the NYT is not some spree killer's GAB account and therefore needs be a lot more well thought out, it actually is a lot more well thought out.
(More remains, as always, a comparative term.)
Goldberg isn't advocating genocide of white people. She's advocating using immigration to fix elections in favour of a party that still gets the majority of its votes from white people. Yes, I despise her opinions but morally equivocating them with Bowers is ludicrous.
Bowers and his ilk are actually advocating genocide.
Yes, she is.
The people he’s talking about are all deracinated anyway. They’re the ones (along with their deracinated formerly Jewish partners) pushing all this to further decimate Americans not of their class.
They are not. They are dooming themselves.
The old Left against the adolescent Left
Tweet from 2015:
https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/631528891769864192
Bernie backwalked bigtime in his interview with Jacobin magazine earlier this year.
“We are a nation of immigrants” BS.
They want you to blame it on powerless minorities. Anything but them.
But you people actually believe that rich people are good and your friends, and that it is people on welfare who are out to get you.
You are hopeless. Just talk amongst yourself. Nobody wants to hear you.
You seem to have almost zero reading skills, or you are simply substituting your own straw men for reality. Have you confused Unz.com with National Review? That is who you seem to be talking about.
The general consensus I see here is that:
1. Our owners want only non-Whites to be upset about losing out. They want Whites to shut up, remain calm and die.
2.Minorities are not powerless, they are deciding the political landscape of whole sections of the country, getting every affirmative action advantage, and a massive transfer of funds. It’s just that non-Asian minorities are too dysfunctional to consistently turn that power into achievement and advancement.
3. Nobody here thinks the rich are good or their friends. In fact many of them even express the opinion that “(((the rich))” are consciously evil and are their mortal enemies. People on welfare are simply their shock troops and stooges.
It’s about 56-57%.
What a novel idea! Imagine: people freely and voluntarily choosing to live with like-minded people making the choices each wants and accepting the benefits and consequences, whatever they are. I like it. It’s so…full of common sense.
Which we already have in place.
Whether they’re “deracinated” is of no relevance to the question of whether they are advancing their own interests.
They are not. They are dooming themselves.