The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Questions
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

An anonymous iSteve commenter has some challenging questions:

These sorts of laments for a lost sense of community are a feature of every lachrymose gentrification piece I’ve read in the last two years. I can’t blame them. How are you supposed to talk to your new neighbours about movies? How many hipster yuppies do you think have absorbed Tyler Perry’s oeuvre? Maybe there’s a buck to be had for an enterprising black studies grad. They can produce integration self-study kits(complete with flashcards) that bring newly-arrived whites up to speed with urban black culture so that the area’s remaining traditional population need not feel like strangers in their own land. The slogan could be “When ‘I voted for Obama twice’ just won’t cut it anymore”.

Similar mourning for a sense of lost community also comes up in aged gay writers’ accounts of their youth in now gentrified gay villages. “Don’t you snotty straight twenty-somethings know that this used to be the best leather bar west of the Mississippi?” and such. In a sane world the decline of the gay village would be viewed as a positive development, with the lesser need for such neighbourhoods being indicative of society’s acceptance of the gay lifestyle.

I wonder if any serious economist has tried to quantify the premium in terms of housing costs that various groups will pay to achieve that sense of communal belonging. During this past year’s bruhaha regarding Asian over-achievement in competitive NYC high school entrance exams, a number of people brought up the fact that many of these Asian kids are living below the poverty line or close to it. One assumes that their immigrant parents’ meager wages would go further outside of NYC city limits. How much more per month is your average Chinese immigrant in New York willing to pay so that they can enjoy the familiarity of Queens?

In a similar vein, given that the populations of virtually every historically white country are being told that anything less than replacement level immigration level will make them poorer, a curious economist might ask:

a)How much poorer?

b)Would the indigenous white populations of said countries be willing to accept being that much poorer if they knew that in exchange they could live in communities that they actually recognized and understood? You know, kind of like how that Chinese immigrant accepts that he’ll have lower savings in exchange for living in Flushing with people who talk, eat and think like him?

Of course, that would mean giving whites a choice in how their country is run, which would be thoroughly undemocratic by the standards of 2018(I’ve actually had white relatives with graduate degrees tell me this to my face). Whites can have plenty of choices. They can decide who to vote for on Dancing With the Stars, what the starting lineup of their favourite sports team should be or what they want to watch on Netflix. The more educated ones can think about whether it’s really time to stop playing Baby, It’s Cold Outside. The really heterodox edgelords among them can hang around Quillette and discuss the various threats to free speech, while only asking the least important questions that true freedom of speech would allow.

A citizen of a democracy in 2018 has no shortage of choices. On the contrary, he has more choices and controversies than he can handle, each framed and designed to earn his click or retweet and absorb ten minutes of his time before he goes on to another, thoroughly convinced that his voice has been heard. The end result of this surfeit of choices is to convince the average person that his choices matter. The ones he does have are portrayed as the most pressing issues of their time, but in reality he’s like a man who eats nothing but cotton candy. In the end he drops dead for lack of substance.

A meaningful set of questions that a serious country might give its people would be something like:

1)Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

2)What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be? How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future? What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble? What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength” into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?(As an aside, most liberals in 2018 confirm the enduring bonds of ethnicity whenever they bitch about having to go to Christmas or Thanksgiving with their MAGA uncle. They put up with it because people will tolerate things from their family that they would never put up with from anyone else, and ethnicity is basically a big extended family)

3)Do you want to leave for your descendants a future where they live as a despised minority, with their continued existence totally at the mercy of a majority who are conditioned from birth to believe that every misfortune or inconvenience they experience is ultimately the work of whites?

4)Do you really believe that you have the right to make such a choice for future generations?

5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?

 
Hide 419 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. 5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?

    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

    What can I say to that…

    • Replies: @Couch Scientist
    The wicked rot of nihilism. When you dont believe anything matters, the default position is not to care.

    How does a people so quickly stop caring about its own surival?

    Living on a thin line, there is no England now.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuGFlP5Duuw
    , @Anonymous
    Ask them why they care so much about global warming.
    , @Peripatetic Commenter

    The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.
     
    In the long run you want their genes flushed from the gene pool not white one, because white genes have brought us a long way.

    Do they really think all those imported cousin impregnators are going to result in the UK doing great things down the road?
    , @Federalist
    "In the long run we are all dead" is not really an answer at all. We are talking about the future, much of which will be after we're dead. But our descendants will be alive. Our future will be other's present.

    In thus context, "In the long run we are all dead" really means "the answer to your question is obvious but it conflicts with the belief system of my secular religion."
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    I've had the same sorts of discussions in real life and online. I've heard the irreducible conclusions that 1) changing the people will NOT change the place, and 2) they will pay our pensions. In the same breath, they will tell you their exurb/subdivision/neighborhood has flipped and they are looking to move. The notion that different people are different and have different preferences and capacities has been anathematized.

    I think lots of whites will just meekly succumb, as in South Africa, retreating behind masonry walls and concertina wire and paying the security company every month.

    Simultaneously, the gun culture is getting more "gunny," if that makes sense, like genetic burn-off in credal communities. I don't see the people displaying the tribal vibe you see at football games or Trump rallies agreeing to their complete marginalization, like the Middle Eastern Christians.
    , @Desiderius
    That you’re lower than a paramecium. Reproduction is all about the long run. We’re alive in the long run of our ancestors.

    That this even needs to be said is utterly pathetic. Keynes was a prat.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

    What can I say to that…
     

    Well, Death does put an end to all tribulations, so they have something of a point.

    But if they are utterly disinterested in the long-run, they at least have an obligation to defer to those who care about their progeny.

    Also, you can officially tell them to STFU about global warming and anything else with long term (post-death) consequences. My guess, however, is that these are the same people who will prattle on about how we are "stewards of the earth for future generations . . . blah, blah, blah."

    , @Lurker
    “in the long run we are all dead"

    In which case no need for them to worry about Social Justice, the N word, the raycisms, cultural appropriation and all the other bullshit. What a relief!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

     

    Wasn't this sentiment first expressed by a man who was both an economist and a poofter?

    The hated (in Britain) Milton Friedman said you can't have both immigration and a welfare state. Note that the only (public) welfare system he supported was the guaranteed minimum income. Applying that concept to the foreign-born exposes the madness quite clearly.

    , @njguy73
    "In the long run we are all dead."
    "Why don't you get a jump on it now, and beat the rush?"
    , @Anonymous
    You can tell them that they must hate their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. But at least they’ll have something in common; their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will hate them back.
    , @pheasant
    isteves foremost Jewish troll both co-opting someones points (in a really obvious way) and spreading nihilism

    Say it aint so!
    , @AnotherDad

    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that…
     
    You can say what normal people have always understood:

    We all die as individuals, but we live on as a people, a culture, a nation, a race, a civilization, through our children.

    And … that people who don't understand that truly are fools who understand nothing.
    , @James N. Kennett

    in the long run we are all dead
     
    When Keynes said this, he was discussing economic policy. Little did he know that future generations would use his aphorism to justify the replacement of the Britain population with Somalis, Congolese, and Pakistanis.
    , @Ibound1
    You can say that you want to leave a better country for your children and grandchildren. Why would anyone want their children to have a more uncomfortable, less prosperous, less safe life?
    , @Anonymous
    This answer is closely followed by "In 50 years we'll all be mixed race and so none of this will matter any more."
    , @ben tillman

    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

    What can I say to that…
     

    That they're wrong! Pretty obvious!

    A human both is constituted by lower-level genetic structures and (at least potentially) is a part of higher-level genetic structures (or organisms). In your case, that organism reckons its age as 5779 tears.

    These lower- and higher-level structures survive the person.

    Or, less scientifically, and more common-sensically, you can say what AnotherDad said:


    You can say what normal people have always understood:

    We all die as individuals, but we live on as a people, a culture, a nation, a race, a civilization, through our children.
     

    , @Anon
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.
    What can I say to that…


    True. The Bible says all is vanity.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1%3A1-18&version=ESV

    And the Sisyphus Myth says the boulder will roll down again. And again and again.

    But then, would it be better for Sisyphus If the boulder could be rolled to the top and it remained there? What would he do then? The very struggle that gave his being meaning would be no more.

    Why do sports teams play the game? They may win the championship, but it won't be the final game to decide everything. There's a new season and new games and new struggle. But without that continuance of struggle, there is no meaning to life.

    In a way, didn't the people of the West(and Japan) grow soft and lost because things got so peaceful and nice for too long? All seemed well, and they got apathetic or decadent. They lost the meaning of true struggle.

    In this struggle, white folks must think foundationally and prophetically. This is what Jews have done. Jews don't look to just improve something that already exists. That's more like the Japanese. They took the essence of Chinese values and culture and improved on them. Japanese also took elements of Western technology and culture, improving them in some cases. But Japanese lack foundational sense. They work on what exists in the first place. They take it, learn, and improve it. They don't think foundationally or prophetically.

    Jews do. Among all the sci-fi writers, who was most prophetic? It was Isaac Asimov with his FOUNDATION series. Now, I only read 1/3 of the first book and found it both original/brilliant and cluttered with too much silly Star-Treky stuff. Still, the central idea was awesome. A sci-fi version of the prophetic mind. A super-consciousness that looks into the future with endless calculations to see how multiple events will interact and play out. It wasn't just about the here-and-now but the hereafter beyond hereafter. It is prophetic.
    But prophecy must serve something. After all, prophecy can never be neutral. It looks to the future -- what could be, may be, will be, must be -- fro a certain vantage point. So, Moses prophesied for the Jewish Tribe, not for all tribes. Therefore, a prophecy needs a powerful foundation that serves as the premise of the far-seeing prophecy. It must uproot rival or existing trees and plant a new one as the new foundation and then let it grow. While Japanese had a unique civilization, it was not a foundational one because the foundational ideas of Japanese civilization came from India(Buddism) and Confucianism(China). Japanese took other foundational trees and trimmed them in bonsai manner to make them unique. And modern Japan took its foundational ideas from the West.

    While Jews also adopted ideas and ways from other peoples, they do have a powerful foundational basis of their civilization. It is the Covenant and their concept of God. Now, if Jews considered themselves a unique people with their own God in a world with other tribes and their gods, their Covenant would have been far less ambitious. But even as Jews formed a special bond with their God, they also said their God is the only God. That means all other gods are false, and that means Jews must eventually rule the world. If the Jewish God is the only God and the God of all and if Jews are the Chosen of this only God, then surely Jews must be masters of the world. This is Jewish foundational thinking, and it is the basis of their grand prophetic vision. Jews think in terms of "how can we foresee, manipulate, shape, twist, and hasten future events to realize the ultimate dream of hegemony or Haga-mony? Such a powerful foundation calls for tremendous power of foresight. We see this in men like Henry Kissinger and George Soros. They calculate how certain tactics and strategies will have such and such effects. They try to foresee and predict what others fail to do so. And even though they serve agendas such as American Interests or Liberal Democracy, there is a core(and hidden) sense of "IS it good for Jews?"

    But, men are not god, and even the 'best' plans may go awry... like so much in Kubrick movies where the Perfect Plan has a fatal flaw that derails the whole plan in the end. (Even HAL fails in 2001.) Most sci-fi writers didn't think foundationally. Ray Bradbury dealt with various aspects of technology and their implications. Asimov was a foundational thinker. This was also true in his Robot Series. (I only read one short story, but I got the gist.) There are foundational rules for a robot-society. Robots must follow three simple rules and these lead to endless permutations. The game is to foresee the outcome of these permutations more than anyone in order to gain mastery over the robot world. It's like in business, those who can see further into the future wins than those who obsess only in the here and now. (Of course, insider knowledge has a lot to do with corruption than genius, but then, there is brilliant corruption and stupid corruption that leads to quick downfall, as with Jordan Belfort who was smart but lacking in cold wisdom.)

    White folks must understand that they are against a force that is foundational and prophetic in its essence. This is why Ellis Island Narrative is so necessary to this power. It isn't just about Jews and later immigrants coming to become good Americans. Its reach is far more ambitious and grandiose. It is to alter the foundational narrative of America from Anglo-beginning to the Immigrant-narrative. Thus, Anglos were not the foundational people of America but merely scouts and adventurers(stained with 'sin' of slavery, btw) whose ultimate goal was to serve as fertilizer to the REAL FOUNDATION of the later immigrants, the holiest poster-children of which are the Jews. So, even though most American Jews have considerable roots in America that goes back nearly 100 yrs or more, they still portray themselves as the embodiment of Real America that was founded and redeemed through massive immigration that must never end because the true foundation of America is Reinvention by immigration. (Granted, Jews might think twice about this IF future immigrants could topple Jews from their high perch, but Jewish prophecy says NO. Browns will be helots, black Africans will need Affirmative Action and side with Jews, and yellows will be dogs due to servile personality. So, more immigration only fulfills the Jewish foundational prophecy. Eventually, the Anglo/Americans are to be replaced by non-white Immigrant-Waves who shall serve the Jews since America-as-Immigration-nation is their foundational idea.)

    Foundational ideas are most powerful. It is the basis upon which all else follow. It's like analog vs digital. If the foundational technology is analog, then all the talent will go to improving the potential of analog. But if the foundational technology is digital, then all the talent will go to improving the possibilities of digital. Most people are sheeple and conformists. They lack broader sense of things. So, they work within a narrow framework of what is presented to them. They don't dare to question the foundational premises and principles of their limited existence. Now, if Jews had been like most other immigrants, they too would have accepted the pre-existing Anglo/American foundation and tried to fit in. But Jews didn't survive 2000 yrs in exile by thinking thus. They are a Covenant-Conscious people, and they just had to, consciously or subconsciously, propose a New foundational idea for America that would favor their own vaunted place in American Society. They sought to do the same in Russia with communism(that, for a time, was great for Jewish power). And Jews have succeeded in this in the US, which is why even so many moron whites cheer for their own replacement since they are convinced that the essential foundation of America is IMMIGRATION-NATION.

    Things have gotten so bad that whites are lost as to what to do. Because so many people, whites included, are convinced that 'racism' is the worst sin -- any pro-white idea is 'racist' -- , they feel paralyzed to act in their own self-interest. So, how do white folks counter and topple the current Foundation? Since it's deemed wrong for whites to be pro-white, whites must(for the time being) find a way to counter the Current Foundation by proposing to serve Another People. And that people should be the Indians. The New Narrative must be that the true covenant of America is between Indians and Nature that goes back 20,000 yrs. Yes, that is sacred, timeless, and noble America. But Immigration destroyed this covenant between the red man and nature. From this perspective, immigration is associated with 'genocide', imperialism, destruction of nature, and bad stuff. So, anyone who is pro-immigration becomes associated with imperialism, 'genocide', and despoilment of nature.
    Then, what is the most urgent and profound responsibility of America? To restore Indian culture, honor, and pride. And to restore sacred nature. Indian-Nature covenant must be made the core essence of America. And the main duty of whites must be to the native folks who were destroyed by IMMIGRATION. Such a foundation can undermine the Immigration Narrative. (Now, there is no need for whites to worry since Indians will never really reclaim the land and take over in any manner -- demographically, economically, politically, and etc. Their main value will be symbolic as the TRUE CHAMPION VICTIMS of America, a people esp destroyed by Immigration. Indians will never retake America like Jews retook the Holy Land. But Indian-Zioninsm or Inzionism will be of great moral and propagandistic value for whites in undermining the Immigration Narrative. Libs like to emote, "But what about the children?" Anglo/Americans must emote, "What about the Indians?" They must confess that their biggest crime was 'genocide' of Indians that resulted from Immigration. So, immigration must stop NOW so that whites can focus on restoring Indians and redeeming America's main historical 'sin'. And nature must be restored too. America was a world of natural bounty, but so much of it was lost due to arrival of so many peoples. Therefore, in order to restore nature, immigration must be stopped. Whites must push for super-environmentalism that seeks to restore many areas back to nature. (At least 1/3 of each state must be restored to pristine nature.) If immigration-lobby says that a certain town is decaying and needs to be revived by immigrants, white must say, "No, it must be restored to nature." Tear things down and build a pond and let a forest grow and let animals return.

    Inzionism can overturn the current foundation of America as an Immigration Nation. Now, it'd be nice to refound America as an Anglo/American nation but the Anglo label has been so tarred that it's not possible in the near term. But INDIGENOUS RIGHTS, that is powerful even by rules of PC. So, the foundational principle of America must go from Immigration Nation to Indigenous Nation, i.e. All Americans from the Old World should feel remorse for what immigration did to the indigenous folks. So, all future policies must focus on "Is it good for the Inzions?" And is it good for Nature, which existed in covenant with the Indians who were dancing with wolves, beavers, gophers, and 'buffaloes'.

    We must demand a statue of Geronimo, Sitting Bull, or Crazy Horse in D.C., and it must be 3x bigger than MLK statue, the bouncer on the mall. And school textbooks must make kids revere Chief Dan George as the real 'founding father' of America. (And since 20% of cowboys were black, blacks must also apologize for their 'genocide' of the red man. And Chinese must share in the guilt for building railroads that hastened the conquest of all Western territories.) And we must demand that a giant Indian statue be built next to the Statue of Liberty with a plaque that says, "Immigration reduced us Indians to a bunch of wretched huddled masses chewing on stale bacon in Reservations. And give back Manhattan, and here's your stinking bead." And Pocahontas must be condemned as an 'Aunt Tomahawk' traitor.

    Now, if Indians had any real chance of retaking America, this would be a stupid move. But they don't, and so, they will be of only symbolic value in the Narrative-Moral War.

    Our true founding father: https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w500/qGPiWgk9gblAPiF2Az1g2nkZlLx.jpg
    , @James N. Kennett

    in the long run we are all dead
     
    and this is why anyone who has heard Keynes' aphorism avoids using the phrase "in the long run".

    It is reasonable to ask what the country or the world will be like in 100 years' time, and the answer "we'll all be dead then" would be considered thoughtless and narcissistic. Using the phrase "in the long run" sets a rhetorical trap that invites Keynes' reply, which appears reasonable and witty, but for many questions is just as poor an answer as "we'll all be dead then".
  2. )Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

    That’s been done already. It happened when Dershowitz’s dirty ancestors were allowed a place at the table. I guess that’s what you were getting at.

  3. white men have no real right to decide anything seeing as how they have and continue to only created death and destruction. Like Leonard Pitts says white men have 1000 years of affirmative action and it’s time to level the playing field.

    Without white privilege white males would have no wealth

    • Replies: @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Affirmative action is for weak people who are unable to achieve success on their own merits.

    White people never had affirmative action. We built the greatest civilizations in the history of mankind by blood, sweat, and tears. It is your beloved non-whites who must have hand outs to avoid poverty and misery.

    And sadly, even with the white man's handouts, your people are generally unable to rise above a very low level of existence.
    , @duncsbaby
    Blacks had a few thousand years of affirmative action in Africa and all it got them was leopard-skin loin cloths & communicating by drum. (the communicating by drum thing is kinda cool, I give 'em that.) - white guy wandering in the waste land wondering what he did wrong.
    , @El Dato

    white men have no real right to decide anything seeing as how they have and continue to only created death and destruction.
     
    Is it time to take the "right" (as defined by the Twitter Mob, no doubt) back and create some more?

    Cordon off bad areas NOW, see how it works out.
  4. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    The wicked rot of nihilism. When you dont believe anything matters, the default position is not to care.

    How does a people so quickly stop caring about its own surival?

    Living on a thin line, there is no England now.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    Phony nihilism. It's a pose; a slave's cope.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "How does a people so quickly stop caring about its own surival? "

    One way is to convince them to stop having children. It's been working.
    , @Bill B.
    Is this actual nihilism? Living on a thin line presumably alludes to The Thin Red Line of Scottish soldiers (200) who rebuffed a much bigger force of Russian Cavalry in the Crimean war: ie there is hope in extremis?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Red_Line_(Battle_of_Balaclava)
  5. > 5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?

    Petain, Laval, and their cronies, 1940? No, AFAIK they thought they were playing a very bad hand, as best they could.

    The elites of the 5th Century Western Roman Empire? No, AFAIK they accommodated their new overlords because they didn’t see any alternatives.

    I’m stumped.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Christian minorities in middle eastern Muslim countries might be an example. They were at least tolerated for years but now are on the receiving end of active persecution. They may be entirely extinct in another generation.
    , @Emblematic
    The whites in South Africa who handed control of their country over to the blacks.
  6. I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It’s my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let’s debate, but once the debate is settled, let’s get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of “giving up” on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don’t know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife’s family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    • Agree: Carol, Thea
    • Replies: @Chase
    The United States is dead. I’m sorry to tel you that; it absolutely breaks my heart. But we aren’t a nation, we are a dying empire.

    It’s not really even bad. Most everything done since 1969 has been a massive mistake. When the country is partitioned, we will be able to get back to what we were doing before we were convinced establishing an equal utopia on earth was an aspirational goal.
    , @RunningMan
    You are fully invested because your wife is vietnamese and your kids are the new Multiculti Kids

    You are the Multicult
    , @Whiskey
    I agree there is nowhere to run to, but there is no more USA. Just a global extended stay hotel. Whites are a minority of births already.

    Non Whites still demand gibs.

    The end will be either a collapse of the welfare state but the Purge movies 24/7 directed at Whites or some sort of enslavement of Whites. Either way the gibs will be paid.

    There might be a nominal US but various spheres controlled by the Chinese, Mexico, etc.

    Never underestimate the willingness of other Goodwhites to make you and yours pay the gibsgeld. Gibs must always be paid.

    On a wider note the alternatives for White peoples is either fight against non Whites like Kurds against their enemies or submission to serfdom.

    Citizenship is essentially just the road to serfdom. Gibs must always be paid.
    , @Anonymous

    My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife’s family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from.
     
    Congresswoman Stephanie Đặng Thị Ngọc Dung Murphy is a Democrat representing FL-7. She too was a refugee from Vietnam. Her record and positions are comparable to Nancy Pelosi. Few non-white immigrants give a shit about the America our dad’s went off to war to defend. They want the international airport America in CA that you had to flee.
    , @Bard of Bumperstickers
    Why preserve the nation? The several states formed the nation, with the understanding that any or all of the states retained self-determination and the right of secession. Secession - the right to refuse - was inherent in the formation of America, as recognized by the Framers, who'd seceded from Britain. Dissolve Washington, D.istrict of C.riminals, and Merry Christmas, rest of planet! Feed the Yemenis, instead of the banks, for Christmas!
    , @International Jew

    Many a comment thread contains professions of “giving up” on the United States
     
    I've been following this story since about when Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation came out. The sense of impending doom wasn't as palpable ten or twenty years ago.
    , @anon
    I appreciate your comments. My wife is also from Vietnam, and my ancestors on my mother and father's side have been here since before 1776. We were Confederates in 1861.
    I don't know if the 50 states will stay together. It will be better for all of us if they do, because any dissolution will not be peaceful, and any newly formed separate states will be at war with each other going forward. The Kamala Harris' will see to that.
    On the other hand my strongest loyalty is not to the USA. If the country splits up I will return to Arkansas and take my chances there.
    And to those on the blog who don't like the Vietnamese, I say I accept your hate and return it ten-fold. Make sure you don't set foot on my land.
    , @bomag

    We cannot all have our way every time.
     
    But the "way" that was taken for granted in 1800; 1850; 1900; and 1950 has been compromised away in an attempt to accommodate critics.

    Now the critics just hate us even more, and have convinced many to actively abolish themselves.

    We've come to a point where we've given away too much. We need to take some back, or live on in a compromised existence.
    , @(((Owen)))

    Let’s debate, but once the debate is settled, let’s get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.
     
    That's how it used to be. But it can only work when both sides intend to continue living with each other in a going nation. If your grandchildren and mine and their yet-unimagined grandchildren all expected to live in the same nation and have similar debates and compromise with each other, then we could all accept losing sometimes. Even those of us who lost today's debates would still be part of the community and still participate in the decisions next year, next decade, and even next century through our posterity.

    But the game has changed. We're being replaced. There are about 220MM of us who are the children of the 200MM Americans of the early 1970s, 45 years ago. But the population is 335MM. Fully one third of the people in this country are new arrivals and their posterity and their values are not the same as ours.

    They expect to have their way and they've been selected to match the preferences of just a few of our existing factions. Those factions see it as their ultimate victory over us. After centuries of working together, they've quit the long game of cooperation and trading victories and brought in foreign ringers to end us. They've switched from the game of centuries to the game of total annihilation.

    And there won't be a debate next generation. And our posterity won't share the same community with the same conversations decades or centuries from now. They've chosen to end the long covenant and now it's all over.

    The new foreigners will set our future now and we will go on as tolerated minorities within it. The winners that imported the ringers will soon find they don't control their factions either. Pro-peace and pro-environment and pro-working families Democrats have already seen it happening.

    Democracy is the obvious first casualty. When you've permanently replaced your enemies with outsiders, you can't expect them to accept the legitimacy of those votes. Republicans see little reason to accept popular voting against their gerrymanders and rural state advantages anymore now that the vote margin is made up of foreigners brought in against their will. And the other faction has already chosen replacement and abandoned any pretense of persuasion.

    The nation as a going concern is next. Will it be a breakup, an exodus, a collapse? Maybe, but the successful sabotage of common purpose and investment means that America as a land and a people cannot continue.

    I'm sorry that this is happening to us. We were warned, back when there was time to fix it. But it's all over. Don't expect anyone to finish the debate and get behind the country anymore. It's all fights to the death from here on out.

    , @Corvinus
    Gold box for your comment.
  7. “Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst?”

    When I watch BBC shows that are set in the Period from 1910-1965, that are historically accurate in terms of their casting (all white people), I’m transfixed by the beauty of the land and the wonderful architecture that has endured for so many centuries. It even survived the Blitz.

    It didn’t survive Leftism, though. Now, every single time I see a beautiful church, I think to myself “oh, that will make a lovely mosque.” The stately libraries I’m not too sure about, since you don’t need much of a library when you only read one book, the Koran.

    Are they crazy? Are they tired? Are they hypnotized? Of course, I could direct all of those questions to myself and my neighbors, since we seem to be doing the same thing.

    Is it the end of Empire, ala John Glubb? Or is the West just tired out, ready for replacement by men who still tell their wives to take care of their eight kids?

    As far as answers are concerned, my answer is Trump and Trumpism. Stand up and say what other people cringe from, and keep pushing for every last step in the right direction. Money for a real wall, removal of all non-citizens, an end to immigration except for real necessity. A move forward to a vigorous masculine society.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Real necessity? Jesus, this nonsense always slips in. There is no reason to accept a single immigrant to the F.U.S.A. It's been full-up for at least a century. It can find astronauts and nuclear engineers among the children of the astronauts and nuclear engineers who were here before all this madnes started. There is not now, and never has been in history, any shortages of skills or labour: only deficiencies of wages from stingy, rich assholes.
  8. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    Ask them why they care so much about global warming.

    • LOL: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Travis
    They show "concern" about Global Warming to virtue signaling to improve their status and to avoid being mocked as a denier. Similar reason they fear being critical of the globalists, they do not want to be associated with the deplorables who oppose open borders for fear of hurting their status. The Globalist elite have the media, academia, churches, and big corporations on their side to mock and attack those who oppose them.

    even those who oppose our open borders and secretly wish Trump will build the wall live in fear of being exposed. Supporting the president brings tremendous risks to ones career and livelihood in America today. Just as those who question the feminist dogma will be fired from their jobs, those who support funding the wall face being persecuted and even physically attacked if they actually wear a MAGA hat in any big city.
    , @415 reasons
    I have had the same dialogue with my father, my daughter’s grandfather. Why do you care what the weather is 200 years from now if you don’t care about whether she will live in a country that’s more like the U.S. or more like Brazil twenty years from now? I am received with blank stares...
  9. Kevin Purcell’s Philly War Zone is a good account of losing your neighborhood.

  10. Kevin Purcell’s Philly War Zone is a good account of losing your neighborhood.

    5.0 out of 5 starsGrowing up in SWP (1960-1970)
    July 31, 2014
    Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
    I grew up at 58th & Warrington and lived there from 1960 until the neighborhood changed totally in 1970. As a kid I went to grade school at Longstreeth then MBS. We moved to another section of SWP (Finnegan Playground) in 1970 and I later went to West Catholic.

    As a young kid I remember playing at Myers Playground with many of my friends. During this time the neighborhood was just about all white. I remember hearing my parents talk about the Realtors block breaking.

    From 1969-1970 the neighborhood got so bad me and my brother would have to cut thru the allys as we were being chased by groups of blacks. The breaking point was when my father and mother took us out to dinner on a Sunday and hanging out on our front steps was a group of about 10 blacks in their late teens (maybe early 20’s). My father went up the steps first but the blacks wouldn’t move so my father said to make room so we could all go up the steps to get to our front door. I remember one punk was the leader and he got up and told my father he had to say please or he wouldn’t move. My father was a former boxer and was 40 years old at the time so he could still handle himself BUT my mother interceded and said please let us get by. That was the day my father swallowed his pride for the safety of his family.

    Later that evening I remember my mother and father talking and my father saying that was it we were moving. Soon after we put our house up for sale. Eventually my father bought another house by Finnegan Playground and continued to pay the mortgage on the first house as well as the new house.

    The last story I will mention is when I was 9 or 10. Our next door neighbors were black and my parents and them were great friends. Me and the one son Eddie were best of friends for the couple years we lived next door to each other. That all changed one day when me and my brother were playing at Cobbs Creek and Eddie was with a group of his friends who were all black. I remember like it was yesterday that I said hi to him and his friends told him to fight me. I’m sure it was peer pressure but he came at me and we fought. I remember the other kids pushing my brother and them calling me a hunkie. That is a day etched in my mind FOREVER.

    In trying to sell our house the neighborhood was so bad my dad kept dropping the price on the house until he could no longer afford to pay 2 mortgages. It was then he sold our house for $1 just to transfer the mortgage over to the new owners name who took over the remaining mortgage. My father lost 10 years of equity on that house.

    These are but a few stories of how a tight knit working class neighborhood was transformed into a Racial War Zone with whites having to band together just to go school or the corner store or to play at the playground or shop on Woodland Ave.

    These are just a few of my memories that at that time shaped my life whether right, wrong or indifferent. I’m sure many of the blacks growing up looked at it in the opposite light – that’s human nature.

    A day doesn’t go by that I don’t think about both of the neighborhoods I grew up in SWP!

    • Replies: @bomag
    Knew a few people from that area/time. The sense of loss is profound.

    Reminds us that it is hard to preserve nice things.
  11. 3. Do you want to leave for your descendants a country in which they are a despised minority.

    The problem is politically correct whites despise their own group already.

  12. “3)Do you want to leave for your descendants a future where they live as a despised minority, with their continued existence totally at the mercy of a majority who are conditioned from birth to believe that every misfortune or inconvenience they experience is ultimately the work of whites?”

    Very good: the rise of anti-Gentileism. Perhaps people should write )))whites(((?

  13. 1)Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst?

    NO.

    To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own?

    Deport Them.

    To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

    Send Them Into Exile In Sub-Saharan Africa.

  14. 1. Yes, my ancestors were racist misogynists who would have cast me out for my lifestyle. I spit on “white American heritage” and anyone else who does so is a friend of mine. Also, immigrants and People of Color are more attuned to progressive thinking (gun control, opposition to Christian supremacy, promotion of diversity) so I support them and their ascendancy.

    2. This is so ridiculous it doesn’t deserve an answer. People of Color get along great and love each other. Only in the minds of old white men do People of Color have any beef with each with other. Plus, we as a society have a healthy narrative going forward: the destruction and eternal vigilance against white supremacy. This is the great battle of our time and what we must undertake for the benefit of future generations.

    3. Two things: First People of Color know what it is to be brutalized so they will be reasonably merciful. Second, if you don’t want this (ridiculous) scenario to take place encourage your children to breed with People of Color. Simply, if white people do not exist they cannot be “discriminated” exist.

    4. Did white males have the right to colonize rape enslave murder and pillage Societies of Color?

    5. The past is the past. This is not a serious question. It is time for we whites to do what is right not what is white.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Tiny, Ginsburg is circling the drain. Won't it be fun when trump picks another SC justice?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-undergoes-surgery/ar-BBRh3Kl?ocid=spartanntp
    , @fish
    Ohs Tinys......

    Yeah you spit som oh Lenderms “white herbitage” yesterday’s which be why Lenderg was mad witchu. Baby .....why yo make Ike.....err Lendert .....hitchu!? Member what I be tellz you. You gots to swallerz don spit!

    Lendert “teh wurdsmit” Pit
    , @unpc downunder
    The great irony here is that people like you are useful idiots for the rich white males you claim to despise. Ever since leftist identity politics went into overdrive in the early 1990s, rich white males have been getting richer.

    Why are you so keen to be a bitch for the rich?
    , @Big Bill

    Two things: First People of Color know what it is to be brutalized so they will be reasonably merciful.
     
    Stockholm Syndrome. Even if you give your wife or girlfriend to them to spawn colored kids as racial atonement, they aren't going to be merciful.
    , @Prester John
    Duckling, do please avoid the tiresome cliche "People of Color" in the same breath with "White Racists". It makes no logical sense in as much as "white" is defined as a "color".
    , @Mr. Anon
    We don't care what you think, Tiny. We only care what Leonard Pitts thinks.
  15. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

    In the long run you want their genes flushed from the gene pool not white one, because white genes have brought us a long way.

    Do they really think all those imported cousin impregnators are going to result in the UK doing great things down the road?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    "Not my problem" is how they'd reply.
  16. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    “In the long run we are all dead” is not really an answer at all. We are talking about the future, much of which will be after we’re dead. But our descendants will be alive. Our future will be other’s present.

    In thus context, “In the long run we are all dead” really means “the answer to your question is obvious but it conflicts with the belief system of my secular religion.”

    • Agree: Tyrion 2, bomag
  17. Women love invasion. Even more Alpha men to replace their beta males. Women have zero ethnic loyalty. See Vichy France. Every woman she 17 to 40 was sleeping with an invader. While their men toiled in labor camps.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Ludicrous! French women over 40 also want invaders!!
    , @Svigor
    Blocked. Dunno why I waited so long. You never had jack shit to say.
    , @Redneck farmer
    Would you just give up and become a chubby chaser, please?
    , @Hhsiii
    Women were about 15% of the resistance and of political deportations to concentration camps in france
    , @BB753
    Women always end up fornicating with the victors, be they their own kinsmen, or with the enemies, over the bodies of their slain menfolk.
  18. 5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?

    Not sure about how #3&4 exactly apply, but since the ‘Apiru emerged in the Bronze Age, the Jews seem to have specialized in being the minority. Such an existence seems to have had its ups and downs.

    On the whole, I’d say my folk are behind the learning curve on that one.

  19. a number of people brought up the fact that many of these Asian kids are living below the poverty line or close to it.

    My foot. Technically, yes, because so many Asians work cash businesses, and they aren’t like stupid white people who will report earnings honestly to the government. They under-report to a great degree, cash business or not, and they take full advantage of every government grift that’s available. And in New York City, you’ve got not only Federal programs to grift, but myriads of local state and city programs as well.

    And of course, by this time, the bureaucracies that make the yes/no decisions on these things are themselves stuffed full of Asians (and every other group), and they are perfectly willing to overlook a few pertinent details when it comes to approving Mr. Chang (who happens to own a construction business that employs 45 people, but he makes only $20,000 a year) for whatever welfare program he’s applying for.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    AGREED!

    They are really struggling ... on paper. As to the corruption by their fellow ethnics in the vast bureaucracies "running" NY City, I am sure that must be the case. How else can you have a famous always-packed Chinese restaurant in Queens Chinatown taking cash only? Any honest official would know that the tax receipts don't add up to 8% (or whatever it is) of the bills from all these people.

    Yes, they say "Cash Only" right on the wall near the register. I could tell you about some Chinese-run "hotels" that pay no tax of any sort, income, commercial property tax, hotel tax, sales tax, none, mayo! I'd like to see the day when the absentee landlord comes from Hong Kong or Chongqing to check on his place. "WTF?! Get these people out of my apartment!" "Hey wait, I just paid for 3 nights, you can't just ..." "Whaaa, pay, you no pay, show me receipt ... "
    , @Jewishsceptic
    Couldn't agree with you more. Reminds me of kiryas Joel, the poorest municipality in the US
    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-village-with-the-numbers-not-the-image-of-the-poorest-place.html
    A laughable thought to anyone even remotely familiar with this community.

    On another note, the Amazon HQ2 deal with NYS and NYC políticos, has accelerated the organization of various activist groups in many Queens neighborhoods, and a common demand is the cessation of any cooperation on Amazon's part with ICE, as that destroys 'communities'. While on the balance the core concept behind their demands is legitimate, that the city should serve the concerns of it's inhabitants, and not use their tax dollars for the creation of jobs that will benefit the relatively few and price the existing residents out of their own homes. The self identify of these neighborhoods is as immigrants and essentially everyone either is an illegal, was an illegal, has a very close relation that is an ilegal, or is dependent on building and extending their clan via the ridiculous family unification laws. (The illegal category being Hispanics and often Chinese, and the latter being pakis and other middle easterners). The remnants of the middle class in NYC (whites whole aren't too percenters) are vilified and forced to abandon maybe the only real perk of NYC, the choice of high quality public schools

    , @RW
    I'm sure in many cases that is true. A Chinese/English interpreter I know who worked with incoming immigrants to Britain explained that many of them had some scam going where they would report that they were unemployed while at the same time working under the table. This is the kind of externality that does not get accounted for in calculating how much immigration supposedly enriches native populations.
  20. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    I’ve had the same sorts of discussions in real life and online. I’ve heard the irreducible conclusions that 1) changing the people will NOT change the place, and 2) they will pay our pensions. In the same breath, they will tell you their exurb/subdivision/neighborhood has flipped and they are looking to move. The notion that different people are different and have different preferences and capacities has been anathematized.

    I think lots of whites will just meekly succumb, as in South Africa, retreating behind masonry walls and concertina wire and paying the security company every month.

    Simultaneously, the gun culture is getting more “gunny,” if that makes sense, like genetic burn-off in credal communities. I don’t see the people displaying the tribal vibe you see at football games or Trump rallies agreeing to their complete marginalization, like the Middle Eastern Christians.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    1) If changing the people will not change the place, then diversity can't be a strength. At best it has zero impact.

    2) This is not true. It's repeated by supposedly respectable journalists and media outlets as if it is, but it just isn't true. Even in Canada, which has one of the highest(if not the highest) sustained rates of immigration in the developed world(and some of the most skilled immigrants), even Trudeau's planned increase in immigration numbers will barely put a dent in the changes to the worker-dependent ratio in the coming decades. According to a report released earlier this year from the perfectly-respectable C.D Howe Institute, to preserve the dependency ratio at its current level through immigration alone, Canada would basically need to quadruple its immigration rate and keep it there until the early 2030's. A few decades later they would need to do the same thing again, on an even larger scale, once that batch of immigrants aged out of the workforce. The only possible solution is a longer working life. Plan accordingly.

    When I read that I was shocked. Surely this must be national news! My whole life I've been told that immigrants were going to pay our pensions, and now we can't rely on that? This is basically the most important national revelation in decades. Why aren't more people bringing this up? But almost nobody did. It didn't cause a ripple. A few months later via a letter to the editor in the Ottawa Citizen, I found out why. According to the civil servant in charge of Canada's immigration department in the late 1980's, the fact that no conceivable level of immigration could solve the dependency ratio was well understood in government circles decades ago.

    This also misses the fact that in the late 1980's the average immigrant to Canada would put more into government coffers over the course of his life than he'd take out. That's since changed, so even if immigration could maintain the ratio of workers to pensioners, it wouldn't matter because the immigrant workers would be consuming more in services than they contributed in taxes, which is the exact opposite of the rationale for their being admitted in the first place.
    , @ben tillman

    I’ve had the same sorts of discussions in real life and online. I’ve heard the irreducible conclusions that 1) changing the people will NOT change the place, and 2) they will pay our pensions.
     
    1. No one cares about "the place".

    2. No fucking way. And, who cares? Who wants to live to watch his kind eradicated?
    , @Corvinus
    "I think lots of whites will just meekly succumb, as in South Africa, retreating behind masonry walls and concertina wire and paying the security company every month."

    Whites like yourself?
  21. 1)Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

    If my own reading of the literature on the sociology of immigration is any guide (and I did quite a lot of it in 1996), the notion that you’re obligated to adapt to immigrants has been taken-for-granted by academics who specialize in the study of immigration to such a degree that locating a contrary perspective requires some rummaging around. George Borjas was in that era the only researcher you were likely to locate who might be classified as an immigration skeptic, and his work was meticulous, quantitative, and addressed dry pragmatic considerations. Samuel Huntington was writing a few years later. His work was pitched to general audiences. Specifically scholarly work on immigration is not his book, nor is the sort of social theory wherein one might advance a normative argument.

    What your commenter is addressing is the ‘unification of the elites’ and the manifestation of certain attitudes as markers of in-groups and out-groups among the professional-managerial set. A couple of years back, I saw a story about a physician and hospital administrator of some prominence who was fired from his job for making blandly factual statements (nestled in a critical assumptions) about male homosexuality in an intramural memorandum. Even clinical faculty with multi-year contracts are at-will employees when the narcissitic gay mafia might be offended.

    And you see the universal assumption in higher education, absent only when an institution is so demand deficient it needs any body it can get, that non-ethnic white males are a malignancy whose very presence is an embarrassment and a threat to the status of your institution. The closest you get to a dissent on that point would be a small current of academics (e.g. Glynn Custred) who are inveterate advocates of rank-ordering according to grades and test scores. The social and cultural contempt at the heart of these assumptions is not directly addressed by anyone.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    The closest you get to a dissent on that point would be a small current of academics (e.g. Glynn Custred) who are inveterate advocates of rank-ordering according to grades and test scores.

    In their own well-meaning way, those academics are part of the problem. They are idealistic believers in color-blind meritocracy. That only works when everybody plays by the same amiable, individualist rulebook.
    , @OilcanFloyd

    If my own reading of the literature on the sociology of immigration is any guide (and I did quite a lot of it in 1996), the notion that you’re obligated to adapt to immigrants has been taken-for-granted by academics who specialize in the study of immigration to such a degree that locating a contrary perspective requires some rummaging around.
     
    Making immigration, or any of our current problems, into an academic argument is waste of time, and likely by design. Any ordinary person could have told you 60 years ago that our post-64 immigration would be a nightmare, which is why none of it was ever voted on.

    None of our current problems will be solved by academic arguments, or by censoring unpopular views.
    , @bomag
    Is the Academy even useful? It consumes vast amounts of money to give us childless women; worship of the homo, trans, and various Others; radical politics that are counter-productive; studies that don't replicate; etc.

    Time to release those detained and auction off the property.
  22. Great questions and exactly the type a questions a serious nation would ask. I have asked these questions of white liberals and they are stumped because they have never been told how to think about this beyond we are a nation of immigrants and diversify is our strength. They also conclude I am a stupid bigot for asking these questions.

  23. Speaking of community, this story is wonderfully intersectional.

    https://nypost.com/2018/12/21/chemistry-student-accused-of-poisoning-his-roommate/

    Yukai Yang, a 22-year-old international student from China, was arraigned Thursday on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, simple assault and reckless endangerment in connection to the alleged plot to kill his former roommate, Juwan Royal, who continues to suffer symptoms from the incidents that began in February, prosecutors said.

    • Replies: @Antonius
    Who does not empathize with the hapless Yang
  24. I wonder if any serious economist has tried to quantify the premium in terms of housing costs that various groups will pay to achieve that sense of communal belonging.

    The complaints about ‘gentrification’ are largely humbug. Housing costs don’t get ahead of changes in nominal incomes for very long. When neighborhood A is attracting more affluent residents, neighborhood B will be attracting more impecunious ones. If you own your home, your mortgage payments do not increase if the neighborhood improves. If you’re renting, it can be a problem. The thing is, though, that about half the people living in rental housing are singles or in pairs and about half the people have lived at their current address for < 5 years. Its not typically a population for whom moving carries severe frictional costs and it's not by and large a population expecting to stay put. Also, propinquity ceased to be an important vector in influencing personal association 40-odd years ago. Unless they have children enrolled in school together, neighbors are not typically well-acquainted. Again, most people in rental housing are singles, young couples, and unrelated persons sharing rent. I suspect if you look under the hood, you'll find the source of protests about gentrification would be NGO employees who get paid to protest, playing on the social hostility of a selection of residents.

    • Replies: @Bill
    "Again, most people in rental housing are singles, young couples, and unrelated persons sharing rent."

    At best technically true. Downscale blacks living in urban environments live in rental units. The have one adult or a random grab-bad of unrelated adults. These households look strange to white people both in data and in person. However, children are very often present, and this is what a an urban, downscale, black family looks like.

    The only people who live in such a unit the way white people mean live are a matriarch who provides the income and her own minor children. However, there is often a rotating grab-bag of other individuals including minor children relatives, adult relatives and various minor and adult friends.

    The claim that these people do not experience significant moving costs is batshit crazy. The matriarchs form geographically localized alliances with one another which are disrupted by moving. The disruptions are costly to themselves, their own children, and the random grab-bag of other individuals rotating through the household.

    When people bitch about gentrification, it is this they are ostensibly bitching about.

    , @Daniel Williams

    The complaints about ‘gentrification’ are largely humbug.
     
    It’s a different for blacks.

    They do know their neighbors. They aren’t afraid to go outside, and for the most part are too poor to amuse themselves aside from watching TV, playing with their phones, and socializing with their neighbors.

    Plus, the phenomenon of “outside kids” makes for larger and more complicated families than anything most whites—and especially white yuppies—are used to. Imagine if you had three or four half-siblings, who in turn had grown up with several others of their own? (This probably also encourages inadvertent cousin-marriage in the ‘hood. Someone should study this.)

    Yes, virtually all of these people rent their apartments (and they move a lot) but when they move, they don’t go far. It’s not like they’re following jobs with IBM, so they might as well stay close to grandma.

    Gentrification is real—and a big deal to the people—because eventually their new rich neighbors tire of being intimidated or attacked by blacks, and then develop the political power to have the blacks’ tenements torn down (in the name of some social ideal). The blacks are then given Section 8 vouchers for housing in distant exurban “communities” as all the local stuff becomes prohibitively expensive.

  25. The notion of community is also seen in how refugees are settled. Rather than finding homes across the nation for them, they are consolidated into their own enclaves which simultaneously recreates their old community and often leaves the natives feeling they are the odd man out.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    They're not coming here for here. They're coming here to make a better there.
    , @Art Deco
    I re Cuban migrants ca. 1962, the federal authorities tried scattering them all over the country. By 1990, 77% of all people listing Cuban origin were living in Florida. The clotting occurs naturally.
  26. Not sure how many other soon-to-be minorities feel the same way, but my attitude is that part of my duty to my kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on when taxes are crushing their paychecks to fund the massive welfare state we’ll have in the future to keep the ultra-diverse population docile.

    I suspect that when the population finally tips to minority white, it will be discovered that the gap in household wealth in different racial/ethnic groups that is often bemoaned today has not changed at all.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "when the population finally tips to minority white, it will be discovered that the gap in household wealth in different racial/ethnic groups that is often bemoaned today has not changed at all."
     
    Oh it will be discovered all right, and they will have just the cure for it! And now they will have the 51% of the votes they need to enact it.

    Hint: it won't involve the poorer groups making any effort to earn or save more. If you think you have heard the last of the "Reparations Now!" scam, think again. Just wait ... just wait ...

    , @Baxter
    I believe you are probably correct in that prediction. The federal government has spent who knows how many hundreds of billion exclusively on negro improvement and yet negros are at the bottom of every category besides sports.
    What might be a doomsday scenario is the welfare state collapse.
    , @snorlax
    Pieces of paper saying you own this or that mean nothing without the power of the state to back them up.
    , @Almost Missouri
    I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but once "we" become minority, all bets are off. All the rule-of-law things that we now take for granted, will go out the window. Our descendants will have to learn a whole new political philosophy: not much philosophy--or even much politics--it will be simply Might Makes Right.

    You say your "duty to [your] kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on", but has it occurred to you that when law means whatever the rulers say it means, then "equity" will become their equity, "real estate" will state their reality, etc. All your painstakingly accumulated assets for them, the fruit of your devotion, labor and commitment, will become liabilities: giant glowing bullseyes in the sights of the vibrant SJW coercive state and their Great Social Justice Program to redistribute unjust assets away from your descendants to their own cronies?

    I have written here before about a friend's modest and self-reliant family in Cuba who assumed they had nothing to fear from the Castro-ist revolution, and how wrong they turned out to be, so I won't repeat it now. Consider instead a (thinly) fictional story in The Atlantic(?) ten or twenty years ago set in South Africa. A middle class white family wakes up to find they now have a black family living in their back yard, peremptorily requesting handouts from the homeowners. The homeowners are distressed, a little afraid, but find there is nothing the authorities will do about it as it is an increasingly common situation which may have some meta-"justice" in it. What's more, they find out that other neighbors have worse families living in their yards, so the homeowners aren't really so badly off. Then the black family in their yard drives off even more predatory would-be yard-invaders, so the homeowners actually feel kind of grateful for their new property sharing situation.

    This will be a best case scenario.
    , @AuctionStreet
    I've taken your path as well in addition to the following.

    - I grew up shooting, hunting and doing martial arts. My children have as well.
    - All my kids have passports.
    - I have foreign bank accounts in predictable countries.
    - Have gold, cash and guns on hand and preferably in multiple locations along your planned egress routes.

    - If you aren't country folk (I'm a hillbilly) get on good terms with some. You might need to bail out to a position further from the urban nightmares.

    - Give your kids Derbyshire's "The Talk" when they are old enough. Kids will go through their idealistic phase. I found that telling them the PoC hate how they look and want to take their money was highly, highly effective.
  27. Yes. We’re supposed to simply be agreeable little WEM’s & Femmes and just say yes as we willingly walk to the scaffold.

    Some of the best results, and bonuses and raises, I have received over the years came from simply saying “No,” often emphatically.

  28. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    That you’re lower than a paramecium. Reproduction is all about the long run. We’re alive in the long run of our ancestors.

    That this even needs to be said is utterly pathetic. Keynes was a prat.

    • Agree: Liza, GermanReader2
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Lineage, legacy is so fundamental to the human condition – to all life! – a kind of epidemic psychosis is the only explanation for its complete absence from the modern mind, especially since revolutions in genetics should only have redoubled its import and strength.

    And the psychosis is recent. The 1990s are often noted as both the last decade anything like America still existed and the beginning of the end.

    In 1999 Michael Crichton's Eaters of the Dead (1976) was adapted to film as The 13th Warrior, making famous this poem written for the film:


    Lo! There do I see my Father
    Lo! There do I see my Mother and
    My Sisters and my Brothers
    Lo! There do I see the line of my people back to the beginning
    Lo! They do call to me
    They bid me take my place among them....
     
    As recently as 2001 the anthemic "My Culture" was a hit on radio in America and Britain:

    I'm the sum total of my ancestors
    I carry their DNA
    We are representatives of a long line of people
    And we cart them around everywhere
    This long line of people
    That goes back to the beginning of time....
     
    QuaereWhat happened around the turn of the millennium? What event or events caused the madness? The abandonment of reproduction, of any regard for ancestor or descendant? I tend to think this period marks the ripeness of the seeds sewn in 1965, as the numbers of invaders reached a kind of critical mass such that ordinary Americans began to see, if not consciously, that their displacement was a fiat accompli, and also to be effected by the sheer numbers – the overpopulation reaching that point Americans could no longer get a job, afford a house, avoid gridlock in traffic, visit parks and be alone in nature, etc. But that theory doesn't account for what happened in Europe, Australia, New Zealand...

    Porter takes a good stab at things in his blog here:


    Forgetting [Maslow's] physiological needs, think of the other four in two related bands: 1) the foundations of belonging and safety, and 2) the aspirations of esteem and self-actualization. I believe the source of consternation in France, and the West as a whole, is the broad conviction to have 2 while rejecting 1. It is the futile and excruciating attempt to achieve our exquisite societal aspirations while simultaneously eroding our foundations. The result is a vast, typically misdiagnosed dissatisfaction that consistently gives birth to intense division and upheaval.
     
    But that insightful theory leaves the question: "What caused the maladaptive aspirations in the first instance?"

    I genuinely believe we must discern why and how people abandoned the most foundational aspect of life itself: reproduction, of being fruitful and multiplying, and the pathology of an altruism that exercises its charity by giving the resources needed by one's own posterity to strangers. Because all the rest follows from that. I'm a nice guy; I'll give a hungry man a sandwich...but not if my son is hungry too and there is only the one sandwich. And even the crazies still manifest vestiges of this: those few who have children (more often a child) live in gated communities, send them to private schools, and so on. But even they who reproduce disregard lineage: they make a mulatto in despite of their fathers; they liquidate the estate to enjoy the moment both as individuals and as a nation. WHY?

    , @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Keynes expressed what I always imagined was the homosexual's attitude toward life. But then I found out all they want to do is get married (an open marriage, natch) and 'have' children.

    These fellows nostalgic for 'the best leather bar west of the Mississippi' are plainly degenerates.

    Homosexual behavior might be the worst basis for a 'community' I can think of, other than cannibalism.
    , @anon
    " Keynes was a prat."

    Keynes was a poof. They don't think very far ahead. They don't need to.
  29. Wow what a lot of verbiage.

    Simple explanation: in America, Whites as a group are significant net tax payers, non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers. In Economic terms Whites are the host, non- Whites are the parasite.

    There are two, and only two, relations you have to a parasite. The first is that it sucks your blood until you die. The second is that it sucks your blood until you kill it. Period.

    The day will come when the host tries to free itself of the parasite, which attaches via Taxation. That will be an interesting day.

    • Replies: @pheasant
    excellent reply
    , @Jack D

    non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers.
     
    Citation needed. Last I looked, Asians had higher average household income than whites and higher income is usually correlated with higher tax payments in our progressive system of taxation. Also anecdotally when I go to the supermarket I see most black people paying for their heaping shopping carts with EBT cards but I never see any Asians "paying" that way.
    , @Twinkie

    non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers.
     
    https://i1.wp.com/www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/WelfareUseNativeHouseholds.jpg

    https://www.amren.com/features/2015/10/welfare-whos-on-it-whos-not/

    https://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-final.pdf
    , @AnotherDad

    Simple explanation: in America, Whites as a group are significant net tax payers, non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers. In Economic terms Whites are the host, non- Whites are the parasite.
     
    This doesn't fly. These completely economic arguments won't cut it.

    I'm with JackD--generally Asians in the US are productive, not net tax easters. Though, i agree with iSteveFan that many of them--Chinese in particular--are abusing our welfare system, looting it with elderly parents.

    I know plenty of Asians--family, co-workers, friends--and as a group they are solidly productive law abiding Americans. Some are outstanding, terrific additions to America. But that doesn't mean i want to invite their relatives much less any of the rest of their nations as well.

    ~~

    No, while it's true our (American) mass immigration has been highly destructive economically, the argument against mass immigration is not fundamentally an economic argument.

    The Hungarians might actually improve their economy by importing a few overseas Chinese. The Ghanians certainly would be economically better off, importing lots of Koreans. Should they do it?
    Hell no! Being against mass immigration isn't just about economics.

    No, we want to preserve our nation for ourselves ... because it is ours.

    I don't want to have a bunch of Asians come here, not because "Asians suck" or because i have some big problem with them but because ... they aren't Americans.

    America is a particular place, with a particular people and culture--part of Western civilization. A few high quality people, who look to add value--Asian or not--can come here, no biggie. But fundamentally, our nation belongs to ... Americans. We want to preserve it for Americans--our children, their children. We want to preserve America for Americans--our children, our children's children ...

    But mass immigration is giving our future over to foreigners. And it's wrong, not because they are "bad people" but simply because they are not us.
  30. 1) No. 3) No. 4) No.

    To play devil’s advocate on #2:

    What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be?

    Institutions built on contracts of individual choice and consent instead of today’s institutions built on laws passed by all powerful governments. Basically, AnCap.

    How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future?

    By buying/selling products and services from each other for their own benefit.

    What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble?

    Naked self-interest. Even if groups hate each other, they will want to buy and sell from each other. Violence will be unattractive on a cost/reward basis.

    What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength” into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?

    Nothing. No nations, no wars.

    • Replies: @Chase
    Ok, that is the counter argument. It’s stupid though, as anyone with eyes can see.
    , @Svigor

    Nothing. No nations, no wars.
     
    Kumbayah, my Lord, Kumbayah...
    , @TBA

    Institutions built on contracts of individual choice and consent instead of today’s institutions built on laws passed by all powerful governments.
     
    The powers that be aren't libertarian. Governments don't seem to be on their way to become less powerful. More powerful governments might well be introduced to keep a lid on things.

    (Maybe I'm gullible. Was your comment a joke?)
    , @AnotherDad
    LOL. That's hilarious.

    But isn't it "problematic" to make fun of these libertarian autistics this way?
    , @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    And yet, people prefer to pay taxes to a massive government who in the name of them all will exert violence if necessary against those who break community rules. Buying and selling peace? We have always tried that, ever since the first land demarcations ever. "You hunt here, I hunt there".
  31. Anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    TFW when Americans, grown out of three centuries of mongrelization, preach about racial purity.

    And what the hell do you mean by “eat like you and think like you”? Thirty years ago, American ate sugar and beef; now they eat corn syrup and chicken. You don’t eat like yourself, but you have the guts to ask others to “eat like you”?

    It’s not like sugar and beef became unavailable. You are just going for the cheapest. This preference for the cheaper explains why you can’t recognize your neighborhoods any longer.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I pay extra for Mexican Coke in glass bottles because it has real sugar. I’ve been known to make road trips to STL for a Lions Choice sandwich.
  32. 1)Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst?

    For the Left, yes, because the country was founded by white male slaveowners.

    2)What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be?

    Greed, lust, and self-indulgence.

    3)Do you want to leave for your descendants a future where they live as a despised minority…?

    When your women abort their pregnancies, there won’t be any descendants to worry about.

    4)Do you really believe that you have the right to make such a choice for future generations?

    If the contemporary left is certain of anything, they are certain that they are the most moral, self-righteous people in all of human history, and not only do they have the right to make such choices, they are entitled and obligated to do so.

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?

    See #4 above. When you’re busy marching around in your pussy hat, you don’t waste your time worrying about what deplorables did in the past.

  33. @Arclight
    Not sure how many other soon-to-be minorities feel the same way, but my attitude is that part of my duty to my kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on when taxes are crushing their paychecks to fund the massive welfare state we'll have in the future to keep the ultra-diverse population docile.

    I suspect that when the population finally tips to minority white, it will be discovered that the gap in household wealth in different racial/ethnic groups that is often bemoaned today has not changed at all.

    “when the population finally tips to minority white, it will be discovered that the gap in household wealth in different racial/ethnic groups that is often bemoaned today has not changed at all.”

    Oh it will be discovered all right, and they will have just the cure for it! And now they will have the 51% of the votes they need to enact it.

    Hint: it won’t involve the poorer groups making any effort to earn or save more. If you think you have heard the last of the “Reparations Now!” scam, think again. Just wait … just wait …

    • Agree: densa
  34. @Arclight
    Not sure how many other soon-to-be minorities feel the same way, but my attitude is that part of my duty to my kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on when taxes are crushing their paychecks to fund the massive welfare state we'll have in the future to keep the ultra-diverse population docile.

    I suspect that when the population finally tips to minority white, it will be discovered that the gap in household wealth in different racial/ethnic groups that is often bemoaned today has not changed at all.

    I believe you are probably correct in that prediction. The federal government has spent who knows how many hundreds of billion exclusively on negro improvement and yet negros are at the bottom of every category besides sports.
    What might be a doomsday scenario is the welfare state collapse.

  35. In some ways, external diversity kills off internal diversity

    When Asians started coming to the US to take STEM jobs, they not only pushed out whites but also black and American born Hispanics.

    I know of a science department on one of the coasts that in the mid 1980s was 90 Americans, 5 Chinese and 5 rest of world. By the mid 1990s it was 90 Chinese, 5 Americans and 5 row. Black, Hispanic, Native American and blue collar kids of all ethnic backgrounds disappeared.

    By the 1990s it was extremely rare to find NAM STEM PhDs being awarded. In the 1970s it was far more common.

    These days one can still find a lot of whites and some blacks and Hispanics in STEM fields in flyover country. On the coasts mostly Asians, some whites. Blacks and Hispanics are very rare. In fact, in flyover country I have black co-workers all the time. On the coasts, I don’t see them in STEM fields at all.

    Sad.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    By the 1990s it was extremely rare to find NAM STEM PhDs being awarded. In the 1970s it was far more common.

    In 1995, there were 331 research doctorates awarded blacks in agriculture, architecture, biological sciences, computer and information sciences, engineering, mathematics, medical sciences, and physical sciences. There were another 154 awarded in psychology, an indeterminate % of which were in re dissertations in experimental psychology or neuroscience. In 1994, professional doctorates and the equivalent awarded to blacks were as follows: medicine (937), peri-medical occupations (442), and veterinary medicine (39). There were 2,472 law degrees awarded to blacks.

    The Digest of Education Statistics does not have the more granular data on the cross-tabulation of race and subject for the earlier period, but it does indicate the annual number of research degrees awarded blacks increased by 36% between 1977 and 1995. The annual number of professional degrees awarded increased by 87% between 1977 and 1995.


    In 2016, 795 research doctorates were awarded blacks in that run of disciplines (psychology and MD / PhD excepted), so the population of recipients does not appear to be declining of late. Professional degrees awarded blacks in 2016 were as follows: medicine (1,284), peri-medical occupations (1,517), veterinary medicine (81). There were 3,044 law degrees awarded.

  36. @istevefan
    The notion of community is also seen in how refugees are settled. Rather than finding homes across the nation for them, they are consolidated into their own enclaves which simultaneously recreates their old community and often leaves the natives feeling they are the odd man out.

    They’re not coming here for here. They’re coming here to make a better there.

  37. @ic1000
    > 5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?

    Petain, Laval, and their cronies, 1940? No, AFAIK they thought they were playing a very bad hand, as best they could.

    The elites of the 5th Century Western Roman Empire? No, AFAIK they accommodated their new overlords because they didn’t see any alternatives.

    I’m stumped.

    Christian minorities in middle eastern Muslim countries might be an example. They were at least tolerated for years but now are on the receiving end of active persecution. They may be entirely extinct in another generation.

  38. @Art Deco
    1)Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

    If my own reading of the literature on the sociology of immigration is any guide (and I did quite a lot of it in 1996), the notion that you're obligated to adapt to immigrants has been taken-for-granted by academics who specialize in the study of immigration to such a degree that locating a contrary perspective requires some rummaging around. George Borjas was in that era the only researcher you were likely to locate who might be classified as an immigration skeptic, and his work was meticulous, quantitative, and addressed dry pragmatic considerations. Samuel Huntington was writing a few years later. His work was pitched to general audiences. Specifically scholarly work on immigration is not his book, nor is the sort of social theory wherein one might advance a normative argument.

    What your commenter is addressing is the 'unification of the elites' and the manifestation of certain attitudes as markers of in-groups and out-groups among the professional-managerial set. A couple of years back, I saw a story about a physician and hospital administrator of some prominence who was fired from his job for making blandly factual statements (nestled in a critical assumptions) about male homosexuality in an intramural memorandum. Even clinical faculty with multi-year contracts are at-will employees when the narcissitic gay mafia might be offended.

    And you see the universal assumption in higher education, absent only when an institution is so demand deficient it needs any body it can get, that non-ethnic white males are a malignancy whose very presence is an embarrassment and a threat to the status of your institution. The closest you get to a dissent on that point would be a small current of academics (e.g. Glynn Custred) who are inveterate advocates of rank-ordering according to grades and test scores. The social and cultural contempt at the heart of these assumptions is not directly addressed by anyone.

    The closest you get to a dissent on that point would be a small current of academics (e.g. Glynn Custred) who are inveterate advocates of rank-ordering according to grades and test scores.

    In their own well-meaning way, those academics are part of the problem. They are idealistic believers in color-blind meritocracy. That only works when everybody plays by the same amiable, individualist rulebook.

  39. @istevefan
    The notion of community is also seen in how refugees are settled. Rather than finding homes across the nation for them, they are consolidated into their own enclaves which simultaneously recreates their old community and often leaves the natives feeling they are the odd man out.

    I re Cuban migrants ca. 1962, the federal authorities tried scattering them all over the country. By 1990, 77% of all people listing Cuban origin were living in Florida. The clotting occurs naturally.

    • Replies: @Carol
    Good. Where are the Congolese clotting these days? Asking for a friend etc.
    , @Almost Missouri
    There are lots of things that occur naturally, e.g., cancer, forest fires, famine. That does not mean that the state should encourage those things.

    Re Cubans, even if they "clumped" in Florida later (which might really be a different wave--e.g., Mariel Boat-lift wave) the early Cuban immigrants still had the experience of being more immersed in American culture and cut off from their own. It might not be a coincidence that they were among the most reliably Republican voting of migrant groups. So if ending immigration can't happen, at least ending deliberate enclaving should.
  40. @Arclight
    Not sure how many other soon-to-be minorities feel the same way, but my attitude is that part of my duty to my kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on when taxes are crushing their paychecks to fund the massive welfare state we'll have in the future to keep the ultra-diverse population docile.

    I suspect that when the population finally tips to minority white, it will be discovered that the gap in household wealth in different racial/ethnic groups that is often bemoaned today has not changed at all.

    Pieces of paper saying you own this or that mean nothing without the power of the state to back them up.

    • Replies: @Arclight
    I guess I'm not so much of a pessimist that I think that will actually go away...higher taxes, yes, which are also going to happen thanks to our borrowing anyway. Chucking our system of property rights, not really worried about it.
  41. @Art Deco
    1)Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

    If my own reading of the literature on the sociology of immigration is any guide (and I did quite a lot of it in 1996), the notion that you're obligated to adapt to immigrants has been taken-for-granted by academics who specialize in the study of immigration to such a degree that locating a contrary perspective requires some rummaging around. George Borjas was in that era the only researcher you were likely to locate who might be classified as an immigration skeptic, and his work was meticulous, quantitative, and addressed dry pragmatic considerations. Samuel Huntington was writing a few years later. His work was pitched to general audiences. Specifically scholarly work on immigration is not his book, nor is the sort of social theory wherein one might advance a normative argument.

    What your commenter is addressing is the 'unification of the elites' and the manifestation of certain attitudes as markers of in-groups and out-groups among the professional-managerial set. A couple of years back, I saw a story about a physician and hospital administrator of some prominence who was fired from his job for making blandly factual statements (nestled in a critical assumptions) about male homosexuality in an intramural memorandum. Even clinical faculty with multi-year contracts are at-will employees when the narcissitic gay mafia might be offended.

    And you see the universal assumption in higher education, absent only when an institution is so demand deficient it needs any body it can get, that non-ethnic white males are a malignancy whose very presence is an embarrassment and a threat to the status of your institution. The closest you get to a dissent on that point would be a small current of academics (e.g. Glynn Custred) who are inveterate advocates of rank-ordering according to grades and test scores. The social and cultural contempt at the heart of these assumptions is not directly addressed by anyone.

    If my own reading of the literature on the sociology of immigration is any guide (and I did quite a lot of it in 1996), the notion that you’re obligated to adapt to immigrants has been taken-for-granted by academics who specialize in the study of immigration to such a degree that locating a contrary perspective requires some rummaging around.

    Making immigration, or any of our current problems, into an academic argument is waste of time, and likely by design. Any ordinary person could have told you 60 years ago that our post-64 immigration would be a nightmare, which is why none of it was ever voted on.

    None of our current problems will be solved by academic arguments, or by censoring unpopular views.

    • Agree: densa
  42. @snorlax
    Pieces of paper saying you own this or that mean nothing without the power of the state to back them up.

    I guess I’m not so much of a pessimist that I think that will actually go away…higher taxes, yes, which are also going to happen thanks to our borrowing anyway. Chucking our system of property rights, not really worried about it.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-11-13-expropriation-without-compensation-is-a-done-deal-all-thats-left-is-the-formalities/
  43. @Arclight
    Not sure how many other soon-to-be minorities feel the same way, but my attitude is that part of my duty to my kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on when taxes are crushing their paychecks to fund the massive welfare state we'll have in the future to keep the ultra-diverse population docile.

    I suspect that when the population finally tips to minority white, it will be discovered that the gap in household wealth in different racial/ethnic groups that is often bemoaned today has not changed at all.

    I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but once “we” become minority, all bets are off. All the rule-of-law things that we now take for granted, will go out the window. Our descendants will have to learn a whole new political philosophy: not much philosophy–or even much politics–it will be simply Might Makes Right.

    You say your “duty to [your] kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on”, but has it occurred to you that when law means whatever the rulers say it means, then “equity” will become their equity, “real estate” will state their reality, etc. All your painstakingly accumulated assets for them, the fruit of your devotion, labor and commitment, will become liabilities: giant glowing bullseyes in the sights of the vibrant SJW coercive state and their Great Social Justice Program to redistribute unjust assets away from your descendants to their own cronies?

    I have written here before about a friend’s modest and self-reliant family in Cuba who assumed they had nothing to fear from the Castro-ist revolution, and how wrong they turned out to be, so I won’t repeat it now. Consider instead a (thinly) fictional story in The Atlantic(?) ten or twenty years ago set in South Africa. A middle class white family wakes up to find they now have a black family living in their back yard, peremptorily requesting handouts from the homeowners. The homeowners are distressed, a little afraid, but find there is nothing the authorities will do about it as it is an increasingly common situation which may have some meta-“justice” in it. What’s more, they find out that other neighbors have worse families living in their yards, so the homeowners aren’t really so badly off. Then the black family in their yard drives off even more predatory would-be yard-invaders, so the homeowners actually feel kind of grateful for their new property sharing situation.

    This will be a best case scenario.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    True. When vibrant blacks and browns become the majority, it will be "Bend over, Whitey" time. It brings to mind the saying "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".
    , @Tulip
    This is bullshit, sorry. American ain't South Africa, won't be. Brazil is much more "diverse" than America, always has been, truly, a "nation of immigrants" and its screwed up and it sucks in many ways, but whites in Brazil have plenty of good fences, walls and security guards, and still manage to hold onto their pile.

    The problem over the next 30-50 years is going to be divided government and political paralysis, ever growing problems of corruption, higher taxes combined with profligacy, imperial over-reach, rising ethnic hatreds and tensions, ethnonationalist separatism, and fights about language. America is too old for a real revolution, unless the bottom falls out, but divided enough for plenty of violent civil unrest. Its going to get shittier and shittier, and meaner and meaner, but it won't be Zimbabwe.

    Immigration destroys wages, fosters political corruption and machine politics, creates political division over values and culture, and increases economic capital at the expense of human capital. That is to say, its typical rapacious, exploitative capitalism at its worse, and the idea that you can have a system that is about maximizing exploitation of everything (natural resources, labor, cultures) and at the same time it will leave white families alone (I guess because they're "white" and they created this Beast) is hopelessly naive. In the absence of political controls on capitalism drastically limiting its scale, including its territorial scale, this process will go on forever, until some military, environmental or financial catastrophe destroys the whole system.

    , @Clyde
    If you are in the mood can you tell the Cuban family story.
  44. @Paleo Liberal
    In some ways, external diversity kills off internal diversity

    When Asians started coming to the US to take STEM jobs, they not only pushed out whites but also black and American born Hispanics.

    I know of a science department on one of the coasts that in the mid 1980s was 90 Americans, 5 Chinese and 5 rest of world. By the mid 1990s it was 90 Chinese, 5 Americans and 5 row. Black, Hispanic, Native American and blue collar kids of all ethnic backgrounds disappeared.

    By the 1990s it was extremely rare to find NAM STEM PhDs being awarded. In the 1970s it was far more common.

    These days one can still find a lot of whites and some blacks and Hispanics in STEM fields in flyover country. On the coasts mostly Asians, some whites. Blacks and Hispanics are very rare. In fact, in flyover country I have black co-workers all the time. On the coasts, I don’t see them in STEM fields at all.

    Sad.

    By the 1990s it was extremely rare to find NAM STEM PhDs being awarded. In the 1970s it was far more common.

    In 1995, there were 331 research doctorates awarded blacks in agriculture, architecture, biological sciences, computer and information sciences, engineering, mathematics, medical sciences, and physical sciences. There were another 154 awarded in psychology, an indeterminate % of which were in re dissertations in experimental psychology or neuroscience. In 1994, professional doctorates and the equivalent awarded to blacks were as follows: medicine (937), peri-medical occupations (442), and veterinary medicine (39). There were 2,472 law degrees awarded to blacks.

    The Digest of Education Statistics does not have the more granular data on the cross-tabulation of race and subject for the earlier period, but it does indicate the annual number of research degrees awarded blacks increased by 36% between 1977 and 1995. The annual number of professional degrees awarded increased by 87% between 1977 and 1995.

    In 2016, 795 research doctorates were awarded blacks in that run of disciplines (psychology and MD / PhD excepted), so the population of recipients does not appear to be declining of late. Professional degrees awarded blacks in 2016 were as follows: medicine (1,284), peri-medical occupations (1,517), veterinary medicine (81). There were 3,044 law degrees awarded.

  45. There are 4 states that are over 90% non-Hispanic White: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population

    Within those states (and others) I’m sure there are places that are all-White.

    Of course Steve, like most Unz.com American writers choses to live in a place with a White % far less than 90%. It’s like the constant drumbeat of Unz writers and commenters praising small rural Iowa counties that they would never live in for a week.

    Why do so many Unz.com writers hate Whites?

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    This site's host lives in a city that is 1.8% Black and 6.2% Hispanic. Not bad.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    That's interesting. When my family drove to the coast every year, we went through VT, NH, ME. Didn't know we were driving through whitezone.

    The reason those states (the other is WV) are all devoid of Hispanics is that it's hard to find work there and hard to live in mountainous terrain (the Adirondack park area of upstate NY is also mostly the same whites who have been there for ages). That's why it's difficult for whites to move there too.

    I think the real question is whether Unz writers are living in their hometowns or in places it's popular to move to. Did Steve grow up in Iowa?

    , @Svigor
    You have the right to White Flight over and over again, unto the umpteenth generation, goy. What are you whining about?
    , @istevefan

    Of course Steve, like most Unz.com American writers choses to live in a place with a White % far less than 90%.
     
    That's a somewhat misleading statement. Steve has lived in California all his life, except for his time in Texas at Rice and his early career job in Chicago. If I am wrong please correct.

    Since Steve is 60, he would have lived in California when it was overwhelmingly white. In 1970, California was 80% white.

    Ditto for most of the other places in the USA. So for most of us we did not choose to live around non-whites. Non-whites chose to live around us. And picking up and moving is not always an option.
    , @AndrewR
    Or maybe they choose to live in places where they were born and raised (or at least have lived for a long time) that have been demographically transformed by your kind.

    "What? You don't want to pack up and move hundreds if not thousands of miles away to a place you have no ties to just to own the minorities? Talk about hypocrisy!"

    Get out, troll

    , @Thea
    Are you autistic or a bot?
  46. @Art Deco
    I re Cuban migrants ca. 1962, the federal authorities tried scattering them all over the country. By 1990, 77% of all people listing Cuban origin were living in Florida. The clotting occurs naturally.

    Good. Where are the Congolese clotting these days? Asking for a friend etc.

  47. @Desiderius
    That you’re lower than a paramecium. Reproduction is all about the long run. We’re alive in the long run of our ancestors.

    That this even needs to be said is utterly pathetic. Keynes was a prat.

    Lineage, legacy is so fundamental to the human condition – to all life! – a kind of epidemic psychosis is the only explanation for its complete absence from the modern mind, especially since revolutions in genetics should only have redoubled its import and strength.

    And the psychosis is recent. The 1990s are often noted as both the last decade anything like America still existed and the beginning of the end.

    [MORE]

    In 1999 Michael Crichton’s Eaters of the Dead (1976) was adapted to film as The 13th Warrior, making famous this poem written for the film:

    Lo! There do I see my Father
    Lo! There do I see my Mother and
    My Sisters and my Brothers
    Lo! There do I see the line of my people back to the beginning
    Lo! They do call to me
    They bid me take my place among them….

    As recently as 2001 the anthemic “My Culture” was a hit on radio in America and Britain:

    I’m the sum total of my ancestors
    I carry their DNA
    We are representatives of a long line of people
    And we cart them around everywhere
    This long line of people
    That goes back to the beginning of time….

    QuaereWhat happened around the turn of the millennium? What event or events caused the madness? The abandonment of reproduction, of any regard for ancestor or descendant? I tend to think this period marks the ripeness of the seeds sewn in 1965, as the numbers of invaders reached a kind of critical mass such that ordinary Americans began to see, if not consciously, that their displacement was a fiat accompli, and also to be effected by the sheer numbers – the overpopulation reaching that point Americans could no longer get a job, afford a house, avoid gridlock in traffic, visit parks and be alone in nature, etc. But that theory doesn’t account for what happened in Europe, Australia, New Zealand…

    Porter takes a good stab at things in his blog here:

    Forgetting [Maslow’s] physiological needs, think of the other four in two related bands: 1) the foundations of belonging and safety, and 2) the aspirations of esteem and self-actualization. I believe the source of consternation in France, and the West as a whole, is the broad conviction to have 2 while rejecting 1. It is the futile and excruciating attempt to achieve our exquisite societal aspirations while simultaneously eroding our foundations. The result is a vast, typically misdiagnosed dissatisfaction that consistently gives birth to intense division and upheaval.

    But that insightful theory leaves the question: “What caused the maladaptive aspirations in the first instance?”

    I genuinely believe we must discern why and how people abandoned the most foundational aspect of life itself: reproduction, of being fruitful and multiplying, and the pathology of an altruism that exercises its charity by giving the resources needed by one’s own posterity to strangers. Because all the rest follows from that. I’m a nice guy; I’ll give a hungry man a sandwich…but not if my son is hungry too and there is only the one sandwich. And even the crazies still manifest vestiges of this: those few who have children (more often a child) live in gated communities, send them to private schools, and so on. But even they who reproduce disregard lineage: they make a mulatto in despite of their fathers; they liquidate the estate to enjoy the moment both as individuals and as a nation. WHY?

    • Replies: @ia

    they liquidate the estate to enjoy the moment both as individuals and as a nation. WHY?
     
    ''Oikophobia'', coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, is here used as a non-clinical description of an 'anti-culture' prevalent among Western artists and intellectuals. (Roger Scruton, ''England and the Need for Nations'', (London: Civitas, 2004). It is a combination of:

    ''oikos'' - from the Greek meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation”
    – Encyclopaedia Britannica

    and

    ''-phobia'' - extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group
    -Webster's Dictionary

    An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of paganism/Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)

    Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." Roger Scruton, ''A Political Philosophy'', p. 24.

    According to Scruton, culture is the ethical transmission "how to feel" passed down from one generation to the next. Virtue is taught through imitation of the heroes, gods and ancestors not by mere copying but through the imagination and "moving with them" which high culture provides. The repudiation of a common tradition blocks the individual's path to membership in the "original experience of the community". Instead of apprehending spiritual and intellectual received wisdom as an epiphany the 'anti-culture' of repudiation produces mere nihilism, irony and false gods. Roger Scruton, ''Culture Counts'' (Encounter Books, 2007), pp.36-9.
    , @Rob McX
    I think there are two reasons for this psychosis, one genetic and one environmental.

    Whites have less ethnic loyalty than other races because they evolved in an environment where putting trust in strangers outside their kin group was advantageous.

    Then there's the environmental factor - a whole culture that vilifies and punishes any expression of racial loyalty by whites, a culture backed up by a multi-billion-dollar media and entertainment industry. When Tucker Carlson makes the mildest of comments about immigration, an antifa mob gathers outside his house and intimidates his family and the globalist advertisers try to starve his show off the air.
  48. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:

    In California I think there was a not-articulated open endeavor to replace black servants with brown ones, who seem less fractious, less scary, in the mind of the western Ladies Who Lunch. Identifying with blacks in servant or menial occupations (cooking, garbage collection, etc.) is an East Coast thing. The dumb thing about the California/Southwest strategy is that the displaced underclass doesn’t just pick up stakes and go to North Dakota, they’re still in town the better to fight with the vibrante hispanico replacements.

    The incredible boom in black celebrityhood after WWII made it easier for middle-American whitefolk to neglect the statistics on blacks generally experiencing more troubles and not growing their own middle class. This abetted the rise of official black spokesmen, who were obviously grifters at the time but tolerated under doublethink, and bolstered the optimistic progressive agenda of the Great Society which gave us a government-issued underclass. Great Society thinking imagined that blacks would replicate SWPL norms, left to their own devices. Crazy to think that something as harmless as Sammy Davis Jr. joking around on TV could enable bad social policy but people are not rational by nature. They want to be fooled, not to mention some other incentives.

    It’s been remarked that the post-Civil Rights immigrants did not assimilate like the many earlier waves to batter “Nation of Immigrants”(tm). Globalized free trade, de jure and de facto, contributed to destroying a spectrum of good-paying semi-skilled occupations, a phenomenon which obviously hurt whites as well. This suggests that ramping up the input of foreigners when the traditional middle class is fraying is bad for integration but the libertarian bots love to point out that immigration rates were much higher in the ramshackle antebellum period.

    The blame has to be put squarely on the flop meme of Civil Rights. To the good-thinker elite who originated it, the message of CR was supposed to be: “We goodwhites are so noble of spirit we have deigned to create a multicultural paradise for all Gaia’s chilluns.” In the U.S. and around the world the same message was heard as, “There are a bunch of rich, gullible whites in America from whom we can extract resources simply by crying ‘racism,’ with no limit in sight.” Since whites are so beloved to the other races of course, this second dog-whistle version of CR was rebroadcast around the earth with a vengeance.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    Whites from the end of WW II to the late 1960s weren't quite as dumb as everybody says. Back then, the US was waging a cold war against the USSR, and had apparently "lost Asia". The Democrat intellectuals believed that the USSR would win, and the rest of the country believed the race was real. The US had gotten through WW II and won it (the Eastern Front wasn't much mentioned back then in the US) by letting the Federal Government do pretty much what it wanted, and by doing what the newspapers told them to do. Winning had turned out to be a pretty good deal.
    Until the 1990s I couldn't find anybody who believed anybody inside the US who would want to change the nature of the United States (and this despite the 1960s, which I saw first hand in the East Village) "Why would they do that?" was the usual response. After 1990, nobody I could find believed the US had any serious enemy anywhere on earth. Socialists were clowns: this was a real sign I saw in the Boston area: "We're closed for lunch, but we'll be back this afternoon to continue our fight against the capitalist system!"
    So, with that as background, with no easy way of getting historical information (no Internet, history was generally difficult to find for non-specialists), simply repeating what had worked during WW II (and eventually worked during the Cold War) seemed reasonable. listen to the government, this is a welfare state, and the government manages our welfare. Information control built upon what memory recorded and it all seemed to hang together.
    There were, of course, signs that something was wrong. Politics was flat inaccessible, a closed system (as it remains today). Science was slowly being shut down. Same thing with engineering. manufacturing was vanishing in the US. But, compared to memories of the Great Depression, it dien't seem critical, and there were so many explanations. Surely _both_ parties _and_ the press couldn't have been turned against the population _with nobody noticing_. Flat bonkers to think so. And old 1930s US cartoon about a hit song composer captured the theme: "I love you and you love me, he loves she and she loves he, meow meow meow meow, we all love each other !"

    So, here we are, 2018 as Trump bucks the whole system with success uncertain. As Houseman wrote:

    "Then the world seemed none so bad,
    And I myself a sterling lad;
    And down in lovely muck I’ve lain,
    Happy till I woke again.
    Then I saw the morning sky:
    Heigho, the tale was all a lie;
    The world, it was the old world yet,
    I was I, my things were wet,
    And nothing now remained to do
    But begin the game anew.
    "

    Counterinsurgency
    , @Counterinsurgency
    Whites from the end of WW II to the late 1960s weren't quite as dumb as everybody says. Back then, the US was waging a cold war against the USSR, and had apparently "lost Asia". The Democrat intellectuals believed that the USSR would win, and the rest of the country believed the race was real. The US had gotten through WW II and won it (the Eastern Front wasn't much mentioned back then in the US) by letting the Federal Government do pretty much what it wanted, and by doing what the newspapers told them to do. Winning had turned out to be a pretty good deal.
    Until the 1990s I couldn't find anybody who believed anybody inside the US who would want to change the nature of the United States (and this despite the 1960s, which I saw first hand in the East Village) "Why would they do that?" was the usual response. After 1990, nobody I could find believed the US had any serious enemy anywhere on earth. Socialists were clowns: this was a real sign I saw in the Boston area: "We're closed for lunch, but we'll be back this afternoon to continue our fight against the capitalist system!"
    So, with that as background, with no easy way of getting historical information (no Internet, history was generally difficult to find for non-specialists), simply repeating what had worked during WW II (and eventually worked during the Cold War) seemed reasonable. listen to the government, this is a welfare state, and the government manages our welfare. Information control built upon what memory recorded and it all seemed to hang together.
    There were, of course, signs that something was wrong. Politics was flat inaccessible, a closed system (as it remains today). Science was slowly being shut down. Same thing with engineering. manufacturing was vanishing in the US. But, compared to memories of the Great Depression, it dien't seem critical, and there were so many explanations. Surely _both_ parties _and_ the press couldn't have been turned against the population _with nobody noticing_. Flat bonkers to think so. And old 1930s US cartoon about a hit song composer captured the theme: "I love you and you love me, he loves she and she loves he, meow meow meow meow, we all love each other !"

    So, here we are, 2018 as Trump bucks the whole system with success uncertain. As Houseman wrote:

    "Then the world seemed none so bad,
    And I myself a sterling lad;
    And down in lovely muck I’ve lain,
    Happy till I woke again.
    Then I saw the morning sky:
    Heigho, the tale was all a lie;
    The world, it was the old world yet,
    I was I, my things were wet,
    And nothing now remained to do
    But begin the game anew.
    "

    Counterinsurgency
  49. @Desiderius
    That you’re lower than a paramecium. Reproduction is all about the long run. We’re alive in the long run of our ancestors.

    That this even needs to be said is utterly pathetic. Keynes was a prat.

    Keynes expressed what I always imagined was the homosexual’s attitude toward life. But then I found out all they want to do is get married (an open marriage, natch) and ‘have’ children.

    These fellows nostalgic for ‘the best leather bar west of the Mississippi’ are plainly degenerates.

    Homosexual behavior might be the worst basis for a ‘community’ I can think of, other than cannibalism.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    Keynes started out as a flaming homo. Transitioned to "Bi." And then married a Russian ballerina with whom, by all accounts, he had a normal hetero married life. (And since he started out as an open and notorious homosexual, there would have been little point in having a "beard.")

    So, contra to the conventional dogma, either Keynes was not "born that way," or he proves that "conversion" is possible.

  50. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

    What can I say to that…

    Well, Death does put an end to all tribulations, so they have something of a point.

    But if they are utterly disinterested in the long-run, they at least have an obligation to defer to those who care about their progeny.

    Also, you can officially tell them to STFU about global warming and anything else with long term (post-death) consequences. My guess, however, is that these are the same people who will prattle on about how we are “stewards of the earth for future generations . . . blah, blah, blah.”

  51. @Arclight
    I guess I'm not so much of a pessimist that I think that will actually go away...higher taxes, yes, which are also going to happen thanks to our borrowing anyway. Chucking our system of property rights, not really worried about it.
  52. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Keynes expressed what I always imagined was the homosexual's attitude toward life. But then I found out all they want to do is get married (an open marriage, natch) and 'have' children.

    These fellows nostalgic for 'the best leather bar west of the Mississippi' are plainly degenerates.

    Homosexual behavior might be the worst basis for a 'community' I can think of, other than cannibalism.

    Keynes started out as a flaming homo. Transitioned to “Bi.” And then married a Russian ballerina with whom, by all accounts, he had a normal hetero married life. (And since he started out as an open and notorious homosexual, there would have been little point in having a “beard.”)

    So, contra to the conventional dogma, either Keynes was not “born that way,” or he proves that “conversion” is possible.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Probably Keynes was one of those cases on the fence that are "turned"; I suppose most of today's increasing LGBTQ's are like that, the "born this way" crowd leading them as far as they can "experiment", as their message is amplified louder than ever by current (anti)culture.

    What is weird about Keynes is that he started the opposite way; probably due to some "bromance" in those non-coed years that went (too) further. Which is why I disagree with those who argue for the return to the pre-coed years; sure, too much female influence as in today's classrooms (example, Michelle Obama's awful cafeteria food dictates) doesn't work, but too little makes for intense intra-male competition and drama, lack of release (specially if the school is religious), and the return of headmaster rituals and bullyboys. A good compromise may be to allow the children to socialize with the other gender on breaks and recesses/lunches.
  53. The idea that whites are ‘displacing’ anyone in countries where they are an ever-shrinking share of the population is the sort of logic you need when your goal is to replace a population. When whites are the minority, the process of asking the nation’s people who they want in their country will be seen as ‘democratic,’ of course. ‘Family reunification’ eventually includes everyone, you know.

    The ‘diverse’ future is the ideal, and whites by definition are the only non-diverse population on earth. In a ‘diverse’ future, your place is in the ground. Matter of fact, some of those old white cemeteries are going to look like prime real estate in the not-distant future, so don’t get too comfortable down there, either.

    Sorry, white lib ladies, at some point the lip service to ‘women’ as a category in the Coalition will go by the boards. Blame your white parents for your troubles. ( oh, you already do?)

    • Replies: @Svigor
    NPR today stated that women are diversity. Forget the exact context, but it was a White woman quoted saying something like, "Trump needs moar wymminz to bring his diversity numbers up." I was like "WTF is this shit? Do White women honestly believe that a room full of White men is made diverse by adding White women? That their diversity overlords are satisfied with that?"
  54. If they say ‘in the long run we are all dead’ then a good follow up would be to ask whether they care about CO2 emissions and global warming.

  55. @Whiskey
    Women love invasion. Even more Alpha men to replace their beta males. Women have zero ethnic loyalty. See Vichy France. Every woman she 17 to 40 was sleeping with an invader. While their men toiled in labor camps.

    Ludicrous! French women over 40 also want invaders!!

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    But do invaders want them?
  56. @ic1000
    > 5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?

    Petain, Laval, and their cronies, 1940? No, AFAIK they thought they were playing a very bad hand, as best they could.

    The elites of the 5th Century Western Roman Empire? No, AFAIK they accommodated their new overlords because they didn’t see any alternatives.

    I’m stumped.

    The whites in South Africa who handed control of their country over to the blacks.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The whites in South Africa who handed control of their country over to the blacks.

     

    The original problem wasn't "handing control over", it was allowing their presence in the first place. Most of South Africa was occupied only by Bushmen, if anybody at all, when the white man arrived.
  57. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    “in the long run we are all dead”

    In which case no need for them to worry about Social Justice, the N word, the raycisms, cultural appropriation and all the other bullshit. What a relief!

    • Agree: Svigor
  58. Anonymous [AKA "Anti-Federalist"] says:

    b)Would the indigenous white populations of said countries be willing to accept being that much poorer if they knew that in exchange they could live in communities that they actually recognized and understood?

    Best one! Perfect discussion starter.

    Let’s assume some people would really enjoy a “super-slow lane” life in car-less communities, since there are now driver-less cars it would in fact be quite fitting.

    In the early Nineteenth Century, canals were dug and the ditch speed limit was an incredible four miles an hour. Any faster and the wake would buckle the walls of the canal. “Canal Police” would bask on a bench in the sun, aware of any ripple that indicated that some maniac was going an incredible five and a half miles an hour. The humanity!

    Diversity in how people live as opposed to the numbers of New Americans we can shoehorn into aging and delapidated cities might start a trend.

    Great grist for thought, a fine post.

  59. @peterike

    a number of people brought up the fact that many of these Asian kids are living below the poverty line or close to it.

     

    My foot. Technically, yes, because so many Asians work cash businesses, and they aren't like stupid white people who will report earnings honestly to the government. They under-report to a great degree, cash business or not, and they take full advantage of every government grift that's available. And in New York City, you've got not only Federal programs to grift, but myriads of local state and city programs as well.

    And of course, by this time, the bureaucracies that make the yes/no decisions on these things are themselves stuffed full of Asians (and every other group), and they are perfectly willing to overlook a few pertinent details when it comes to approving Mr. Chang (who happens to own a construction business that employs 45 people, but he makes only $20,000 a year) for whatever welfare program he's applying for.

    AGREED!

    They are really struggling … on paper. As to the corruption by their fellow ethnics in the vast bureaucracies “running” NY City, I am sure that must be the case. How else can you have a famous always-packed Chinese restaurant in Queens Chinatown taking cash only? Any honest official would know that the tax receipts don’t add up to 8% (or whatever it is) of the bills from all these people.

    Yes, they say “Cash Only” right on the wall near the register. I could tell you about some Chinese-run “hotels” that pay no tax of any sort, income, commercial property tax, hotel tax, sales tax, none, mayo! I’d like to see the day when the absentee landlord comes from Hong Kong or Chongqing to check on his place. “WTF?! Get these people out of my apartment!” “Hey wait, I just paid for 3 nights, you can’t just …” “Whaaa, pay, you no pay, show me receipt … “

  60. @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    The United States is dead. I’m sorry to tel you that; it absolutely breaks my heart. But we aren’t a nation, we are a dying empire.

    It’s not really even bad. Most everything done since 1969 has been a massive mistake. When the country is partitioned, we will be able to get back to what we were doing before we were convinced establishing an equal utopia on earth was an aspirational goal.

    • Replies: @Thea
    Our division is urban vs rural not regional. There is no logical economic, cultural or ethnic partition as with the USSR. No country will accept us as refugees.

    We have to deal with cleaning up this mess of an empire if we can.

  61. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

    Wasn’t this sentiment first expressed by a man who was both an economist and a poofter?

    The hated (in Britain) Milton Friedman said you can’t have both immigration and a welfare state. Note that the only (public) welfare system he supported was the guaranteed minimum income. Applying that concept to the foreign-born exposes the madness quite clearly.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    Milton Friedman said you can’t have both [uncontrolled] immigration and a welfare state.
     
    Two generations on from Friedman, things are even worse. You can't have both uncontrolled immigration and a functioning modern economy. If you try, 758 million people from countries that have failed to create a functioning modern economy will attempt to immigrate.

    The fact that they come from failed economies tells us that they are fleeing people like themselves. They prefer not to live among people like themselves, but they do not want us to exercise the same discretion. The kicker is that many of our compatriots do not want us exercise that discretion either. These are the ones who need to think about the Questions.
  62. @peterike

    a number of people brought up the fact that many of these Asian kids are living below the poverty line or close to it.

     

    My foot. Technically, yes, because so many Asians work cash businesses, and they aren't like stupid white people who will report earnings honestly to the government. They under-report to a great degree, cash business or not, and they take full advantage of every government grift that's available. And in New York City, you've got not only Federal programs to grift, but myriads of local state and city programs as well.

    And of course, by this time, the bureaucracies that make the yes/no decisions on these things are themselves stuffed full of Asians (and every other group), and they are perfectly willing to overlook a few pertinent details when it comes to approving Mr. Chang (who happens to own a construction business that employs 45 people, but he makes only $20,000 a year) for whatever welfare program he's applying for.

    Couldn’t agree with you more. Reminds me of kiryas Joel, the poorest municipality in the US
    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-village-with-the-numbers-not-the-image-of-the-poorest-place.html
    A laughable thought to anyone even remotely familiar with this community.

    On another note, the Amazon HQ2 deal with NYS and NYC políticos, has accelerated the organization of various activist groups in many Queens neighborhoods, and a common demand is the cessation of any cooperation on Amazon’s part with ICE, as that destroys ‘communities’. While on the balance the core concept behind their demands is legitimate, that the city should serve the concerns of it’s inhabitants, and not use their tax dollars for the creation of jobs that will benefit the relatively few and price the existing residents out of their own homes. The self identify of these neighborhoods is as immigrants and essentially everyone either is an illegal, was an illegal, has a very close relation that is an ilegal, or is dependent on building and extending their clan via the ridiculous family unification laws. (The illegal category being Hispanics and often Chinese, and the latter being pakis and other middle easterners). The remnants of the middle class in NYC (whites whole aren’t too percenters) are vilified and forced to abandon maybe the only real perk of NYC, the choice of high quality public schools

  63. @peterike

    a number of people brought up the fact that many of these Asian kids are living below the poverty line or close to it.

     

    My foot. Technically, yes, because so many Asians work cash businesses, and they aren't like stupid white people who will report earnings honestly to the government. They under-report to a great degree, cash business or not, and they take full advantage of every government grift that's available. And in New York City, you've got not only Federal programs to grift, but myriads of local state and city programs as well.

    And of course, by this time, the bureaucracies that make the yes/no decisions on these things are themselves stuffed full of Asians (and every other group), and they are perfectly willing to overlook a few pertinent details when it comes to approving Mr. Chang (who happens to own a construction business that employs 45 people, but he makes only $20,000 a year) for whatever welfare program he's applying for.

    I’m sure in many cases that is true. A Chinese/English interpreter I know who worked with incoming immigrants to Britain explained that many of them had some scam going where they would report that they were unemployed while at the same time working under the table. This is the kind of externality that does not get accounted for in calculating how much immigration supposedly enriches native populations.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    A Chinese/English interpreter I know who worked with incoming immigrants to Britain explained that many of them had some scam going where they would report that they were unemployed while at the same time working under the table.
     
    In parts of the US, old Chinese immigrants unload all their assets onto their children, then claim poverty to get assistance.

    After the Hmong refugees were in St Paul for about a decade, it was found that many receiving unemployment insurance and other benefits were really working sixty hours a week off-the-books.

    Well, you can't call them "lazy"!
  64. @Massimo Heitor
    1) No. 3) No. 4) No.

    To play devil's advocate on #2:

    What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be?
     
    Institutions built on contracts of individual choice and consent instead of today's institutions built on laws passed by all powerful governments. Basically, AnCap.

    How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future?
     
    By buying/selling products and services from each other for their own benefit.

    What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble?
     
    Naked self-interest. Even if groups hate each other, they will want to buy and sell from each other. Violence will be unattractive on a cost/reward basis.

    What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength” into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?
     
    Nothing. No nations, no wars.

    Ok, that is the counter argument. It’s stupid though, as anyone with eyes can see.

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Ok, that is the counter argument. It’s stupid though, as anyone with eyes can see.

     

    This is a really weak counter argument. My counter argument to the AnCap open border utopia, is that we have no idea if it would work or not, and encouraging it in this saboteur fashion is reckless.
  65. Michelle Alexander is ascending to the top of the iSteve Content Generator league table:

    Many people will sympathize with Mr. Vargas’s story but recoil at his bold conclusion, as it seems to imply support for open borders — a position that no Republican or Democratic member of Congress supports or even takes seriously. This reaction seems misplaced. The deeper question raised isn’t whether our borders should be open or closed (generally a false dichotomy) but rather how we ought to manage immigration in a manner that honors the dignity, humanity and legitimate interests of all concerned.

    How much did she pay you to ghostwrite that, Steve?

  66. Anonymous[329] • Disclaimer says:

    One assumes that their immigrant parents’ meager wages would go further outside of NYC city limits. How much more per month is your average Chinese immigrant in New York willing to pay so that they can enjoy the familiarity of Queens?

    Nobody is going to hire a Chinese immigrant in the suburbs or rural areas. Queens is the only place they can get employment. They go outside of NYC when they have enough capital to start their own businesses or if they know someone who will hire them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Then why don't they work in NYC and commute from cheaper suburban areas?
  67. @Tiny Duck
    1. Yes, my ancestors were racist misogynists who would have cast me out for my lifestyle. I spit on "white American heritage" and anyone else who does so is a friend of mine. Also, immigrants and People of Color are more attuned to progressive thinking (gun control, opposition to Christian supremacy, promotion of diversity) so I support them and their ascendancy.

    2. This is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve an answer. People of Color get along great and love each other. Only in the minds of old white men do People of Color have any beef with each with other. Plus, we as a society have a healthy narrative going forward: the destruction and eternal vigilance against white supremacy. This is the great battle of our time and what we must undertake for the benefit of future generations.

    3. Two things: First People of Color know what it is to be brutalized so they will be reasonably merciful. Second, if you don't want this (ridiculous) scenario to take place encourage your children to breed with People of Color. Simply, if white people do not exist they cannot be "discriminated" exist.

    4. Did white males have the right to colonize rape enslave murder and pillage Societies of Color?

    5. The past is the past. This is not a serious question. It is time for we whites to do what is right not what is white.

    Tiny, Ginsburg is circling the drain. Won’t it be fun when trump picks another SC justice?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-undergoes-surgery/ar-BBRh3Kl?ocid=spartanntp

  68. An instructive lesson comes from St Paul’s Rondo Days:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondo_Days

    This festival celebrates the remains of a black neighborhood split and ruined by the building of an interstate highway. It’s been a big deal for 35 years.

    Several white neighborhoods in both Twin Cities suffered a similar fate. Yet you don’t see a trace of such celebration there. That’s because white don’t value those neighborhoods in the same way. They moved out to the consumerist suburbs. It’s no accident that Southdale, the iconic first enclosed modern mall in a sea of parking, was built in a Minneapolis suburb.

    Le Corbusier called the house merely “a machine for living in”, one of the most offensive things ever said by an architect. Yet this how white Americans think. For every urban bungalow lovingly restored (by those unrelated to the original owner, and after decades of neglect in-between), there are dozens of exurban thingies with out-front garages that look like storage lockers with mother-in-law flats stuck atop them. With nowhere for little Jaden and Addison to play.

    • Replies: @prosa123
    "An instructive lesson comes from St Paul’s Rondo Days:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondo_Days
    This festival celebrates the remains of a black neighborhood split and ruined by the building of an interstate highway. It’s been a big deal for 35 years."

    After 60 years there's still whining about how the Cross Bronx Expressway destroyed the neighborhoods along the way. Never mind the fact that it's remarkably narrow for a major Interstate highway, with many bridges so that it's very easy to get from one side of a divided neighborhood to the other. It really didn't destroy entire neighborhoods. But people still whine.

    Maybe it's an income-based thing. Not too far away and around the same time the building of the Gownanus Expressway and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge approaches obliterated a good chunk of Bay Ridge and Dyker Heights in Brooklyn (the Staten Island end of the bridge wasn't too heavily populated then). Yet there aren't many complaints today, quite possibly because that area tends to be more affluent than the central Bronx.

    , @Stan Adams
    This, to me, is the epitome of exurban ugliness and soullessness:
    https://www.condoreports.com/images/subdivision/1533_kendall_breeze_exterior.jpg

    A friend of mine lives in one of these boxes. It's the worst of both worlds: urban claustrophobia combined with suburban isolation.

    My own place - a one-story late-'70s townhouse - isn't anything to brag about, but it does have high wooden vaulted ceilings and an open floor plan that create an illusion of roominess. I have a small front yard, a small fenced-in back yard, and a strip of grass connecting the two. The area is full of younger couples who are just starting out and older couples who are downsizing from their empty nests.

    (Sadly, I'm not much of an interior decorator. The highlight of the living room is my OfficeMax computer table. My lamps are genuine Kmart originals. The dining-room table was a hand-me-down from my cousin. The only common theme is that everything was either a gift or a clearance item. Unlike most millennials, however, I do own a can opener.)

    My grandparents' house, where I spent my youthful weekends and holidays, was a sprawling ranch-style affair with low ceilings. The best thing about it was that it was on an acre lot with a big swimming pool (and a sizable patio with a built-in barbecue) and two huge, ultra-climbable trees. In retrospect, it was an ideal childhood home.
  69. It’s all tragic stuff, but I remind myself that it happened to my ancestors before, many times, and somehow we survived. In the case of my ancestors, religious and ethnic persecution in the British Isles got very nasty at times. So bad that they left their ancestral home of thousands of years, got on little wooden boats and crossed the stormy Atlantic to settle in a howling wilderness. Before that, they were battered about by Romans, each other, Vikings, Angles, Normans, and each other some more. It’s remarkable how consisten it has been. Now, we’ve had over 150 years since the end of the Civil War, which is about the longest peace we’ve enjoyed over the last two millennia. Back in the Isles, there was still ethnic/religious strife as recently as the last decades of the 20th century (Northern Ireland).

    So while it’s been a long run, the remarkable stability of the American project is bound to end eventuallly, and it looks like it’s unraveling right now.

    I think this is going to be more of a shock for non-Anglos who bought into this myth of exceptionalism. When we start going at it again, they are going to wonder what the hell happened, because they never bothered to educate themselves about our history.

    As for myself, well, I’m betting on the Americans eventually recovering America. We’ve got more skin in the game, and we don’t have anywhere else to go. We can only be suppressed by our own men, and that’s only going to be viable as long as our men at arms are paid a lot of money to do it and are willing to suppress their own kin. In the meanwhile, I’d recommend a tactical retreat from blue cities so as to gather both political and economic strength where it’s relatively safe to do so.

    • Agree: densa
    • Replies: @ia

    I’d recommend a tactical retreat from blue cities so as to gather both political and economic strength where it’s relatively safe to do so.
     
    Absolutely backwards. You then become an estranged target. There is no escape from the modern world.

    Young white men need to move back into the center, blend in (not at all hard to do), and learn how to manipulate images, gestures, sounds in time; and to influence or gain power via Trump.
  70. @RW
    I'm sure in many cases that is true. A Chinese/English interpreter I know who worked with incoming immigrants to Britain explained that many of them had some scam going where they would report that they were unemployed while at the same time working under the table. This is the kind of externality that does not get accounted for in calculating how much immigration supposedly enriches native populations.

    A Chinese/English interpreter I know who worked with incoming immigrants to Britain explained that many of them had some scam going where they would report that they were unemployed while at the same time working under the table.

    In parts of the US, old Chinese immigrants unload all their assets onto their children, then claim poverty to get assistance.

    After the Hmong refugees were in St Paul for about a decade, it was found that many receiving unemployment insurance and other benefits were really working sixty hours a week off-the-books.

    Well, you can’t call them “lazy”!

    • Replies: @Bill
    This is normal for any group which consumes a lot of benefits. Even blacks on welfare or unemployment are sometimes reasonably hard-working in the informal sector.
  71. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    “In the long run we are all dead.”
    “Why don’t you get a jump on it now, and beat the rush?”

  72. @Art Deco
    I wonder if any serious economist has tried to quantify the premium in terms of housing costs that various groups will pay to achieve that sense of communal belonging.

    The complaints about 'gentrification' are largely humbug. Housing costs don't get ahead of changes in nominal incomes for very long. When neighborhood A is attracting more affluent residents, neighborhood B will be attracting more impecunious ones. If you own your home, your mortgage payments do not increase if the neighborhood improves. If you're renting, it can be a problem. The thing is, though, that about half the people living in rental housing are singles or in pairs and about half the people have lived at their current address for < 5 years. Its not typically a population for whom moving carries severe frictional costs and it's not by and large a population expecting to stay put. Also, propinquity ceased to be an important vector in influencing personal association 40-odd years ago. Unless they have children enrolled in school together, neighbors are not typically well-acquainted. Again, most people in rental housing are singles, young couples, and unrelated persons sharing rent. I suspect if you look under the hood, you'll find the source of protests about gentrification would be NGO employees who get paid to protest, playing on the social hostility of a selection of residents.

    “Again, most people in rental housing are singles, young couples, and unrelated persons sharing rent.”

    At best technically true. Downscale blacks living in urban environments live in rental units. The have one adult or a random grab-bad of unrelated adults. These households look strange to white people both in data and in person. However, children are very often present, and this is what a an urban, downscale, black family looks like.

    The only people who live in such a unit the way white people mean live are a matriarch who provides the income and her own minor children. However, there is often a rotating grab-bag of other individuals including minor children relatives, adult relatives and various minor and adult friends.

    The claim that these people do not experience significant moving costs is batshit crazy. The matriarchs form geographically localized alliances with one another which are disrupted by moving. The disruptions are costly to themselves, their own children, and the random grab-bag of other individuals rotating through the household.

    When people bitch about gentrification, it is this they are ostensibly bitching about.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    At best technically true. Downscale blacks living in urban environments live in rental units. The have one adult or a random grab-bad of unrelated adults. These households look strange to white people both in data and in person. However, children are very often present, and this is what a an urban, downscale, black family looks like.

    About 20% of the population lives in rental housing in households with more than two people present. About 1/3 of the black population does. About 1.6% of the population lives in non-family households with more than 2 people present. The data on the black population on this metric is dated, collected 18 years ago. At that time, 1.1% of the black population lived in non-family households with more than two people present.

    Current rates for renting a 15' U-Haul for an intra-metropolitan move around DC are about $82 plus fuel costs and tax.
  73. How much more per month is your average Chinese immigrant in New York willing to pay so that they can enjoy the familiarity of Queens?

    With respect (because the OP seems like a thoughtful person in general and is deserving of it), this particular question is really kind of a dumb question and actually has it backwards. Immigrants have been clustering in immigrant ghettos forever (even in the Colonial period there were German speaking enclaves in the colonies) because when you are fresh off the boat (today a 747) you have no choice but to “enjoy” living in some overpriced overcrowded flat in the immigrant ghetto. You don’t speak the language so you can only get a job with an immigrant employer who speaks your language. You can’t go shopping in a regular supermarket for the same reason – you need immigrant run shops or else you might mistake furniture polish for cooking oil and poison your family. You don’t have a driver’s license and maybe are afraid to even venture into the subway system where you might get lost. You’re in no position to negotiate a lease with an English speaking landlord with whom you can’t communicate.

    Later on (sometimes MUCH later – the next generation) the immigrant or his kids can’t WAIT to get the hell out of Chinatown but for the time being he feels as if he really has no choice. Chinese are really cheap with the dollar and if they could save money by living elsewhere they would (and later on they do), but at first they can’t for the reasons stated.

    This is not to say that we should be taking more (0r any) non-English speaking immigrants but the idea that the immigrant is living in his immigrant slum purely because he “enjoys” it is a fallacy.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Perhaps the emphasis of the OP shouldn't be on the slums, but rather on that immigrants enjoy having coethnics around. Picking up the example you give, there's a reason there was a Spanish Harlem; as friendly as blacks can be with Puerto Ricans, the Puerto Ricans still felt some need to stick with their own, even if the whole of Harlem could be small enough for it to be mixed. Not to say that those borders are made of stone; but usually when they blur, it's decades after the formation of those neighborhoods, and usually because either newer and poorer or older and richer people are moving in - and either way, the old community goes away. For better or worse.
    , @snorlax
    Maybe half-true, but it's obviously not just a language thing. Why'd already English-speaking Scots- and Catholic Irish immigrants form enclaves? Why'd Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Mexicans and Guatemalans, Polish Poles and Polish Jews, Serbs and Croats all form separate enclaves? Why do Cantonese, Hokkien and Mandarin-speaking Chinese all live in the same enclaves, and why is Koreatown always next to Chinatown?
    , @Anonymous
    I defer to your experience in US, but in the Greater Toronto Area this hasn't been true for a while now. There are still poor areas, and these are often literally diverse with people from a variety of backgrounds living cheek by jowl because they have no other choice. But in the suburban parts of Toronto and the surrounding regions you have gilded ghettos consisting of pricey houses that 95% of Canadians would be happy living in, but for some weird reason one or perhaps two recent immigrant groups dominate.

    This isn't unique to recent arrivals. Why does such a huge part of Toronto's Jewish community (the majority of whose ancestors immigrated in the 1920's at the latest), cram themselves into a relatively thin strip of land between Yonge(or if we're being generous, Bayview) and Dufferin? These people are generally wealthy, appear assimilated, and probably couldn't speak Yiddish if they tried. To be sure, their greater average wealth gives them more choices when it comes to where they can live, but if what you're saying is true you'd expect to see them evenly distributed among wealthy neighbourhoods across the GTA, which definitely isn't the case. And it certainly isn't the case that these Jews have some ancestral attachment to the streets of their immigrant forefathers(those neighbourhoods were mostly bulldozed or experienced ethnic succession decades ago).

    Why is it that any any university, you see Canadian-born, English-speaking students ethnically segregating to such a large degree? It isn't a matter of whites being mean to non-whites. If that were true you'd see students grouped into whites and everyone else would mix, but if anything it's the nonwhites who exhibit more in-group cohesion.

    Part of this is probably the fault of rich educated whites. When they got gentrification fever(the late 1980's maybe?), they targeted heritage houses in urban areas that traditionally acted as jumping-off points for generations of immigrants. They were the sort of traditional ethnic ghettos you're probably thinking of. Once these areas became prohibitively expensive for new immigrants they had no choice but to head to the suburban zones, which in Canada are designed to minimize interaction with your neighbours. I can't help but wonder if this slows integration.
  74. @Reg Cæsar

    A Chinese/English interpreter I know who worked with incoming immigrants to Britain explained that many of them had some scam going where they would report that they were unemployed while at the same time working under the table.
     
    In parts of the US, old Chinese immigrants unload all their assets onto their children, then claim poverty to get assistance.

    After the Hmong refugees were in St Paul for about a decade, it was found that many receiving unemployment insurance and other benefits were really working sixty hours a week off-the-books.

    Well, you can't call them "lazy"!

    This is normal for any group which consumes a lot of benefits. Even blacks on welfare or unemployment are sometimes reasonably hard-working in the informal sector.

  75. @Hypnotoad666
    Keynes started out as a flaming homo. Transitioned to "Bi." And then married a Russian ballerina with whom, by all accounts, he had a normal hetero married life. (And since he started out as an open and notorious homosexual, there would have been little point in having a "beard.")

    So, contra to the conventional dogma, either Keynes was not "born that way," or he proves that "conversion" is possible.

    Probably Keynes was one of those cases on the fence that are “turned”; I suppose most of today’s increasing LGBTQ’s are like that, the “born this way” crowd leading them as far as they can “experiment”, as their message is amplified louder than ever by current (anti)culture.

    What is weird about Keynes is that he started the opposite way; probably due to some “bromance” in those non-coed years that went (too) further. Which is why I disagree with those who argue for the return to the pre-coed years; sure, too much female influence as in today’s classrooms (example, Michelle Obama’s awful cafeteria food dictates) doesn’t work, but too little makes for intense intra-male competition and drama, lack of release (specially if the school is religious), and the return of headmaster rituals and bullyboys. A good compromise may be to allow the children to socialize with the other gender on breaks and recesses/lunches.

  76. @Anonymous
    In California I think there was a not-articulated open endeavor to replace black servants with brown ones, who seem less fractious, less scary, in the mind of the western Ladies Who Lunch. Identifying with blacks in servant or menial occupations (cooking, garbage collection, etc.) is an East Coast thing. The dumb thing about the California/Southwest strategy is that the displaced underclass doesn't just pick up stakes and go to North Dakota, they're still in town the better to fight with the vibrante hispanico replacements.

    The incredible boom in black celebrityhood after WWII made it easier for middle-American whitefolk to neglect the statistics on blacks generally experiencing more troubles and not growing their own middle class. This abetted the rise of official black spokesmen, who were obviously grifters at the time but tolerated under doublethink, and bolstered the optimistic progressive agenda of the Great Society which gave us a government-issued underclass. Great Society thinking imagined that blacks would replicate SWPL norms, left to their own devices. Crazy to think that something as harmless as Sammy Davis Jr. joking around on TV could enable bad social policy but people are not rational by nature. They want to be fooled, not to mention some other incentives.

    It's been remarked that the post-Civil Rights immigrants did not assimilate like the many earlier waves to batter "Nation of Immigrants"(tm). Globalized free trade, de jure and de facto, contributed to destroying a spectrum of good-paying semi-skilled occupations, a phenomenon which obviously hurt whites as well. This suggests that ramping up the input of foreigners when the traditional middle class is fraying is bad for integration but the libertarian bots love to point out that immigration rates were much higher in the ramshackle antebellum period.

    The blame has to be put squarely on the flop meme of Civil Rights. To the good-thinker elite who originated it, the message of CR was supposed to be: "We goodwhites are so noble of spirit we have deigned to create a multicultural paradise for all Gaia's chilluns." In the U.S. and around the world the same message was heard as, "There are a bunch of rich, gullible whites in America from whom we can extract resources simply by crying 'racism,' with no limit in sight." Since whites are so beloved to the other races of course, this second dog-whistle version of CR was rebroadcast around the earth with a vengeance.

    Whites from the end of WW II to the late 1960s weren’t quite as dumb as everybody says. Back then, the US was waging a cold war against the USSR, and had apparently “lost Asia”. The Democrat intellectuals believed that the USSR would win, and the rest of the country believed the race was real. The US had gotten through WW II and won it (the Eastern Front wasn’t much mentioned back then in the US) by letting the Federal Government do pretty much what it wanted, and by doing what the newspapers told them to do. Winning had turned out to be a pretty good deal.
    Until the 1990s I couldn’t find anybody who believed anybody inside the US who would want to change the nature of the United States (and this despite the 1960s, which I saw first hand in the East Village) “Why would they do that?” was the usual response. After 1990, nobody I could find believed the US had any serious enemy anywhere on earth. Socialists were clowns: this was a real sign I saw in the Boston area: “We’re closed for lunch, but we’ll be back this afternoon to continue our fight against the capitalist system!”
    So, with that as background, with no easy way of getting historical information (no Internet, history was generally difficult to find for non-specialists), simply repeating what had worked during WW II (and eventually worked during the Cold War) seemed reasonable. listen to the government, this is a welfare state, and the government manages our welfare. Information control built upon what memory recorded and it all seemed to hang together.
    There were, of course, signs that something was wrong. Politics was flat inaccessible, a closed system (as it remains today). Science was slowly being shut down. Same thing with engineering. manufacturing was vanishing in the US. But, compared to memories of the Great Depression, it dien’t seem critical, and there were so many explanations. Surely _both_ parties _and_ the press couldn’t have been turned against the population _with nobody noticing_. Flat bonkers to think so. And old 1930s US cartoon about a hit song composer captured the theme: “I love you and you love me, he loves she and she loves he, meow meow meow meow, we all love each other !”

    So, here we are, 2018 as Trump bucks the whole system with success uncertain. As Houseman wrote:

    “Then the world seemed none so bad,
    And I myself a sterling lad;
    And down in lovely muck I’ve lain,
    Happy till I woke again.
    Then I saw the morning sky:
    Heigho, the tale was all a lie;
    The world, it was the old world yet,
    I was I, my things were wet,
    And nothing now remained to do
    But begin the game anew.

    Counterinsurgency

  77. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    You can tell them that they must hate their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. But at least they’ll have something in common; their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will hate them back.

    • LOL: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Travis
    one of the problems, most of them have no children or grandchildren...While 15% of Baby Boomer females will die childless, 25% of white boomers have no grandchildren to worry about and 10% have non-white grandchildren so they may well welcome the demographic changes in America.

    Millennials are much less likely to ever have children. It is estimated that 33% of White Millennial females will die childless.
  78. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: Ruth Bader Ginsburg just had two cancerous nodules removed from the lower lobe of her left lung. This is significant because she had pancreatic cancer a few years ago. If you look at the layout of the human body, part of the pancreas extends up and to the left side, putting it near the lower lobe of the left lung. They’re very close to each other. Ginsburg was never a smoker. It’s almost 100% certain that her pancreatic cancer has returned, as this type of cancer tends to do, and metastasized into the nearby part of the lung. It may even have entered the bones of her ribs, which is why she broke them. Bones become very fragile and break easily once they become cancerous.

    When pancreatic cancer has spread into other organs, that means it’s stage 4 cancer, and there’s nothing they can do. Normal survival rate is 2 to 6 months, and the elderly mostly die at the lower end of that range. Stage 4 cancer in the pancreas also means that organ is virtually shot right now and will no longer be capable of functioning normally. It’ll fail on her pretty soon.

  79. @Jack D

    How much more per month is your average Chinese immigrant in New York willing to pay so that they can enjoy the familiarity of Queens?
     
    With respect (because the OP seems like a thoughtful person in general and is deserving of it), this particular question is really kind of a dumb question and actually has it backwards. Immigrants have been clustering in immigrant ghettos forever (even in the Colonial period there were German speaking enclaves in the colonies) because when you are fresh off the boat (today a 747) you have no choice but to "enjoy" living in some overpriced overcrowded flat in the immigrant ghetto. You don't speak the language so you can only get a job with an immigrant employer who speaks your language. You can't go shopping in a regular supermarket for the same reason - you need immigrant run shops or else you might mistake furniture polish for cooking oil and poison your family. You don't have a driver's license and maybe are afraid to even venture into the subway system where you might get lost. You're in no position to negotiate a lease with an English speaking landlord with whom you can't communicate.

    Later on (sometimes MUCH later - the next generation) the immigrant or his kids can't WAIT to get the hell out of Chinatown but for the time being he feels as if he really has no choice. Chinese are really cheap with the dollar and if they could save money by living elsewhere they would (and later on they do), but at first they can't for the reasons stated.

    This is not to say that we should be taking more (0r any) non-English speaking immigrants but the idea that the immigrant is living in his immigrant slum purely because he "enjoys" it is a fallacy.

    Perhaps the emphasis of the OP shouldn’t be on the slums, but rather on that immigrants enjoy having coethnics around. Picking up the example you give, there’s a reason there was a Spanish Harlem; as friendly as blacks can be with Puerto Ricans, the Puerto Ricans still felt some need to stick with their own, even if the whole of Harlem could be small enough for it to be mixed. Not to say that those borders are made of stone; but usually when they blur, it’s decades after the formation of those neighborhoods, and usually because either newer and poorer or older and richer people are moving in – and either way, the old community goes away. For better or worse.

  80. @Anonymous
    In California I think there was a not-articulated open endeavor to replace black servants with brown ones, who seem less fractious, less scary, in the mind of the western Ladies Who Lunch. Identifying with blacks in servant or menial occupations (cooking, garbage collection, etc.) is an East Coast thing. The dumb thing about the California/Southwest strategy is that the displaced underclass doesn't just pick up stakes and go to North Dakota, they're still in town the better to fight with the vibrante hispanico replacements.

    The incredible boom in black celebrityhood after WWII made it easier for middle-American whitefolk to neglect the statistics on blacks generally experiencing more troubles and not growing their own middle class. This abetted the rise of official black spokesmen, who were obviously grifters at the time but tolerated under doublethink, and bolstered the optimistic progressive agenda of the Great Society which gave us a government-issued underclass. Great Society thinking imagined that blacks would replicate SWPL norms, left to their own devices. Crazy to think that something as harmless as Sammy Davis Jr. joking around on TV could enable bad social policy but people are not rational by nature. They want to be fooled, not to mention some other incentives.

    It's been remarked that the post-Civil Rights immigrants did not assimilate like the many earlier waves to batter "Nation of Immigrants"(tm). Globalized free trade, de jure and de facto, contributed to destroying a spectrum of good-paying semi-skilled occupations, a phenomenon which obviously hurt whites as well. This suggests that ramping up the input of foreigners when the traditional middle class is fraying is bad for integration but the libertarian bots love to point out that immigration rates were much higher in the ramshackle antebellum period.

    The blame has to be put squarely on the flop meme of Civil Rights. To the good-thinker elite who originated it, the message of CR was supposed to be: "We goodwhites are so noble of spirit we have deigned to create a multicultural paradise for all Gaia's chilluns." In the U.S. and around the world the same message was heard as, "There are a bunch of rich, gullible whites in America from whom we can extract resources simply by crying 'racism,' with no limit in sight." Since whites are so beloved to the other races of course, this second dog-whistle version of CR was rebroadcast around the earth with a vengeance.

    Whites from the end of WW II to the late 1960s weren’t quite as dumb as everybody says. Back then, the US was waging a cold war against the USSR, and had apparently “lost Asia”. The Democrat intellectuals believed that the USSR would win, and the rest of the country believed the race was real. The US had gotten through WW II and won it (the Eastern Front wasn’t much mentioned back then in the US) by letting the Federal Government do pretty much what it wanted, and by doing what the newspapers told them to do. Winning had turned out to be a pretty good deal.
    Until the 1990s I couldn’t find anybody who believed anybody inside the US who would want to change the nature of the United States (and this despite the 1960s, which I saw first hand in the East Village) “Why would they do that?” was the usual response. After 1990, nobody I could find believed the US had any serious enemy anywhere on earth. Socialists were clowns: this was a real sign I saw in the Boston area: “We’re closed for lunch, but we’ll be back this afternoon to continue our fight against the capitalist system!”
    So, with that as background, with no easy way of getting historical information (no Internet, history was generally difficult to find for non-specialists), simply repeating what had worked during WW II (and eventually worked during the Cold War) seemed reasonable. listen to the government, this is a welfare state, and the government manages our welfare. Information control built upon what memory recorded and it all seemed to hang together.
    There were, of course, signs that something was wrong. Politics was flat inaccessible, a closed system (as it remains today). Science was slowly being shut down. Same thing with engineering. manufacturing was vanishing in the US. But, compared to memories of the Great Depression, it dien’t seem critical, and there were so many explanations. Surely _both_ parties _and_ the press couldn’t have been turned against the population _with nobody noticing_. Flat bonkers to think so. And old 1930s US cartoon about a hit song composer captured the theme: “I love you and you love me, he loves she and she loves he, meow meow meow meow, we all love each other !”

    So, here we are, 2018 as Trump bucks the whole system with success uncertain. As Houseman wrote:

    “Then the world seemed none so bad,
    And I myself a sterling lad;
    And down in lovely muck I’ve lain,
    Happy till I woke again.
    Then I saw the morning sky:
    Heigho, the tale was all a lie;
    The world, it was the old world yet,
    I was I, my things were wet,
    And nothing now remained to do
    But begin the game anew.

    Counterinsurgency

  81. @Jack D

    How much more per month is your average Chinese immigrant in New York willing to pay so that they can enjoy the familiarity of Queens?
     
    With respect (because the OP seems like a thoughtful person in general and is deserving of it), this particular question is really kind of a dumb question and actually has it backwards. Immigrants have been clustering in immigrant ghettos forever (even in the Colonial period there were German speaking enclaves in the colonies) because when you are fresh off the boat (today a 747) you have no choice but to "enjoy" living in some overpriced overcrowded flat in the immigrant ghetto. You don't speak the language so you can only get a job with an immigrant employer who speaks your language. You can't go shopping in a regular supermarket for the same reason - you need immigrant run shops or else you might mistake furniture polish for cooking oil and poison your family. You don't have a driver's license and maybe are afraid to even venture into the subway system where you might get lost. You're in no position to negotiate a lease with an English speaking landlord with whom you can't communicate.

    Later on (sometimes MUCH later - the next generation) the immigrant or his kids can't WAIT to get the hell out of Chinatown but for the time being he feels as if he really has no choice. Chinese are really cheap with the dollar and if they could save money by living elsewhere they would (and later on they do), but at first they can't for the reasons stated.

    This is not to say that we should be taking more (0r any) non-English speaking immigrants but the idea that the immigrant is living in his immigrant slum purely because he "enjoys" it is a fallacy.

    Maybe half-true, but it’s obviously not just a language thing. Why’d already English-speaking Scots- and Catholic Irish immigrants form enclaves? Why’d Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Mexicans and Guatemalans, Polish Poles and Polish Jews, Serbs and Croats all form separate enclaves? Why do Cantonese, Hokkien and Mandarin-speaking Chinese all live in the same enclaves, and why is Koreatown always next to Chinatown?

    • Replies: @snorlax

    Why’d already English-speaking Scots- and Catholic Irish immigrants form enclaves?
     
    Also English-speaking African and Afro-Caribbean immigrants nowadays.
    , @Jack D

    Why’d already English-speaking Scots... immigrants form enclaves?
     
    There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.

    Obviously speaking the language helps but it's still going to be easier for a new immigrant to cluster in an immigrant neighborhood where there is an Irish priest, an Irish politician to help him get a job, etc. But if you already speak the language then you are going to stay in the ghetto for a shorter amount of time. At most, (non-black) immigrant ghettos tend to be 1 or at most 2 generation things - the kids go to college and scatter to the 4 winds and don't move back to the old neighborhood with rare exceptions.
  82. @peterike
    Speaking of community, this story is wonderfully intersectional.

    https://nypost.com/2018/12/21/chemistry-student-accused-of-poisoning-his-roommate/

    Yukai Yang, a 22-year-old international student from China, was arraigned Thursday on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, simple assault and reckless endangerment in connection to the alleged plot to kill his former roommate, Juwan Royal, who continues to suffer symptoms from the incidents that began in February, prosecutors said.

    Who does not empathize with the hapless Yang

  83. @snorlax
    Maybe half-true, but it's obviously not just a language thing. Why'd already English-speaking Scots- and Catholic Irish immigrants form enclaves? Why'd Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Mexicans and Guatemalans, Polish Poles and Polish Jews, Serbs and Croats all form separate enclaves? Why do Cantonese, Hokkien and Mandarin-speaking Chinese all live in the same enclaves, and why is Koreatown always next to Chinatown?

    Why’d already English-speaking Scots- and Catholic Irish immigrants form enclaves?

    Also English-speaking African and Afro-Caribbean immigrants nowadays.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    And where are the French-Canadians in Louisiana or Cajuns in Quebec?
  84. @Autochthon
    Lineage, legacy is so fundamental to the human condition – to all life! – a kind of epidemic psychosis is the only explanation for its complete absence from the modern mind, especially since revolutions in genetics should only have redoubled its import and strength.

    And the psychosis is recent. The 1990s are often noted as both the last decade anything like America still existed and the beginning of the end.

    In 1999 Michael Crichton's Eaters of the Dead (1976) was adapted to film as The 13th Warrior, making famous this poem written for the film:


    Lo! There do I see my Father
    Lo! There do I see my Mother and
    My Sisters and my Brothers
    Lo! There do I see the line of my people back to the beginning
    Lo! They do call to me
    They bid me take my place among them....
     
    As recently as 2001 the anthemic "My Culture" was a hit on radio in America and Britain:

    I'm the sum total of my ancestors
    I carry their DNA
    We are representatives of a long line of people
    And we cart them around everywhere
    This long line of people
    That goes back to the beginning of time....
     
    QuaereWhat happened around the turn of the millennium? What event or events caused the madness? The abandonment of reproduction, of any regard for ancestor or descendant? I tend to think this period marks the ripeness of the seeds sewn in 1965, as the numbers of invaders reached a kind of critical mass such that ordinary Americans began to see, if not consciously, that their displacement was a fiat accompli, and also to be effected by the sheer numbers – the overpopulation reaching that point Americans could no longer get a job, afford a house, avoid gridlock in traffic, visit parks and be alone in nature, etc. But that theory doesn't account for what happened in Europe, Australia, New Zealand...

    Porter takes a good stab at things in his blog here:


    Forgetting [Maslow's] physiological needs, think of the other four in two related bands: 1) the foundations of belonging and safety, and 2) the aspirations of esteem and self-actualization. I believe the source of consternation in France, and the West as a whole, is the broad conviction to have 2 while rejecting 1. It is the futile and excruciating attempt to achieve our exquisite societal aspirations while simultaneously eroding our foundations. The result is a vast, typically misdiagnosed dissatisfaction that consistently gives birth to intense division and upheaval.
     
    But that insightful theory leaves the question: "What caused the maladaptive aspirations in the first instance?"

    I genuinely believe we must discern why and how people abandoned the most foundational aspect of life itself: reproduction, of being fruitful and multiplying, and the pathology of an altruism that exercises its charity by giving the resources needed by one's own posterity to strangers. Because all the rest follows from that. I'm a nice guy; I'll give a hungry man a sandwich...but not if my son is hungry too and there is only the one sandwich. And even the crazies still manifest vestiges of this: those few who have children (more often a child) live in gated communities, send them to private schools, and so on. But even they who reproduce disregard lineage: they make a mulatto in despite of their fathers; they liquidate the estate to enjoy the moment both as individuals and as a nation. WHY?

    they liquidate the estate to enjoy the moment both as individuals and as a nation. WHY?

    ”Oikophobia”, coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, is here used as a non-clinical description of an ‘anti-culture’ prevalent among Western artists and intellectuals. (Roger Scruton, ”England and the Need for Nations”, (London: Civitas, 2004). It is a combination of:

    ”oikos” – from the Greek meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation”
    – Encyclopaedia Britannica

    and

    ”-phobia” – extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group
    -Webster’s Dictionary

    An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of paganism/Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is “significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric”. (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)

    Scruton defines it as “the repudiation of inheritance and home,” and refers to it as “a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes.” Roger Scruton, ”A Political Philosophy”, p. 24.

    According to Scruton, culture is the ethical transmission “how to feel” passed down from one generation to the next. Virtue is taught through imitation of the heroes, gods and ancestors not by mere copying but through the imagination and “moving with them” which high culture provides. The repudiation of a common tradition blocks the individual’s path to membership in the “original experience of the community”. Instead of apprehending spiritual and intellectual received wisdom as an epiphany the ‘anti-culture’ of repudiation produces mere nihilism, irony and false gods. Roger Scruton, ”Culture Counts” (Encounter Books, 2007), pp.36-9.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    All good explanations of the phenomenon's operation, but I'm not sure I see an explanation of the underlying cause here, either. What causes this madness, this oikophobia? To my knowledge it's no precedent in history, that a civilization should destroy itself, willfully – gleefully, even. Religions and traditions have shifted before: Europeans adopted Christianity, but they continued being Germans, Celts, and Slavs. There was an accretion and syncretism that occurred. Perhaps that's it, though: nihilistic atheism necessarily means nothing whatsoever matters; all is vanity and futility as atoms bounce about in space. And that, I suppose, like the self-extinction, has no precedent in history either. And he one common thing about the peoples still reproducing, preserving their culture, and conquering the world – Mohammedans, Orientals, Jews, Mestizos, Hindoos, and Africans, is that they retain a religion of some kind: Islam, Confucian traditions and ancestor-reverence, Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity (the mestizos with their Catholicism, weird though it be with Santo Muerte and all the rest of it, and the Africans are mostly now Christian or Mohammedan).

    So, whether we meant it to or not, whether it's meaningful of itself or not, atheism necessarily causes this madness when it becomes too prevalent among the masses? A small number of folks like Voltaire and his ilk could handle the idea of no God responsibly, but in some critical percentage of the population of average intelligence the thing metastasises? It was all there in The Brothers Karamazov: If God does not exist, everything is permitted?

    If that hypothesis has legs, is there any hope? People will have a religion, it seems, so they've be erected be Church of the Globohomo & Our Lady of Kill-Whitey. I don't think conventional theism will return because the paradigm is all too empirical and materialistic. We just cannot convince anyone of The Bearded Man Above. Astute theologians realise it's all more nuanced than that and that the scientific, rational views are not mutually exclusive of theism, but, again, only a small cognitive elite understand that; the vast majority will never view it ever again as anything but what Patton Oswalt famously called "The Old Sky-Cake Dodge."

    So is the perhaps hope in revitalizing andnopilariaing a kind of Buddhism or Stoicism that might reawaken an ethos of responsibility in Europeans? Otherwise, I cannot see any end until even the invading hordes succumb to the madness (and they are, slowly but surely: sodomite parades in Buenos Aires, Muslims and Hindoos friending for pornography and consumerism, Africans pouring into Europe Because Facebook. They are all on course for the same crazy in the end. And what? Then it's just Tales from the Dying Earth, a world of idlers and conmen watching the sun sputter and dim? Max Rockatansky and Cugel the Clever wandering the wastes?

    We need to cultivate some kind of Aurelianism, if you will, or the like or that seems the inevitable outcome.
    , @James N. Kennett

    "Oikophobia", coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, is here used as a non-clinical description of an ‘anti-culture’ prevalent among Western artists and intellectuals.
    ...
    ”oikos” – from the Greek meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation”
     
    That's a strange coinage for a Brit. "Oik" is a British word for an unpleasant person of the lower classes.
  85. I wonder if any serious economist has tried to quantify the premium in terms of housing costs that various groups will pay to achieve that sense of communal belonging.

    Modern de-ethnified white people don’t seem to attach any value in clustering in specifically mono-ethnic neighborhoods anymore (putting aside racial segregation – no one wants to live with blacks ) – the post-war suburbs never really coalesced along ethnic lines. You had WASPs mixed up with Jews, Irish with Italians, Greeks with Poles, etc. Later you even had E. and S. Asians. Everyone spoke English and shopped in the supermarket and you could always drive back to the old neighborhood if you had a craving for kielbasa or dim sum. You didn’t have much to do with your neighbors anyway – wave to them in the driveway once in a while, that was about it, so it really didn’t make a difference what ethnic group they (or really their grandparents) were.

    It’s really right and proper that this happens – after a couple of generations, ethnics aren’t really ethnics anymore, they are just Americans. Most of the time they are ethnically mixed themselves or compared to their spouse, let alone their neighbors, so who cares where the ancestors of the guy next door were from? Of course economic segregation exists and again blacks (and to some extent Latinos) are the great exception, but otherwise no one cares anymore.

  86. @snorlax

    Why’d already English-speaking Scots- and Catholic Irish immigrants form enclaves?
     
    Also English-speaking African and Afro-Caribbean immigrants nowadays.

    And where are the French-Canadians in Louisiana or Cajuns in Quebec?

  87. @snorlax
    Maybe half-true, but it's obviously not just a language thing. Why'd already English-speaking Scots- and Catholic Irish immigrants form enclaves? Why'd Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Mexicans and Guatemalans, Polish Poles and Polish Jews, Serbs and Croats all form separate enclaves? Why do Cantonese, Hokkien and Mandarin-speaking Chinese all live in the same enclaves, and why is Koreatown always next to Chinatown?

    Why’d already English-speaking Scots… immigrants form enclaves?

    There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.

    Obviously speaking the language helps but it’s still going to be easier for a new immigrant to cluster in an immigrant neighborhood where there is an Irish priest, an Irish politician to help him get a job, etc. But if you already speak the language then you are going to stay in the ghetto for a shorter amount of time. At most, (non-black) immigrant ghettos tend to be 1 or at most 2 generation things – the kids go to college and scatter to the 4 winds and don’t move back to the old neighborhood with rare exceptions.

    • Replies: @snorlax

    There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.
     
    Entire states, actually.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this."
     
    Canada.
  88. @Art Deco
    I re Cuban migrants ca. 1962, the federal authorities tried scattering them all over the country. By 1990, 77% of all people listing Cuban origin were living in Florida. The clotting occurs naturally.

    There are lots of things that occur naturally, e.g., cancer, forest fires, famine. That does not mean that the state should encourage those things.

    Re Cubans, even if they “clumped” in Florida later (which might really be a different wave–e.g., Mariel Boat-lift wave) the early Cuban immigrants still had the experience of being more immersed in American culture and cut off from their own. It might not be a coincidence that they were among the most reliably Republican voting of migrant groups. So if ending immigration can’t happen, at least ending deliberate enclaving should.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    There's no way you can end the manufacture of enclaves except by (1) turning off the spigot entirely or (2) establishing a Soviet-system of internal passports.
  89. @Jack D

    Why’d already English-speaking Scots... immigrants form enclaves?
     
    There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.

    Obviously speaking the language helps but it's still going to be easier for a new immigrant to cluster in an immigrant neighborhood where there is an Irish priest, an Irish politician to help him get a job, etc. But if you already speak the language then you are going to stay in the ghetto for a shorter amount of time. At most, (non-black) immigrant ghettos tend to be 1 or at most 2 generation things - the kids go to college and scatter to the 4 winds and don't move back to the old neighborhood with rare exceptions.

    There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.

    Entire states, actually.

    • Agree: densa
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don't think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state. And, based on things like origin of folk songs, a lot of the Appalachian people that we call Scotch -Irish were really from the borderlands in the North of England. If there was any clustering it was by religion (mainly Presbyterian) but Presbyterians came not just from the Scots who moved to Ulster and then move again to the US (the only people truly entitled to the Scotch-Irish label). In short, the whole "Scotch-Irish" thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.
    , @Another Canadian
    Nova Scotia
  90. Dean Ratched

  91. @Anonymous
    Ask them why they care so much about global warming.

    They show “concern” about Global Warming to virtue signaling to improve their status and to avoid being mocked as a denier. Similar reason they fear being critical of the globalists, they do not want to be associated with the deplorables who oppose open borders for fear of hurting their status. The Globalist elite have the media, academia, churches, and big corporations on their side to mock and attack those who oppose them.

    even those who oppose our open borders and secretly wish Trump will build the wall live in fear of being exposed. Supporting the president brings tremendous risks to ones career and livelihood in America today. Just as those who question the feminist dogma will be fired from their jobs, those who support funding the wall face being persecuted and even physically attacked if they actually wear a MAGA hat in any big city.

  92. @Bill P
    It's all tragic stuff, but I remind myself that it happened to my ancestors before, many times, and somehow we survived. In the case of my ancestors, religious and ethnic persecution in the British Isles got very nasty at times. So bad that they left their ancestral home of thousands of years, got on little wooden boats and crossed the stormy Atlantic to settle in a howling wilderness. Before that, they were battered about by Romans, each other, Vikings, Angles, Normans, and each other some more. It's remarkable how consisten it has been. Now, we've had over 150 years since the end of the Civil War, which is about the longest peace we've enjoyed over the last two millennia. Back in the Isles, there was still ethnic/religious strife as recently as the last decades of the 20th century (Northern Ireland).

    So while it's been a long run, the remarkable stability of the American project is bound to end eventuallly, and it looks like it's unraveling right now.

    I think this is going to be more of a shock for non-Anglos who bought into this myth of exceptionalism. When we start going at it again, they are going to wonder what the hell happened, because they never bothered to educate themselves about our history.

    As for myself, well, I'm betting on the Americans eventually recovering America. We've got more skin in the game, and we don't have anywhere else to go. We can only be suppressed by our own men, and that's only going to be viable as long as our men at arms are paid a lot of money to do it and are willing to suppress their own kin. In the meanwhile, I'd recommend a tactical retreat from blue cities so as to gather both political and economic strength where it's relatively safe to do so.

    I’d recommend a tactical retreat from blue cities so as to gather both political and economic strength where it’s relatively safe to do so.

    Absolutely backwards. You then become an estranged target. There is no escape from the modern world.

    Young white men need to move back into the center, blend in (not at all hard to do), and learn how to manipulate images, gestures, sounds in time; and to influence or gain power via Trump.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    And sacrifice family formation, peace of mind and health? No thanks. I grew up in a deep blue city, and it's just become crazier and crazier there. It's a total waste of time, unless you need to spend some time there for a career, which most do not.

    Let the progressives devour each other in their enclaves.

    I would strongly recommend that young Americans stay out of places like San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, etc. Every bit of work you put into those places, every dime of tax you pay, and every improvement you make is in vain as it just feeds the machine. Also, it totally warps your point of view to the point where you implicitly accept fictions like transgenderism and gay "marriage."

    As sad as it sounds, I'd rather see my old neighborhood go full-on ghetto than see it gain even more power and influence over the state I live in.

    Furthermore, what makes you think the non-psycho parts of the country are estranged? Maybe on cable news, but our MSM is an echo chamber people don't take seriously anymore.
  93. In a similar vein, given that the populations of virtually every historically white country are being told that anything less than replacement level immigration level will make them poorer, a curious economist might ask:

    a)How much poorer?

    b)Would the indigenous white populations of said countries be willing to accept being that much poorer if they knew that in exchange they could live in communities that they actually recognized and understood?

    Interesting and useful questions. Again, there seems to be inverse relationship between affluence and culture. Not unique to the West, really.

    To most “ordinary” people (by that, I mean people who are required to either work for a living or pursue some other endeavor on a daily basis to ensure their existence), culture is perceived as something of a fortress. To many people of influence and/or affluence, however, culture is perceived as something of a prison. Not a hard fast rule, but a general tendency. America and Europe’s post-war middle class has found itself fixed somewhere between those two positions for the last 50 years, often trying to both escape from culture – with all of its obligations and proprieties – and find refuge in it at the same time.

    People seem to crave affluence the way they crave a rich diet. In fact, people’s ideas about wealth accumulation today seem psychologically akin to people’s ideas about optimum health 150 or 200 years ago, when a fat family was a healthy family. Put aside all the SJW or church moralizing about (or against) personal wealth when considering these ideas. Those perspectives only confuse the issue, and usually disregard meaningful ideas about healthy culture. A question that I sometimes ask myself: Do people today view wealth more as a means to financial security (as I’d always assumed) or a means to escape their culture? While I’m sure that many people still fit into the former, millions of limousine leftists seem to make a case for the latter. Their wealth has liberated them from the drudgery of culture, though that’s not exactly something they can admit publicly.

    Remember when Rush Limbaugh used to say – or at least insinuate (forcefully) – that free markets, affluence and standard of living were the only real ties that could bind people together? The whole world could be like us with a little democracy and wealth. He no longer says that. Nor does Ann Coulter. The right’s apathy towards culture, combined with the left’s antipathy, has taken its toll, but at least some people are waking up.

    Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

    The spirit of this question connects with me, but I find its implied assumptions somewhat ahistorical. I think Braudel said a civilization decays from within, and that’s probably true. With that in mind, there’s actually something worse than than indifference to heritage, and that’s hostility towards it, which is exactly what self-hating radical white leftists have. They have inherited sin to exorcise, which makes them particularly vitriolic. The indifferent non-native populations are more of a symptom than a cause, though they soon become a cause.

  94. Anonymous[333] • Disclaimer says:

    (As an aside, most liberals in 2018 confirm the enduring bonds of ethnicity whenever they bitch about having to go to Christmas or Thanksgiving with their MAGA uncle. They put up with it because people will tolerate things from their family that they would never put up with from anyone else, and ethnicity is basically a big extended family)

    White people are not an ethnicity. The most you could say is that they’re an ethnicity currently in formation.

    The contrast with black people in America is useful, because they actually are an ethnicity already. Blacks were imported from various tribes and mixed together at the outset into a single population and culture, cut off from their various original tribes and cultures, and became a subaltern minority population.

    Whereas there has been until recently a continuous flow of white immigrants from various ethnicities that have retained to varying degrees their respective ethnic memories and cultures, and have not yet been mixed into oblivion. Moreover, the mainstream American culture that whites have assimilated into is a mercantile, business oriented commercial culture and civilization that is exported around the world and open to all groups. Consumer habits and choices aren’t a meaningful basis for an ethnicity since they’re not exclusive folkways. Significant numbers of whites in the US are descended from immigrants who immigrated long after the founding from cultures different from the founding, which is why they don’t view themselves as descendants of “ancestors [who] spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building” the US. They look at their family history and see the reality of their ancestors having been immigrants with commercial and material aspirations of a better life. This sort of thing is derided and dismissed by some as Ellis Island worship, but it’s sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.

    Now as white people continue to mix and become more deracinated, and demographic change continues, a general white ethnicity likely will develop.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    but it’s sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.
     
    This is what cracks me up about the "they all have to go back" crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard, like Nazi officials who had trouble getting the proper Racial Purity Certificate for their own lineage (they would have to do humiliating things like have their grandmother swear falsely that they had cheated on their Jewish husbands with an Aryan - thank God for them there was no DNA testing in those days). If the test was 100% WASP ancestry, most of the population would flunk it. Even if you broadened it, there are still millions upon millions of perfectly good ordinary American white people who would flunk. And where do you draw the line - are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)? Amish? German Catholics? Irish? French-Canadians? Does the seemingly uber-WASP family of William F. Buckley Jr. have to go back because they are really Irish? A lot of people think that they are good because they have an ancestor on the Mayflower, but in truth there are hundreds of slots (hard to say how many because most family trees have overlaps) in your family tree so 1 Mayflower ancestor means nothing.
    , @Anonymous
    What about Germans in Germany?
    Dutch in the Netherlands?
    Are they not ethnic groups?


    This phenomenon is not limited to the United States.
  95. @Tiny Duck
    1. Yes, my ancestors were racist misogynists who would have cast me out for my lifestyle. I spit on "white American heritage" and anyone else who does so is a friend of mine. Also, immigrants and People of Color are more attuned to progressive thinking (gun control, opposition to Christian supremacy, promotion of diversity) so I support them and their ascendancy.

    2. This is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve an answer. People of Color get along great and love each other. Only in the minds of old white men do People of Color have any beef with each with other. Plus, we as a society have a healthy narrative going forward: the destruction and eternal vigilance against white supremacy. This is the great battle of our time and what we must undertake for the benefit of future generations.

    3. Two things: First People of Color know what it is to be brutalized so they will be reasonably merciful. Second, if you don't want this (ridiculous) scenario to take place encourage your children to breed with People of Color. Simply, if white people do not exist they cannot be "discriminated" exist.

    4. Did white males have the right to colonize rape enslave murder and pillage Societies of Color?

    5. The past is the past. This is not a serious question. It is time for we whites to do what is right not what is white.

    Ohs Tinys……

    Yeah you spit som oh Lenderms “white herbitage” yesterday’s which be why Lenderg was mad witchu. Baby …..why yo make Ike…..err Lendert …..hitchu!? Member what I be tellz you. You gots to swallerz don spit!

    Lendert “teh wurdsmit” Pit

    • Agree: duncsbaby
  96. @Couch Scientist
    The wicked rot of nihilism. When you dont believe anything matters, the default position is not to care.

    How does a people so quickly stop caring about its own surival?

    Living on a thin line, there is no England now.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuGFlP5Duuw

    Phony nihilism. It’s a pose; a slave’s cope.

  97. @anony-mouse
    There are 4 states that are over 90% non-Hispanic White: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population

    Within those states (and others) I'm sure there are places that are all-White.

    Of course Steve, like most Unz.com American writers choses to live in a place with a White % far less than 90%. It's like the constant drumbeat of Unz writers and commenters praising small rural Iowa counties that they would never live in for a week.

    Why do so many Unz.com writers hate Whites?

    This site’s host lives in a city that is 1.8% Black and 6.2% Hispanic. Not bad.

  98. @Whiskey
    Women love invasion. Even more Alpha men to replace their beta males. Women have zero ethnic loyalty. See Vichy France. Every woman she 17 to 40 was sleeping with an invader. While their men toiled in labor camps.

    Blocked. Dunno why I waited so long. You never had jack shit to say.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    As if you ever had anything to say other than the Jooooooossssss! Typical WN White Knight cuck. As bad as the boomers.
  99. @Massimo Heitor
    1) No. 3) No. 4) No.

    To play devil's advocate on #2:

    What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be?
     
    Institutions built on contracts of individual choice and consent instead of today's institutions built on laws passed by all powerful governments. Basically, AnCap.

    How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future?
     
    By buying/selling products and services from each other for their own benefit.

    What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble?
     
    Naked self-interest. Even if groups hate each other, they will want to buy and sell from each other. Violence will be unattractive on a cost/reward basis.

    What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength” into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?
     
    Nothing. No nations, no wars.

    Nothing. No nations, no wars.

    Kumbayah, my Lord, Kumbayah…

  100. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    The idea that whites are 'displacing' anyone in countries where they are an ever-shrinking share of the population is the sort of logic you need when your goal is to replace a population. When whites are the minority, the process of asking the nation's people who they want in their country will be seen as 'democratic,' of course. 'Family reunification' eventually includes everyone, you know.

    The 'diverse' future is the ideal, and whites by definition are the only non-diverse population on earth. In a 'diverse' future, your place is in the ground. Matter of fact, some of those old white cemeteries are going to look like prime real estate in the not-distant future, so don't get too comfortable down there, either.

    Sorry, white lib ladies, at some point the lip service to 'women' as a category in the Coalition will go by the boards. Blame your white parents for your troubles. ( oh, you already do?)

    NPR today stated that women are diversity. Forget the exact context, but it was a White woman quoted saying something like, “Trump needs moar wymminz to bring his diversity numbers up.” I was like “WTF is this shit? Do White women honestly believe that a room full of White men is made diverse by adding White women? That their diversity overlords are satisfied with that?”

    • Replies: @fish

    Do White women honestly believe that a room full of White men is made diverse by adding White women? That their diversity overlords are satisfied with that?”
     
    It’s worked pretty well for them until just recently!
    , @anonymous
    svigor, how many checks do you get from Tel Aviv every month to sound useless, to sound like a caricature who discredits his own positions ?

    if you don't know you sound stupid, that is one thing

    if you do know, you deserve, I guess, every shekel.

    Read the Bible, you poor creature, particularly the Book of Proverbs and the exhortation

    not to waste your time in foolishness

    Nobody cares what you say anymore
    because you are a fool

    wake up and be a man

    nobody cares what Svigor has to say after a day listening to NPR

    do something better with your life

  101. @Anon
    TFW when Americans, grown out of three centuries of mongrelization, preach about racial purity.

    And what the hell do you mean by "eat like you and think like you"? Thirty years ago, American ate sugar and beef; now they eat corn syrup and chicken. You don't eat like yourself, but you have the guts to ask others to "eat like you"?

    It's not like sugar and beef became unavailable. You are just going for the cheapest. This preference for the cheaper explains why you can't recognize your neighborhoods any longer.

    I pay extra for Mexican Coke in glass bottles because it has real sugar. I’ve been known to make road trips to STL for a Lions Choice sandwich.

  102. @Almost Missouri
    There are lots of things that occur naturally, e.g., cancer, forest fires, famine. That does not mean that the state should encourage those things.

    Re Cubans, even if they "clumped" in Florida later (which might really be a different wave--e.g., Mariel Boat-lift wave) the early Cuban immigrants still had the experience of being more immersed in American culture and cut off from their own. It might not be a coincidence that they were among the most reliably Republican voting of migrant groups. So if ending immigration can't happen, at least ending deliberate enclaving should.

    There’s no way you can end the manufacture of enclaves except by (1) turning off the spigot entirely or (2) establishing a Soviet-system of internal passports.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    When HIAS was placing the Jewish refugees that they sponsored after WWII, they tried to scatter them across the US. My father was originally supposed to be placed in New Orleans but then he got switched to St. Louis (where I still have cousins) and he had friends sent to Des Moines, Denver, etc.

    Some of these enclaves are literally manufactured, such as when they send all the Somalis to Minnesota. To some extent there is reshuffling later - once the sponsorship period ends there is nothing to keep you from getting on a train and moving to NY (as my father did) but a lot of the enclaves were US creations initially and not the immigrants own choice. Would Somalis or Hmong have picked the coldest part of the US given a choice?
    , @Almost Missouri
    I'm not suggesting ending enclaves. I'm suggesting that the government stop encouraging them and subsidizing them as a matter of policy. As your examples show, when immigrants are not automatically and formally enclaved, they assimilate better--not perfectly, but better.
  103. @Massimo Heitor
    1) No. 3) No. 4) No.

    To play devil's advocate on #2:

    What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be?
     
    Institutions built on contracts of individual choice and consent instead of today's institutions built on laws passed by all powerful governments. Basically, AnCap.

    How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future?
     
    By buying/selling products and services from each other for their own benefit.

    What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble?
     
    Naked self-interest. Even if groups hate each other, they will want to buy and sell from each other. Violence will be unattractive on a cost/reward basis.

    What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength” into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?
     
    Nothing. No nations, no wars.

    Institutions built on contracts of individual choice and consent instead of today’s institutions built on laws passed by all powerful governments.

    The powers that be aren’t libertarian. Governments don’t seem to be on their way to become less powerful. More powerful governments might well be introduced to keep a lid on things.

    (Maybe I’m gullible. Was your comment a joke?)

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    The powers that be aren’t libertarian. Governments don’t seem to be on their way to become less powerful. More powerful governments might well be introduced to keep a lid on things.

    (Maybe I’m gullible. Was your comment a joke?)
     
    Not a joke. So, personally, I think it's too risky, so I support tight border controls and tapping the brakes. But I actually like the idea of a contract and market driven society that doesn't use voting or nation states.

    Sure, today, the powers that be aren't libertarian at all. Governments wield enormous of amounts of power throughout all aspects of life. The libertarian argument is that large shocks of ethnic diversity will undermine all of that.
  104. @Svigor
    NPR today stated that women are diversity. Forget the exact context, but it was a White woman quoted saying something like, "Trump needs moar wymminz to bring his diversity numbers up." I was like "WTF is this shit? Do White women honestly believe that a room full of White men is made diverse by adding White women? That their diversity overlords are satisfied with that?"

    Do White women honestly believe that a room full of White men is made diverse by adding White women? That their diversity overlords are satisfied with that?”

    It’s worked pretty well for them until just recently!

  105. @snorlax

    There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.
     
    Entire states, actually.

    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don’t think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state. And, based on things like origin of folk songs, a lot of the Appalachian people that we call Scotch -Irish were really from the borderlands in the North of England. If there was any clustering it was by religion (mainly Presbyterian) but Presbyterians came not just from the Scots who moved to Ulster and then move again to the US (the only people truly entitled to the Scotch-Irish label). In short, the whole “Scotch-Irish” thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    "The borderlands"--hence the term "Border People", many if not most of whom weren't even from Scotland. The term "Scotch-Irish" has becomes something of a shorthand (and a sloppy one at that) to include so-called "Lowland Scots" whose native language, by the way, is Germanic, as opposed to the Celtic of the northern Scottish highlands ( "Highland Scots").
    , @snorlax
    Back in the day, it'd be fighting words to call a man whose family came directly from England or Scotland an "Irish" anything. In Britain and by extension its colonies, to be Irish was sort of like having cooties, regardless of one's religion, wealth, education or actual ethnicity.

    It was unthinkable, for example, to have an Irish-born Prime Minister. When the equivalent—Andrew Jackson—occurred in America, it horrified and shocked the Establishment like nothing else until Trump. The beliefs that he had really been born on the boat over from Ireland so was ineligible and that he didn't really win the 1828 election but instead had been installed by a global Masonic conspiracy bent on enforcing worldwide Satan-worship* became articles of faith among upper-crust Northeasterners.

    Although the original ethnic basis is now long-forgotten, anti-"Irish" contempt persists even to this day in upper-crust America as the socially-acceptable and even encouraged mockery and stereotyping of "hillbillies," "rednecks" and "white trash."

    The very term "Scots-Irish," or "Ulster Scots" in the even more sensitive to the British-Irish distinction UK, were adopted in an attempt—not particularly accurate as they mostly descend from native Irish converts—to avoid being tarred with the "Irish" brush. "Yes, we're from Ireland but we're really Scots."

    So long story short, Presbyterian or otherwise, Scottish or English immigrants would never, ever have self-identified as "Scots-Irish." Britain and Northern Ireland are 12 miles apart, speak a common language and are part of the same country, so it's hardly surprising if some or even most Scots-Irish-American folk songs originated in Britain.

    That the Scots-Irish are indeed Scots-Irish is borne out by the numbers; (Scots-)Irish immigration dwarfed British immigration in the early republic. 1820-29 Ireland: 51,617, rest of UK: 26,336; 1830-39 Ireland: 170,672, rest of UK: 74,350

    *Perhaps the first example of David Icke style conspiracism. c.f. RUSSIA COLLUZION!1!!
    , @Mr. Anon

    In short, the whole “Scotch-Irish” thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.
     
    Only by people who don't know what the term means. Don't take history lessons from "Whiskey". The term was explained in Fischer's Albion's Seed
    , @Bill P
    It's been way overdone in the hillbilly department, even though the terms redneck and hillbilly are of Scottish origin. Scots Irish, Ulster Scots, borderers, Covenanters or whatever you want to call them are pretty hard to pin down because they wholeheartedly embraced an American identity from the very beginning of the Republic.

    And as Snorlax pointed out in his reply, a lot of them are actually just plain Irish who got tossed in because they went to the same churches.

    If there's anything that characterized them here in the states it's mobility, because they are everywhere, yet you never hear about this or that place being "Scots Irish," even when it's named after one of them, as so many places are. They don't even have a sense of identity other than their American-ness, the large majority having long since shed their old customs, and even their religion.

    The only traditions I can think of in my own family (Scots Irish all the way down on my mom's side) that seem to have come from the old country are eating oats, drinking whiskey, roast beef, rutabagas, fowling and trout fishing. I'd probably recognize a lot more if I spent time in Ulster or the Scottish lowlands, but the fact that I - and the many millions like me - are totally unconscious of them and their origins shows how utterly Americanized we've become.

    This being the case, it's probably more accurate to call "Scots Irish" ethnic Americans. They'd understand the term better themselves.
    , @Autochthon
    Unless he's talking about eggs, whisky, broth, tape, or pie, I don't think he meant "Scotch" anything.

    I reckon you mean "Scots-Irish."
    , @ben tillman

    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don’t think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state.
     
    You have got to be kidding.

    Where I grew up they were 95% of the indigenous white population.

  106. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    isteves foremost Jewish troll both co-opting someones points (in a really obvious way) and spreading nihilism

    Say it aint so!

  107. @Anonymous
    You can tell them that they must hate their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. But at least they’ll have something in common; their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will hate them back.

    one of the problems, most of them have no children or grandchildren…While 15% of Baby Boomer females will die childless, 25% of white boomers have no grandchildren to worry about and 10% have non-white grandchildren so they may well welcome the demographic changes in America.

    Millennials are much less likely to ever have children. It is estimated that 33% of White Millennial females will die childless.

  108. “What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble?”

    Answer: basically nothing.

    The fracture, at this point, is thoroughly baked in. But there’s still plenty of time yet to get your own house in order before it comes out of the oven.

  109. @theMann
    Wow what a lot of verbiage.


    Simple explanation: in America, Whites as a group are significant net tax payers, non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers. In Economic terms Whites are the host, non- Whites are the parasite.

    There are two, and only two, relations you have to a parasite. The first is that it sucks your blood until you die. The second is that it sucks your blood until you kill it. Period.

    The day will come when the host tries to free itself of the parasite, which attaches via Taxation. That will be an interesting day.

    excellent reply

  110. @Art Deco
    There's no way you can end the manufacture of enclaves except by (1) turning off the spigot entirely or (2) establishing a Soviet-system of internal passports.

    When HIAS was placing the Jewish refugees that they sponsored after WWII, they tried to scatter them across the US. My father was originally supposed to be placed in New Orleans but then he got switched to St. Louis (where I still have cousins) and he had friends sent to Des Moines, Denver, etc.

    Some of these enclaves are literally manufactured, such as when they send all the Somalis to Minnesota. To some extent there is reshuffling later – once the sponsorship period ends there is nothing to keep you from getting on a train and moving to NY (as my father did) but a lot of the enclaves were US creations initially and not the immigrants own choice. Would Somalis or Hmong have picked the coldest part of the US given a choice?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    They're not leaving, are they?

    North of 40% of the Jews in the United States live in one of 22 counties in New York, New Jersey, and Florida where live < 8% of the total population. That's 130 years after the beginning of the immigration wave from the Hapsburg dominions and the Pale of Settlement and 170-odd years after the beginning of the wave from the German states. Fully 50% of the self-identified Cubans live in 3 counties in Florida where live < 2% of the population of the United States; that's two generations after the advent of the Cuban influx. There isn't any public policy sustaining that.
    , @Prusmc
    As I understand It, the Somaili settlement now in Lewiston,Maine originally was implanted in Georgia. Then scouts brought back the word that welfare benefits in Maine were superlative compared to the meager amounts then given in Georgia. Thense, a great northern migration.
  111. @Chrisnonymous
    Ludicrous! French women over 40 also want invaders!!

    But do invaders want them?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    My Boolean skills used on "30% of Internet traffic" tell me that French and mature return many instances of both desiring and desirable women.
  112. @Tiny Duck
    1. Yes, my ancestors were racist misogynists who would have cast me out for my lifestyle. I spit on "white American heritage" and anyone else who does so is a friend of mine. Also, immigrants and People of Color are more attuned to progressive thinking (gun control, opposition to Christian supremacy, promotion of diversity) so I support them and their ascendancy.

    2. This is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve an answer. People of Color get along great and love each other. Only in the minds of old white men do People of Color have any beef with each with other. Plus, we as a society have a healthy narrative going forward: the destruction and eternal vigilance against white supremacy. This is the great battle of our time and what we must undertake for the benefit of future generations.

    3. Two things: First People of Color know what it is to be brutalized so they will be reasonably merciful. Second, if you don't want this (ridiculous) scenario to take place encourage your children to breed with People of Color. Simply, if white people do not exist they cannot be "discriminated" exist.

    4. Did white males have the right to colonize rape enslave murder and pillage Societies of Color?

    5. The past is the past. This is not a serious question. It is time for we whites to do what is right not what is white.

    The great irony here is that people like you are useful idiots for the rich white males you claim to despise. Ever since leftist identity politics went into overdrive in the early 1990s, rich white males have been getting richer.

    Why are you so keen to be a bitch for the rich?

  113. @Svigor
    Blocked. Dunno why I waited so long. You never had jack shit to say.

    As if you ever had anything to say other than the Jooooooossssss! Typical WN White Knight cuck. As bad as the boomers.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    I don't recall you ever having anything interesting to say, or even merely correct. If there is a single damned thing you ever said that was right, I am unaware of it. You are the bald-faced liar who claimed that Hollywood is run by WASP-Brahmin Harvard grads. You are the idiot who predicted an amphibian assault of America by jihadists in Zodiac boats. You are the nincompoop who claims to be "Scots-Irish", though you don't even know what the term means (you seem to think it to means "Irish"), and also never express an opinion on any topic that touches upon those actual people. And yet, no matter what the topic may be, you always deflect attention away from one particular tribe with which you ostensibly have no affiliation at all.
  114. @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    You are fully invested because your wife is vietnamese and your kids are the new Multiculti Kids

    You are the Multicult

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Faraday's Bobcat
    Well, some around here will reject anyone but British-Americans, but there is zero multiculturalism in our family. We're American with no hyphen. We all speak solely unaccented English in our house, celebrate only the American holidays, and play baseball, not soccer or whatever the hell they play in Vietnam. My older son is in high school and knows exactly what the James Damore business was all about. You're free to refuse to make common cause with people like us, but it seems self-defeating.
  115. isteve.com reader anon complicates things….and things aren’t complicated at all.

    1)There is no economic case for race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority with the highly racialized nonwhite imported Democratic Party Voting Bloc…..not a debatable issue…

    2)We don’t need the approval and permission of the Economists….who serve the interests of the White Liberal Greedy Cheating Class billionaire Oligarchs…to act on our Native Born White American Racial Interests which is not to compete with Hindu Legal Immigrants and Chinese Legal Immigrants for the scarce Living and Breeding Space(Affordable Family Formation) of America…

    I wish isteve.com readers would stop trying to out-clever the race-replacement enthusiasts…..

    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Come on...get this comment approved...posted......
  116. @Anonymous

    (As an aside, most liberals in 2018 confirm the enduring bonds of ethnicity whenever they bitch about having to go to Christmas or Thanksgiving with their MAGA uncle. They put up with it because people will tolerate things from their family that they would never put up with from anyone else, and ethnicity is basically a big extended family)
     
    White people are not an ethnicity. The most you could say is that they're an ethnicity currently in formation.

    The contrast with black people in America is useful, because they actually are an ethnicity already. Blacks were imported from various tribes and mixed together at the outset into a single population and culture, cut off from their various original tribes and cultures, and became a subaltern minority population.

    Whereas there has been until recently a continuous flow of white immigrants from various ethnicities that have retained to varying degrees their respective ethnic memories and cultures, and have not yet been mixed into oblivion. Moreover, the mainstream American culture that whites have assimilated into is a mercantile, business oriented commercial culture and civilization that is exported around the world and open to all groups. Consumer habits and choices aren't a meaningful basis for an ethnicity since they're not exclusive folkways. Significant numbers of whites in the US are descended from immigrants who immigrated long after the founding from cultures different from the founding, which is why they don't view themselves as descendants of "ancestors [who] spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building" the US. They look at their family history and see the reality of their ancestors having been immigrants with commercial and material aspirations of a better life. This sort of thing is derided and dismissed by some as Ellis Island worship, but it's sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.

    Now as white people continue to mix and become more deracinated, and demographic change continues, a general white ethnicity likely will develop.

    but it’s sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.

    This is what cracks me up about the “they all have to go back” crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard, like Nazi officials who had trouble getting the proper Racial Purity Certificate for their own lineage (they would have to do humiliating things like have their grandmother swear falsely that they had cheated on their Jewish husbands with an Aryan – thank God for them there was no DNA testing in those days). If the test was 100% WASP ancestry, most of the population would flunk it. Even if you broadened it, there are still millions upon millions of perfectly good ordinary American white people who would flunk. And where do you draw the line – are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)? Amish? German Catholics? Irish? French-Canadians? Does the seemingly uber-WASP family of William F. Buckley Jr. have to go back because they are really Irish? A lot of people think that they are good because they have an ancestor on the Mayflower, but in truth there are hundreds of slots (hard to say how many because most family trees have overlaps) in your family tree so 1 Mayflower ancestor means nothing.

    • Replies: @istevefan

    And where do you draw the line – are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)?
     
    You may draw the line at those who were covered by the Naturalization Act of 1790. Given that was the first act of its kind written by the leading members of the founding stock, and signed into law by the Founding Father himself, it most clearly signifies for whom the founding stock had in mind to augment their fledgling nation.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    This is what cracks me up about the “they all have to go back” crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard …
     
    That’s a Corvinus-level straw man; no one serious in America is imagining policy based on WASP heritage exclusivity. I believe the last group with any power that pushed that ideal was the 1920s Klan. Even the authors of the Immigration Act of 1924 didn’t try to send all non-WASPs back to Europe.

    For the “they all have to go back crowd”, the longtime dividing line is whites (aka European Christian stock) vs. the rest. What you may be (intentionally) missing is a bit of polite understatement in the phrase “you have to go back.” It’s a heads-up from whites who want America to remain majority white saying:

    1) The US was founded by whites for the benefit of whites.
    2) If one doesn’t like whites being in charge, leave.
    3) If one doesn’t like our Anglo-American legal heritage, including the Bill of Rights (This applies to you. #104), leave.
    4) If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.

    So if someone says to you, Jack D, “you have to go back,” think of it as understated prudent advice.

    Merry Christmas. :)
    , @Anonymous
    If they look and act White and do not engage in anti-White activity , or antisocial or criminal behavior I'll generally give them a pass.
    , @Autochthon

    [A]re French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)? Amish? German Catholics? Irish? French-Canadians?
     
    These are empirical questions with empirical answers available and known to those of us who've bothered to read books. The U.S.A. was founded long after writing was invented and records kept. Among other things, it was also not founded by only White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

    Consider getting a library card, would you?
    , @Svigor

    If the test was 100% WASP ancestry, most of the population would flunk it.
     
    So we won't let Jewish concern trolls make up our rules, phony problem solved.
  117. @theMann
    Wow what a lot of verbiage.


    Simple explanation: in America, Whites as a group are significant net tax payers, non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers. In Economic terms Whites are the host, non- Whites are the parasite.

    There are two, and only two, relations you have to a parasite. The first is that it sucks your blood until you die. The second is that it sucks your blood until you kill it. Period.

    The day will come when the host tries to free itself of the parasite, which attaches via Taxation. That will be an interesting day.

    non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers.

    Citation needed. Last I looked, Asians had higher average household income than whites and higher income is usually correlated with higher tax payments in our progressive system of taxation. Also anecdotally when I go to the supermarket I see most black people paying for their heaping shopping carts with EBT cards but I never see any Asians “paying” that way.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    What about the Asians, who after becoming legal, bring over their elderly parents from the old country who then begin collecting social security bennies even though they had never set foot before in the USA?

    I have no statistics on how prevalent that it, so I cannot quantify it. But given that medicaid fraud and other such things are somewhat common to the immigrant community, it wouldn't surprise me if this type of situation is taking place on a material scale.
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    There is no economic case for importing Asians...legally.....never was.....Bring back the 1882 Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!
    , @Carol
    How can you tell it's an ebt card? I don't think I could tell them from debit cards like I use
    , @The Practical Conservative
    Asians just have more workers per household.
  118. The progs won’t even bother to respond to #2.

  119. The problem is, there are only two questions and you have to ask the right one:

    1. Do you want a better future or a worse future for your kids?

    Or, 2. Do you want kids?

  120. @Tiny Duck
    1. Yes, my ancestors were racist misogynists who would have cast me out for my lifestyle. I spit on "white American heritage" and anyone else who does so is a friend of mine. Also, immigrants and People of Color are more attuned to progressive thinking (gun control, opposition to Christian supremacy, promotion of diversity) so I support them and their ascendancy.

    2. This is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve an answer. People of Color get along great and love each other. Only in the minds of old white men do People of Color have any beef with each with other. Plus, we as a society have a healthy narrative going forward: the destruction and eternal vigilance against white supremacy. This is the great battle of our time and what we must undertake for the benefit of future generations.

    3. Two things: First People of Color know what it is to be brutalized so they will be reasonably merciful. Second, if you don't want this (ridiculous) scenario to take place encourage your children to breed with People of Color. Simply, if white people do not exist they cannot be "discriminated" exist.

    4. Did white males have the right to colonize rape enslave murder and pillage Societies of Color?

    5. The past is the past. This is not a serious question. It is time for we whites to do what is right not what is white.

    Two things: First People of Color know what it is to be brutalized so they will be reasonably merciful.

    Stockholm Syndrome. Even if you give your wife or girlfriend to them to spawn colored kids as racial atonement, they aren’t going to be merciful.

  121. @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    I agree there is nowhere to run to, but there is no more USA. Just a global extended stay hotel. Whites are a minority of births already.

    Non Whites still demand gibs.

    The end will be either a collapse of the welfare state but the Purge movies 24/7 directed at Whites or some sort of enslavement of Whites. Either way the gibs will be paid.

    There might be a nominal US but various spheres controlled by the Chinese, Mexico, etc.

    Never underestimate the willingness of other Goodwhites to make you and yours pay the gibsgeld. Gibs must always be paid.

    On a wider note the alternatives for White peoples is either fight against non Whites like Kurds against their enemies or submission to serfdom.

    Citizenship is essentially just the road to serfdom. Gibs must always be paid.

  122. I find that reminding normies that non-whites are not holding up their end of the race-does-not-matter-bargain is fairly effective, at least for those who do not hate their own people. I also do not worry about details like who has to go back or what constitution 2.0 would look like. If that comes up, I suggest that first we need to be able to take our own side in the argument and leave such details to the future generations who are allowed to freely discuss things.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  123. @ia

    they liquidate the estate to enjoy the moment both as individuals and as a nation. WHY?
     
    ''Oikophobia'', coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, is here used as a non-clinical description of an 'anti-culture' prevalent among Western artists and intellectuals. (Roger Scruton, ''England and the Need for Nations'', (London: Civitas, 2004). It is a combination of:

    ''oikos'' - from the Greek meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation”
    – Encyclopaedia Britannica

    and

    ''-phobia'' - extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group
    -Webster's Dictionary

    An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of paganism/Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)

    Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." Roger Scruton, ''A Political Philosophy'', p. 24.

    According to Scruton, culture is the ethical transmission "how to feel" passed down from one generation to the next. Virtue is taught through imitation of the heroes, gods and ancestors not by mere copying but through the imagination and "moving with them" which high culture provides. The repudiation of a common tradition blocks the individual's path to membership in the "original experience of the community". Instead of apprehending spiritual and intellectual received wisdom as an epiphany the 'anti-culture' of repudiation produces mere nihilism, irony and false gods. Roger Scruton, ''Culture Counts'' (Encounter Books, 2007), pp.36-9.

    All good explanations of the phenomenon’s operation, but I’m not sure I see an explanation of the underlying cause here, either. What causes this madness, this oikophobia? To my knowledge it’s no precedent in history, that a civilization should destroy itself, willfully – gleefully, even. Religions and traditions have shifted before: Europeans adopted Christianity, but they continued being Germans, Celts, and Slavs. There was an accretion and syncretism that occurred. Perhaps that’s it, though: nihilistic atheism necessarily means nothing whatsoever matters; all is vanity and futility as atoms bounce about in space. And that, I suppose, like the self-extinction, has no precedent in history either. And he one common thing about the peoples still reproducing, preserving their culture, and conquering the world – Mohammedans, Orientals, Jews, Mestizos, Hindoos, and Africans, is that they retain a religion of some kind: Islam, Confucian traditions and ancestor-reverence, Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity (the mestizos with their Catholicism, weird though it be with Santo Muerte and all the rest of it, and the Africans are mostly now Christian or Mohammedan).

    So, whether we meant it to or not, whether it’s meaningful of itself or not, atheism necessarily causes this madness when it becomes too prevalent among the masses? A small number of folks like Voltaire and his ilk could handle the idea of no God responsibly, but in some critical percentage of the population of average intelligence the thing metastasises? It was all there in The Brothers Karamazov: If God does not exist, everything is permitted?

    If that hypothesis has legs, is there any hope? People will have a religion, it seems, so they’ve be erected be Church of the Globohomo & Our Lady of Kill-Whitey. I don’t think conventional theism will return because the paradigm is all too empirical and materialistic. We just cannot convince anyone of The Bearded Man Above. Astute theologians realise it’s all more nuanced than that and that the scientific, rational views are not mutually exclusive of theism, but, again, only a small cognitive elite understand that; the vast majority will never view it ever again as anything but what Patton Oswalt famously called “The Old Sky-Cake Dodge.”

    So is the perhaps hope in revitalizing andnopilariaing a kind of Buddhism or Stoicism that might reawaken an ethos of responsibility in Europeans? Otherwise, I cannot see any end until even the invading hordes succumb to the madness (and they are, slowly but surely: sodomite parades in Buenos Aires, Muslims and Hindoos friending for pornography and consumerism, Africans pouring into Europe Because Facebook. They are all on course for the same crazy in the end. And what? Then it’s just Tales from the Dying Earth, a world of idlers and conmen watching the sun sputter and dim? Max Rockatansky and Cugel the Clever wandering the wastes?

    We need to cultivate some kind of Aurelianism, if you will, or the like or that seems the inevitable outcome.

    • Replies: @Hockamaw
    Outstanding comment. Thanks. And dare I say, God bless.
  124. @Jack D
    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don't think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state. And, based on things like origin of folk songs, a lot of the Appalachian people that we call Scotch -Irish were really from the borderlands in the North of England. If there was any clustering it was by religion (mainly Presbyterian) but Presbyterians came not just from the Scots who moved to Ulster and then move again to the US (the only people truly entitled to the Scotch-Irish label). In short, the whole "Scotch-Irish" thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.

    “The borderlands”–hence the term “Border People”, many if not most of whom weren’t even from Scotland. The term “Scotch-Irish” has becomes something of a shorthand (and a sloppy one at that) to include so-called “Lowland Scots” whose native language, by the way, is Germanic, as opposed to the Celtic of the northern Scottish highlands ( “Highland Scots”).

  125. istevefan says:
    @Jack D

    non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers.
     
    Citation needed. Last I looked, Asians had higher average household income than whites and higher income is usually correlated with higher tax payments in our progressive system of taxation. Also anecdotally when I go to the supermarket I see most black people paying for their heaping shopping carts with EBT cards but I never see any Asians "paying" that way.

    What about the Asians, who after becoming legal, bring over their elderly parents from the old country who then begin collecting social security bennies even though they had never set foot before in the USA?

    I have no statistics on how prevalent that it, so I cannot quantify it. But given that medicaid fraud and other such things are somewhat common to the immigrant community, it wouldn’t surprise me if this type of situation is taking place on a material scale.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    What about the Asians, who after becoming legal, bring over their elderly parents from the old country who then begin collecting social security bennies even though they had never set foot before in the USA? I have no statistics on how prevalent that it, so I cannot quantify it.

    It would be SSI they're collecting. About 6% of all SSI recipients are non-citizens. About 20% of the elderly collecting SSI are non-citizens. Elderly aliens collecting SSI amount to about 236,000 people. Orientals and East Indians among them amount to about 49,000 people.

    https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2017/sect05.pdf
  126. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

    What can I say to that…

    You can say what normal people have always understood:

    We all die as individuals, but we live on as a people, a culture, a nation, a race, a civilization, through our children.

    And … that people who don’t understand that truly are fools who understand nothing.

  127. @Tiny Duck
    1. Yes, my ancestors were racist misogynists who would have cast me out for my lifestyle. I spit on "white American heritage" and anyone else who does so is a friend of mine. Also, immigrants and People of Color are more attuned to progressive thinking (gun control, opposition to Christian supremacy, promotion of diversity) so I support them and their ascendancy.

    2. This is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve an answer. People of Color get along great and love each other. Only in the minds of old white men do People of Color have any beef with each with other. Plus, we as a society have a healthy narrative going forward: the destruction and eternal vigilance against white supremacy. This is the great battle of our time and what we must undertake for the benefit of future generations.

    3. Two things: First People of Color know what it is to be brutalized so they will be reasonably merciful. Second, if you don't want this (ridiculous) scenario to take place encourage your children to breed with People of Color. Simply, if white people do not exist they cannot be "discriminated" exist.

    4. Did white males have the right to colonize rape enslave murder and pillage Societies of Color?

    5. The past is the past. This is not a serious question. It is time for we whites to do what is right not what is white.

    Duckling, do please avoid the tiresome cliche “People of Color” in the same breath with “White Racists”. It makes no logical sense in as much as “white” is defined as a “color”.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    I recommend that no one feed the Duck. It just encourages it to keep coming back, flapping its wings and honking for more attention and feeding.
  128. @Jack D
    When HIAS was placing the Jewish refugees that they sponsored after WWII, they tried to scatter them across the US. My father was originally supposed to be placed in New Orleans but then he got switched to St. Louis (where I still have cousins) and he had friends sent to Des Moines, Denver, etc.

    Some of these enclaves are literally manufactured, such as when they send all the Somalis to Minnesota. To some extent there is reshuffling later - once the sponsorship period ends there is nothing to keep you from getting on a train and moving to NY (as my father did) but a lot of the enclaves were US creations initially and not the immigrants own choice. Would Somalis or Hmong have picked the coldest part of the US given a choice?

    They’re not leaving, are they?

    North of 40% of the Jews in the United States live in one of 22 counties in New York, New Jersey, and Florida where live < 8% of the total population. That's 130 years after the beginning of the immigration wave from the Hapsburg dominions and the Pale of Settlement and 170-odd years after the beginning of the wave from the German states. Fully 50% of the self-identified Cubans live in 3 counties in Florida where live < 2% of the population of the United States; that's two generations after the advent of the Cuban influx. There isn't any public policy sustaining that.

  129. istevefan says:
    @Jack D

    but it’s sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.
     
    This is what cracks me up about the "they all have to go back" crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard, like Nazi officials who had trouble getting the proper Racial Purity Certificate for their own lineage (they would have to do humiliating things like have their grandmother swear falsely that they had cheated on their Jewish husbands with an Aryan - thank God for them there was no DNA testing in those days). If the test was 100% WASP ancestry, most of the population would flunk it. Even if you broadened it, there are still millions upon millions of perfectly good ordinary American white people who would flunk. And where do you draw the line - are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)? Amish? German Catholics? Irish? French-Canadians? Does the seemingly uber-WASP family of William F. Buckley Jr. have to go back because they are really Irish? A lot of people think that they are good because they have an ancestor on the Mayflower, but in truth there are hundreds of slots (hard to say how many because most family trees have overlaps) in your family tree so 1 Mayflower ancestor means nothing.

    And where do you draw the line – are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)?

    You may draw the line at those who were covered by the Naturalization Act of 1790. Given that was the first act of its kind written by the leading members of the founding stock, and signed into law by the Founding Father himself, it most clearly signifies for whom the founding stock had in mind to augment their fledgling nation.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.
    , @Anonymous
    The main problem for white nationalism is that the country wasn't founded on white nationalist principles. That's why you had John Quincy Adams, a son of a Founding Father, win a case overwhelmingly at the Supreme Court almost 200 years ago for some random Africans by appealing to the Declaration of Independence. Once you accept that the founding principles apply to some random Africans and the entire world, and indeed can only be fulfilled if the rest of the world is free, then it's a short step to allowing immigration and citizenship from around the world. "Invade the world, invite the world" becomes less surprising.

    Instead of having a liberal theory of universal individual rights, along with a commerce based society and culture, which obviously reinforce each other, as the basis, you would want some sort of communal racial or ethnic principle as the founding principle.

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-175-years-ago-the-supreme-courts-landmark-amistad-decision

    Former President and Secretary of State Adams, then serving in the House of Representatives, agreed to help the Africans plead their case to the Court.

    Pointing to a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the courtroom, Adams said, “I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature’s God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case. That law, in its application to my clients, I trust will be the law on which the case will be decided by this Court.”

    He then called out the Van Buren administration. “One of the grievous charges brought against George III was, that he had made laws for sending men beyond seas for trial. That was one of the most odious of those acts of tyranny which occasioned the American revolution. The whole of the reasoning is not applicable to this case, but I submit to your Honors that, if the President has the power to do it in the case of Africans, and send them beyond seas for trial, he could do it by the same authority in the case of American citizens. By a simple order to the marshal of the district, he could just as well seize forty citizens of the United States, on the demand of a foreign minister, and send them beyond seas for trial before a foreign court.”

    After a lengthy argument, Adams concluded by reviewing the Court’s honorable tradition since he first appeared before it decades earlier. Days later, in a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the captives of the Amistad.
     
  130. @istevefan
    What about the Asians, who after becoming legal, bring over their elderly parents from the old country who then begin collecting social security bennies even though they had never set foot before in the USA?

    I have no statistics on how prevalent that it, so I cannot quantify it. But given that medicaid fraud and other such things are somewhat common to the immigrant community, it wouldn't surprise me if this type of situation is taking place on a material scale.

    What about the Asians, who after becoming legal, bring over their elderly parents from the old country who then begin collecting social security bennies even though they had never set foot before in the USA? I have no statistics on how prevalent that it, so I cannot quantify it.

    It would be SSI they’re collecting. About 6% of all SSI recipients are non-citizens. About 20% of the elderly collecting SSI are non-citizens. Elderly aliens collecting SSI amount to about 236,000 people. Orientals and East Indians among them amount to about 49,000 people.

    https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2017/sect05.pdf

    • Replies: @Jack D
    As opposed to 40 million on food stamps including 10 million blacks or about a quarter of the black population. There are around 16 million whites on food stamps or 1 in 12.
    , @TTSSYF
    In my experience, it isn't just SSI they're collecting. I know of two people who brought their elderly mothers here (from Korea and the Middle East) for Medicare, including cancer treatment. Neither woman paid a dime into the system but is getting very expensive treatment.
  131. They can decide who to vote for on Dancing With the Stars, what the starting lineup of their favourite sports team should be or what they want to watch on Netflix.

    Noam Chomsky said something like that ages ago about how ordinary people are listened to or at least taken seriously by experts when going into recondite matter concerning sports.

  132. @ia

    I’d recommend a tactical retreat from blue cities so as to gather both political and economic strength where it’s relatively safe to do so.
     
    Absolutely backwards. You then become an estranged target. There is no escape from the modern world.

    Young white men need to move back into the center, blend in (not at all hard to do), and learn how to manipulate images, gestures, sounds in time; and to influence or gain power via Trump.

    And sacrifice family formation, peace of mind and health? No thanks. I grew up in a deep blue city, and it’s just become crazier and crazier there. It’s a total waste of time, unless you need to spend some time there for a career, which most do not.

    Let the progressives devour each other in their enclaves.

    I would strongly recommend that young Americans stay out of places like San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, etc. Every bit of work you put into those places, every dime of tax you pay, and every improvement you make is in vain as it just feeds the machine. Also, it totally warps your point of view to the point where you implicitly accept fictions like transgenderism and gay “marriage.”

    As sad as it sounds, I’d rather see my old neighborhood go full-on ghetto than see it gain even more power and influence over the state I live in.

    Furthermore, what makes you think the non-psycho parts of the country are estranged? Maybe on cable news, but our MSM is an echo chamber people don’t take seriously anymore.

    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    Married parents in those enclaves are having multiple children. Progressives do marry and have kids and the sooner that's taken into account on the right, the sooner there's a shot at de-progressiving cities down to a more reasonable and moderate level.
  133. @Couch Scientist
    The wicked rot of nihilism. When you dont believe anything matters, the default position is not to care.

    How does a people so quickly stop caring about its own surival?

    Living on a thin line, there is no England now.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuGFlP5Duuw

    “How does a people so quickly stop caring about its own surival? ”

    One way is to convince them to stop having children. It’s been working.

    • Agree: Prodigal son
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    Poles and Hungarians have very low birth rates, yet aren't very keen on mass immigration and leftist identity politics, and the US actually has pretty reasonable birthrates by the standards of other western countries.

    If you want to help turn this around, you got to stop preaching traditionalist boilerplate and start addressing the causes of this problem empirically.

    , @Simply Simon
    "......convince them to stop having children." I think whites would like to have children, not so sure any one is trying to convince them otherwise. What has happened is the cost of reproducing has become almost prohibitive with the resultant exorbitant hospital bills. Once born the boy or girl has to be fed, dressed and educated all at costs much higher than in the past. Obviously other factors involved such as the pill and changing roles of women in society. All this notwithstanding, no can deny the truth staring us in the face is the birth rate of Caucasians is below replacement levels.
    BTW, I may be naive but whom do you believe is doing the convincing?
  134. @Reg Cæsar
    An instructive lesson comes from St Paul's Rondo Days:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondo_Days

    This festival celebrates the remains of a black neighborhood split and ruined by the building of an interstate highway. It's been a big deal for 35 years.

    Several white neighborhoods in both Twin Cities suffered a similar fate. Yet you don't see a trace of such celebration there. That's because white don't value those neighborhoods in the same way. They moved out to the consumerist suburbs. It's no accident that Southdale, the iconic first enclosed modern mall in a sea of parking, was built in a Minneapolis suburb.

    Le Corbusier called the house merely "a machine for living in", one of the most offensive things ever said by an architect. Yet this how white Americans think. For every urban bungalow lovingly restored (by those unrelated to the original owner, and after decades of neglect in-between), there are dozens of exurban thingies with out-front garages that look like storage lockers with mother-in-law flats stuck atop them. With nowhere for little Jaden and Addison to play.

    “An instructive lesson comes from St Paul’s Rondo Days:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondo_Days
    This festival celebrates the remains of a black neighborhood split and ruined by the building of an interstate highway. It’s been a big deal for 35 years.”

    After 60 years there’s still whining about how the Cross Bronx Expressway destroyed the neighborhoods along the way. Never mind the fact that it’s remarkably narrow for a major Interstate highway, with many bridges so that it’s very easy to get from one side of a divided neighborhood to the other. It really didn’t destroy entire neighborhoods. But people still whine.

    Maybe it’s an income-based thing. Not too far away and around the same time the building of the Gownanus Expressway and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge approaches obliterated a good chunk of Bay Ridge and Dyker Heights in Brooklyn (the Staten Island end of the bridge wasn’t too heavily populated then). Yet there aren’t many complaints today, quite possibly because that area tends to be more affluent than the central Bronx.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Actually, the "big deal" I referred to was the festival itself. The residents are well aware the old hood's a lost cause. Especially since the north side of the interstate is the now pan-Asian Frogtown. I'm guessing the residents a century ago were French Canadians.

    (Also, the quality of native blacks in Minnesota has gone way down since welfare reform drove many out of neighboring states in the '90s. Actual Africans live elsewhere and don't enter into it.)

    An interstate cut through a nicer part of St Paul as well. Interstates are state highways and subject to local speed laws. The city councilman for the area got his (and his neighbors') revenge by keeping the speed limit to 45mph. It isn't enforced much anymore, and at rush hour you're lucky to reach half that velocity.

    As annoying as that limit is, the stretch is very well landscaped and cuts through near-cliffs. It's worth it to slow down anyway, during daylight hours.

  135. @Massimo Heitor
    1) No. 3) No. 4) No.

    To play devil's advocate on #2:

    What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be?
     
    Institutions built on contracts of individual choice and consent instead of today's institutions built on laws passed by all powerful governments. Basically, AnCap.

    How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future?
     
    By buying/selling products and services from each other for their own benefit.

    What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble?
     
    Naked self-interest. Even if groups hate each other, they will want to buy and sell from each other. Violence will be unattractive on a cost/reward basis.

    What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength” into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?
     
    Nothing. No nations, no wars.

    LOL. That’s hilarious.

    But isn’t it “problematic” to make fun of these libertarian autistics this way?

  136. German reporter wrote dozens of Stephen Glass-style fake news articles for Der Spiegel, including at least two defaming Trump supporters.

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/spiegel-fergus-falls-claas-relotius/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That's pretty funny. I love all the little details he made up. That's German fastidiousness for you.
  137. @Jack D

    non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers.
     
    Citation needed. Last I looked, Asians had higher average household income than whites and higher income is usually correlated with higher tax payments in our progressive system of taxation. Also anecdotally when I go to the supermarket I see most black people paying for their heaping shopping carts with EBT cards but I never see any Asians "paying" that way.

    There is no economic case for importing Asians…legally…..never was…..Bring back the 1882 Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!

  138. @War for Blair Mountain
    isteve.com reader anon complicates things....and things aren’t complicated at all.

    1)There is no economic case for race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority with the highly racialized nonwhite imported Democratic Party Voting Bloc.....not a debatable issue...

    2)We don’t need the approval and permission of the Economists....who serve the interests of the White Liberal Greedy Cheating Class billionaire Oligarchs...to act on our Native Born White American Racial Interests which is not to compete with Hindu Legal Immigrants and Chinese Legal Immigrants for the scarce Living and Breeding Space(Affordable Family Formation) of America...

    I wish isteve.com readers would stop trying to out-clever the race-replacement enthusiasts.....

    Come on…get this comment approved…posted……

  139. It’s good to discuss deeper issues, but why not discuss the actual mechanism by which America has been enervated and debilitated since the 1970’s?

    If you don’t understand that that mechanism, by which the truly wealthy among us have been able to reap for themselves and their symbionts in the government the bulk of the benefits of the increased productivity since then, is inflationary monetary policy, and the consequences of that policy, such as women being forced to work to maintain family incomes, you don’t understand the dynamics that have fostered a predatory ruling class with a necessarily cosmopolitan attitude, a disdain for losers who have not got rich, and a thirst for cheap labor.

    Immigration is an effect, not a cause.

    • Agree: densa
    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    I submit that it's more of a chicken and egg sort of thing as to cause or effect. The change in immigration policy occurred in 1965. I remember going to a party in the 1960s and seeing an Indian woman in a sari with bindi and thinking how exotic it was. By the 1970s, it was becoming common to see Korean churches sprouting up in our neighborhood. By the 1990s, when I made a visit to our main post office, I thought I had walked into a United Nations building.

    We've always had our greedy one-percenters, agitators, and communists, but it would be hard to convince me that those elements have not been ramped up by orders of magnitude as a result of massive immigration of people from all over the world who are unwilling and/or unable to assimilate. At least, back then, we were squabbling among ourselves.

    I'm sure Lefties think they can hammer out the innate human desire to band together in tribes or ethnic groups and dominate other groups, but it hasn't ever happened anywhere. Even if we in America were to blend over the next 200 years into a new mixed breed of human, there would always be those who were smarter, more beautiful, paler, etc., than others, and would dominate. Amerindians had this place all to themselves, and they still fought with each other and enjoyed torture and ritualized killing for entertainment. The Sunnis and Shiites want to kill each other, even though they purportedly worship the same god. India and Pakistan regularly are one push of the button away from nuclear war with each other. China is busy creating new islands, colonizing Africa, and stealing American technology. The Russians enjoy sewing discord in America and do a fine job of it.

    I can't even go to a homeowners association meeting without witnessing neighbors getting all worked up over the slightest thing. I don't know why anyone thinks the dissolution of nations and borders and global governance would work, except by force.

  140. @Jack D

    non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers.
     
    Citation needed. Last I looked, Asians had higher average household income than whites and higher income is usually correlated with higher tax payments in our progressive system of taxation. Also anecdotally when I go to the supermarket I see most black people paying for their heaping shopping carts with EBT cards but I never see any Asians "paying" that way.

    How can you tell it’s an ebt card? I don’t think I could tell them from debit cards like I use

    • Replies: @Jack D
    In PA at least they say "Access" in giant yellow letters on a green background - quite visible. In ghetto of Philadelphia it is rare to see a black person paying any other way. Some of them are dressed better than I am.
  141. @Lot
    German reporter wrote dozens of Stephen Glass-style fake news articles for Der Spiegel, including at least two defaming Trump supporters.

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/spiegel-fergus-falls-claas-relotius/

    That’s pretty funny. I love all the little details he made up. That’s German fastidiousness for you.

  142. @Reg Cæsar

    The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

     

    Wasn't this sentiment first expressed by a man who was both an economist and a poofter?

    The hated (in Britain) Milton Friedman said you can't have both immigration and a welfare state. Note that the only (public) welfare system he supported was the guaranteed minimum income. Applying that concept to the foreign-born exposes the madness quite clearly.

    Milton Friedman said you can’t have both [uncontrolled] immigration and a welfare state.

    Two generations on from Friedman, things are even worse. You can’t have both uncontrolled immigration and a functioning modern economy. If you try, 758 million people from countries that have failed to create a functioning modern economy will attempt to immigrate.

    The fact that they come from failed economies tells us that they are fleeing people like themselves. They prefer not to live among people like themselves, but they do not want us to exercise the same discretion. The kicker is that many of our compatriots do not want us exercise that discretion either. These are the ones who need to think about the Questions.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    These questions and their iterations should be made publicly available. There should be an online contest for this.
  143. Way, way OT, but news reports say that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a cancerous node/growth removed from her lung. This would be her third documented bout with cancer. RGB refused to retire while Obama was still in office and apparently believes that she is in remarkable shape for an 85 year old stick figure. I watched a video of her “work out” and it is nothing different than the exercises performed in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Dems will have to clone her, bot her or impeach Trump.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    This woman has the luck of the Irish. She got a CAT scan when she fell and broke her ribs and they happened to see the nodules on the x-ray - otherwise they would not have caught them. The tumors were confined to 1 lobe of her lungs, which they removed. This type of surgery has an extremely high 5 year survival rate. You can live just fine missing a lobe and if the cancer has not spread (and they say it hadn't) then you are fully cured.

    Ginsburg also survived pancreatic cancer in 2009 - that's really unbelievable because it has something like an 80+% mortality rate and it usually kills you pretty quickly.

    Ginsburg is clearly not in robust good health but old ladies like this have a way of sticking around for a long time (women are the stronger sex). They may not be exactly healthy but they ain't dead either.
  144. @Peripatetic Commenter

    The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.
     
    In the long run you want their genes flushed from the gene pool not white one, because white genes have brought us a long way.

    Do they really think all those imported cousin impregnators are going to result in the UK doing great things down the road?

    “Not my problem” is how they’d reply.

  145. @Whiskey
    Women love invasion. Even more Alpha men to replace their beta males. Women have zero ethnic loyalty. See Vichy France. Every woman she 17 to 40 was sleeping with an invader. While their men toiled in labor camps.

    Would you just give up and become a chubby chaser, please?

  146. @Art Deco
    I wonder if any serious economist has tried to quantify the premium in terms of housing costs that various groups will pay to achieve that sense of communal belonging.

    The complaints about 'gentrification' are largely humbug. Housing costs don't get ahead of changes in nominal incomes for very long. When neighborhood A is attracting more affluent residents, neighborhood B will be attracting more impecunious ones. If you own your home, your mortgage payments do not increase if the neighborhood improves. If you're renting, it can be a problem. The thing is, though, that about half the people living in rental housing are singles or in pairs and about half the people have lived at their current address for < 5 years. Its not typically a population for whom moving carries severe frictional costs and it's not by and large a population expecting to stay put. Also, propinquity ceased to be an important vector in influencing personal association 40-odd years ago. Unless they have children enrolled in school together, neighbors are not typically well-acquainted. Again, most people in rental housing are singles, young couples, and unrelated persons sharing rent. I suspect if you look under the hood, you'll find the source of protests about gentrification would be NGO employees who get paid to protest, playing on the social hostility of a selection of residents.

    The complaints about ‘gentrification’ are largely humbug.

    It’s a different for blacks.

    They do know their neighbors. They aren’t afraid to go outside, and for the most part are too poor to amuse themselves aside from watching TV, playing with their phones, and socializing with their neighbors.

    Plus, the phenomenon of “outside kids” makes for larger and more complicated families than anything most whites—and especially white yuppies—are used to. Imagine if you had three or four half-siblings, who in turn had grown up with several others of their own? (This probably also encourages inadvertent cousin-marriage in the ‘hood. Someone should study this.)

    Yes, virtually all of these people rent their apartments (and they move a lot) but when they move, they don’t go far. It’s not like they’re following jobs with IBM, so they might as well stay close to grandma.

    Gentrification is real—and a big deal to the people—because eventually their new rich neighbors tire of being intimidated or attacked by blacks, and then develop the political power to have the blacks’ tenements torn down (in the name of some social ideal). The blacks are then given Section 8 vouchers for housing in distant exurban “communities” as all the local stuff becomes prohibitively expensive.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The total fertility rate for black women is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime. She'll have her children resident with her. If there's a man in residence, he'll typically be the sire of one and have another from previous trysts living elsewhere.
  147. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    in the long run we are all dead

    When Keynes said this, he was discussing economic policy. Little did he know that future generations would use his aphorism to justify the replacement of the Britain population with Somalis, Congolese, and Pakistanis.

  148. @Art Deco
    What about the Asians, who after becoming legal, bring over their elderly parents from the old country who then begin collecting social security bennies even though they had never set foot before in the USA? I have no statistics on how prevalent that it, so I cannot quantify it.

    It would be SSI they're collecting. About 6% of all SSI recipients are non-citizens. About 20% of the elderly collecting SSI are non-citizens. Elderly aliens collecting SSI amount to about 236,000 people. Orientals and East Indians among them amount to about 49,000 people.

    https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2017/sect05.pdf

    As opposed to 40 million on food stamps including 10 million blacks or about a quarter of the black population. There are around 16 million whites on food stamps or 1 in 12.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Households enrolled in the SNAP program (ne 'Food Stamps') receive a mean of $280 a month in benefits. They're not livin' large on that.
  149. “in the long run we are all dead”.

    What can I say to that

    You can note that this thought is worthy of a pond creature, except that pond creatures have more sense, and no one with posterity is completely dead.

  150. @prosa123
    "An instructive lesson comes from St Paul’s Rondo Days:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondo_Days
    This festival celebrates the remains of a black neighborhood split and ruined by the building of an interstate highway. It’s been a big deal for 35 years."

    After 60 years there's still whining about how the Cross Bronx Expressway destroyed the neighborhoods along the way. Never mind the fact that it's remarkably narrow for a major Interstate highway, with many bridges so that it's very easy to get from one side of a divided neighborhood to the other. It really didn't destroy entire neighborhoods. But people still whine.

    Maybe it's an income-based thing. Not too far away and around the same time the building of the Gownanus Expressway and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge approaches obliterated a good chunk of Bay Ridge and Dyker Heights in Brooklyn (the Staten Island end of the bridge wasn't too heavily populated then). Yet there aren't many complaints today, quite possibly because that area tends to be more affluent than the central Bronx.

    Actually, the “big deal” I referred to was the festival itself. The residents are well aware the old hood’s a lost cause. Especially since the north side of the interstate is the now pan-Asian Frogtown. I’m guessing the residents a century ago were French Canadians.

    (Also, the quality of native blacks in Minnesota has gone way down since welfare reform drove many out of neighboring states in the ’90s. Actual Africans live elsewhere and don’t enter into it.)

    An interstate cut through a nicer part of St Paul as well. Interstates are state highways and subject to local speed laws. The city councilman for the area got his (and his neighbors’) revenge by keeping the speed limit to 45mph. It isn’t enforced much anymore, and at rush hour you’re lucky to reach half that velocity.

    As annoying as that limit is, the stretch is very well landscaped and cuts through near-cliffs. It’s worth it to slow down anyway, during daylight hours.

  151. @istevefan

    And where do you draw the line – are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)?
     
    You may draw the line at those who were covered by the Naturalization Act of 1790. Given that was the first act of its kind written by the leading members of the founding stock, and signed into law by the Founding Father himself, it most clearly signifies for whom the founding stock had in mind to augment their fledgling nation.

    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.
     
    And they were not required to return, after the Revolution, so the Founding Fathers were clearly cool with them staying here. A free people can do whatever it goddamned well pleases.
    , @istevefan

    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.

     

    No. It only excluded them from naturalization while they under indentured servitude. Once their term was up, they could apply to naturalize. From my understanding, most indentured servants served about 7 years. After that they were free.
    , @Svigor
    Jewish concern troll still concern trolling. Good to know you're so worried about what's best for us, Jack.
  152. Anonymous[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife’s family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from.

    Congresswoman Stephanie Đặng Thị Ngọc Dung Murphy is a Democrat representing FL-7. She too was a refugee from Vietnam. Her record and positions are comparable to Nancy Pelosi. Few non-white immigrants give a shit about the America our dad’s went off to war to defend. They want the international airport America in CA that you had to flee.

  153. @Tiny Duck
    1. Yes, my ancestors were racist misogynists who would have cast me out for my lifestyle. I spit on "white American heritage" and anyone else who does so is a friend of mine. Also, immigrants and People of Color are more attuned to progressive thinking (gun control, opposition to Christian supremacy, promotion of diversity) so I support them and their ascendancy.

    2. This is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve an answer. People of Color get along great and love each other. Only in the minds of old white men do People of Color have any beef with each with other. Plus, we as a society have a healthy narrative going forward: the destruction and eternal vigilance against white supremacy. This is the great battle of our time and what we must undertake for the benefit of future generations.

    3. Two things: First People of Color know what it is to be brutalized so they will be reasonably merciful. Second, if you don't want this (ridiculous) scenario to take place encourage your children to breed with People of Color. Simply, if white people do not exist they cannot be "discriminated" exist.

    4. Did white males have the right to colonize rape enslave murder and pillage Societies of Color?

    5. The past is the past. This is not a serious question. It is time for we whites to do what is right not what is white.

    We don’t care what you think, Tiny. We only care what Leonard Pitts thinks.

  154. @Buffalo Joe
    Way, way OT, but news reports say that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a cancerous node/growth removed from her lung. This would be her third documented bout with cancer. RGB refused to retire while Obama was still in office and apparently believes that she is in remarkable shape for an 85 year old stick figure. I watched a video of her "work out" and it is nothing different than the exercises performed in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Dems will have to clone her, bot her or impeach Trump.

    This woman has the luck of the Irish. She got a CAT scan when she fell and broke her ribs and they happened to see the nodules on the x-ray – otherwise they would not have caught them. The tumors were confined to 1 lobe of her lungs, which they removed. This type of surgery has an extremely high 5 year survival rate. You can live just fine missing a lobe and if the cancer has not spread (and they say it hadn’t) then you are fully cured.

    Ginsburg also survived pancreatic cancer in 2009 – that’s really unbelievable because it has something like an 80+% mortality rate and it usually kills you pretty quickly.

    Ginsburg is clearly not in robust good health but old ladies like this have a way of sticking around for a long time (women are the stronger sex). They may not be exactly healthy but they ain’t dead either.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Jack, Yes, a triple survivor of cancer is rare indeed, but, the medical staff at Sloan could not by law reveal anything other than what RBG allowed them to reveal.
  155. @Jack D
    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.

    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.

    And they were not required to return, after the Revolution, so the Founding Fathers were clearly cool with them staying here. A free people can do whatever it goddamned well pleases.

  156. @Jack D
    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don't think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state. And, based on things like origin of folk songs, a lot of the Appalachian people that we call Scotch -Irish were really from the borderlands in the North of England. If there was any clustering it was by religion (mainly Presbyterian) but Presbyterians came not just from the Scots who moved to Ulster and then move again to the US (the only people truly entitled to the Scotch-Irish label). In short, the whole "Scotch-Irish" thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.

    Back in the day, it’d be fighting words to call a man whose family came directly from England or Scotland an “Irish” anything. In Britain and by extension its colonies, to be Irish was sort of like having cooties, regardless of one’s religion, wealth, education or actual ethnicity.

    It was unthinkable, for example, to have an Irish-born Prime Minister. When the equivalent—Andrew Jackson—occurred in America, it horrified and shocked the Establishment like nothing else until Trump. The beliefs that he had really been born on the boat over from Ireland so was ineligible and that he didn’t really win the 1828 election but instead had been installed by a global Masonic conspiracy bent on enforcing worldwide Satan-worship* became articles of faith among upper-crust Northeasterners.

    Although the original ethnic basis is now long-forgotten, anti-“Irish” contempt persists even to this day in upper-crust America as the socially-acceptable and even encouraged mockery and stereotyping of “hillbillies,” “rednecks” and “white trash.”

    The very term “Scots-Irish,” or “Ulster Scots” in the even more sensitive to the British-Irish distinction UK, were adopted in an attempt—not particularly accurate as they mostly descend from native Irish converts—to avoid being tarred with the “Irish” brush. “Yes, we’re from Ireland but we’re really Scots.”

    So long story short, Presbyterian or otherwise, Scottish or English immigrants would never, ever have self-identified as “Scots-Irish.” Britain and Northern Ireland are 12 miles apart, speak a common language and are part of the same country, so it’s hardly surprising if some or even most Scots-Irish-American folk songs originated in Britain.

    That the Scots-Irish are indeed Scots-Irish is borne out by the numbers; (Scots-)Irish immigration dwarfed British immigration in the early republic. 1820-29 Ireland: 51,617, rest of UK: 26,336; 1830-39 Ireland: 170,672, rest of UK: 74,350

    *Perhaps the first example of David Icke style conspiracism. c.f. RUSSIA COLLUZION!1!!

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    When I was in Scotland (over 40 years ago so maybe things have changed), if anybody did something really stupid, the common conclusion was "He must be Irish".
    , @Jack D
    Even before the Potato Famine wasn't a lot of the Irish immigration Catholic? The 1st St. Patrick's Day Parades in the US were before the Revolution.
    , @Cagey Beast
    In Britain and by extension its colonies, to be Irish was sort of like having cooties, regardless of one’s religion, wealth, education or actual ethnicity.

    This wasn't true in Canada and I doubt it was true in the rest of the Empire. Maybe I'm wrong? If the topic interests you, have a search through these speeches made at Toronto's Empire Club over the years. I suggest going from oldest to newest: http://speeches.empireclub.org/search
  157. @Almost Missouri
    I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but once "we" become minority, all bets are off. All the rule-of-law things that we now take for granted, will go out the window. Our descendants will have to learn a whole new political philosophy: not much philosophy--or even much politics--it will be simply Might Makes Right.

    You say your "duty to [your] kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on", but has it occurred to you that when law means whatever the rulers say it means, then "equity" will become their equity, "real estate" will state their reality, etc. All your painstakingly accumulated assets for them, the fruit of your devotion, labor and commitment, will become liabilities: giant glowing bullseyes in the sights of the vibrant SJW coercive state and their Great Social Justice Program to redistribute unjust assets away from your descendants to their own cronies?

    I have written here before about a friend's modest and self-reliant family in Cuba who assumed they had nothing to fear from the Castro-ist revolution, and how wrong they turned out to be, so I won't repeat it now. Consider instead a (thinly) fictional story in The Atlantic(?) ten or twenty years ago set in South Africa. A middle class white family wakes up to find they now have a black family living in their back yard, peremptorily requesting handouts from the homeowners. The homeowners are distressed, a little afraid, but find there is nothing the authorities will do about it as it is an increasingly common situation which may have some meta-"justice" in it. What's more, they find out that other neighbors have worse families living in their yards, so the homeowners aren't really so badly off. Then the black family in their yard drives off even more predatory would-be yard-invaders, so the homeowners actually feel kind of grateful for their new property sharing situation.

    This will be a best case scenario.

    True. When vibrant blacks and browns become the majority, it will be “Bend over, Whitey” time. It brings to mind the saying “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    We have only to look at the Obama administration to see how a black-brown majority will corrupt our government and institutions, since it did a very fine job of it in eight short years. Maxine Waters already can barely contain herself about wanting to nationalize the oil companies or impeach Trump. We'll have Hank Johnson voting to bring our troops home from Guam so we don't cause it to tip over, and we'll be sent back to Mars to retrieve our U.S. flag.
  158. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    What people need to do is stress the ANGLO character of America.

    Why is it that we speak of LATIN America but hardly of ANGLO America? Now, Latin America has lots of people NOT of Latin origin: The natives and blacks and later immigrant-invaders from non-Latin Europe and Asia. But because Spanish and Portuguese were the founding stock of Latin America, we speak of LATIN America. So, Latin America has cultural distinction and flavor. It isn’t just America or White America but LATIN America. Latin Whites are not merely bland whites(without history or culture) but LATIN whites. So, Latin-ness is given full credit and prestige in Latin America.

    What Latins did for Latin America, Anglos did for Anglo-America. No Anglos, then no United States. It’s really that simple. Anglo-settlers laid the foundation as genetic stock, culture, language, values, mores, and ways. The 13 colonies couldn’t have come together if each had been settled by vastly different groups. Also, it was because the Anglo-American formula was so successful that later non-Anglo whites were willing to adopt Anglo ways and become essentially Anglo-Europeans. So, we can speak of two kinds of white Americans: Anglo-Americans who are Americans of Anglo Origin and Anglo-Europeans who are not of Anglo-origin but assimilated so deeply into Anglo-Americanism that they came to admire so much. ‘Anglo/Americans’ would be both Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Europeans combined.

    But Anglo-ness never gets any credit in the American discourse. It’s never celebrated. Instead, the whole of Anglo-ness in American society is reduced to stereotypes about Wasps as golf club snobs and Woody Allen jokes(though, to be sure, one senses some degree of admiration in Allen for Wasp world). People speak of white American but hardly ever of Anglo-America. Thus, whiteness in America seems without identity or culture. It’s just this ‘blah’ thing called ‘whiteness’. (No wonder blacks decided to be ‘African-Americans’ since mere blackness sounds like opposite of whiteness.)

    Now, this is incredible when we think about it. The Anglos played the most important role in creating one of the most astounding nations on Earth, and yet their ethno-label gets almost no mention in America, which simply wouldn’t exist if not for Anglo vision, talent, and progress. The far less successful Latins get full credit for Latin America — even to the extent of non-Latin peoples there being labeled as ‘Latin-Americans’ — , but Anglos get no credit, and if anything, the PC is all about ‘how to make US better by demeaning Wasps and Anglo-ized whites even more’.

    Are whites in America just like any other whites in other part of the world? No. What distinguishes them from whites in other nations? They are either ANGLO-Americans or Europeans-acculturated into Anglo-Americanism, or Anglo-Europeans. Then, why is there is mention of Anglo-element in Americanism? All whites in the US should really be called Anglo/Americans.

    Perhaps the reasons are two-fold. Anglo culture was about sobriety and restraint, therefore it has less flavor and the salsa thing. So, there is a tendency to treat Anglo culture as mere ‘white bread’ to load up with OTHER cultural content.
    The other reason is that Jews who’ve come to dominate America don’t like the give credit where it’s due because the emphasis on the key ANGLO element of Americanism would imply that, as important as the Ellis Island Narrative may be, it is secondary to the founding and development of America by Anglo-Americans and the first Anglo-Europeans who were mostly German, Irish, and Dutch. So, just like the Arab conquerors of Egypt just let the Pyramids become buried under the sand, Anglo-ness has become buried by time and neglect.

    Now, one could make the opposite argument and argue that calling the US merely ‘America’ while calling Mexico-Central-America-South-America ‘Latin America’ is actually a form of American Jingoism and arrogance. It could imply that the US is the real America, the great America, the only true America… whereas the nations south of the border are secondary America that must be labeled ‘Latin’ to distinguish them from the Real, True, and One and Only America. So, when Europeans dreamed of coming to ‘America’, they meant the US, not the inferior ‘Latin America’.
    This may have been true in the past, but in the Age of Identity where every group maneuvers to gain extra points with distinction, it makes good sense to revive the notion of ANGLO-ness so that the ethnic stock that founded the US gets due credit.

    One thing for sure, if the Chinese had crossed the Pacific and built America, they should surely stress their Chineseness instead of just settling for being called ‘yellow’.

  159. @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    Why preserve the nation? The several states formed the nation, with the understanding that any or all of the states retained self-determination and the right of secession. Secession – the right to refuse – was inherent in the formation of America, as recognized by the Framers, who’d seceded from Britain. Dissolve Washington, D.istrict of C.riminals, and Merry Christmas, rest of planet! Feed the Yemenis, instead of the banks, for Christmas!

  160. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s oft been said that Jews of German origin in the US discriminated against Jews of Russian origin. JOGO cherished their relations with Wasps more than tribal solidarity with JORO.

    Today, cucky and craven white elites discriminate against the deplorables. They value the gibs they get by sticking close to Jewish elites than solidarity with whites who have less.

  161. The reality is that large swathes of America will become “No Go” zones – for non whites and the government they serve when/if America tips majority-minority.

    Likely the most inhospitable/rural parts, Appalachia in the East and swathes of desert and prairie in the West, but what comes out of that will be stronger than what was.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Approve this.
    , @AndrewR
    Sure, bud.
    , @Anonymous
    It's way more likely that large swathes of America will become "No Go" zones for whites...
  162. @snorlax
    Back in the day, it'd be fighting words to call a man whose family came directly from England or Scotland an "Irish" anything. In Britain and by extension its colonies, to be Irish was sort of like having cooties, regardless of one's religion, wealth, education or actual ethnicity.

    It was unthinkable, for example, to have an Irish-born Prime Minister. When the equivalent—Andrew Jackson—occurred in America, it horrified and shocked the Establishment like nothing else until Trump. The beliefs that he had really been born on the boat over from Ireland so was ineligible and that he didn't really win the 1828 election but instead had been installed by a global Masonic conspiracy bent on enforcing worldwide Satan-worship* became articles of faith among upper-crust Northeasterners.

    Although the original ethnic basis is now long-forgotten, anti-"Irish" contempt persists even to this day in upper-crust America as the socially-acceptable and even encouraged mockery and stereotyping of "hillbillies," "rednecks" and "white trash."

    The very term "Scots-Irish," or "Ulster Scots" in the even more sensitive to the British-Irish distinction UK, were adopted in an attempt—not particularly accurate as they mostly descend from native Irish converts—to avoid being tarred with the "Irish" brush. "Yes, we're from Ireland but we're really Scots."

    So long story short, Presbyterian or otherwise, Scottish or English immigrants would never, ever have self-identified as "Scots-Irish." Britain and Northern Ireland are 12 miles apart, speak a common language and are part of the same country, so it's hardly surprising if some or even most Scots-Irish-American folk songs originated in Britain.

    That the Scots-Irish are indeed Scots-Irish is borne out by the numbers; (Scots-)Irish immigration dwarfed British immigration in the early republic. 1820-29 Ireland: 51,617, rest of UK: 26,336; 1830-39 Ireland: 170,672, rest of UK: 74,350

    *Perhaps the first example of David Icke style conspiracism. c.f. RUSSIA COLLUZION!1!!

    When I was in Scotland (over 40 years ago so maybe things have changed), if anybody did something really stupid, the common conclusion was “He must be Irish”.

  163. @Jack D
    As opposed to 40 million on food stamps including 10 million blacks or about a quarter of the black population. There are around 16 million whites on food stamps or 1 in 12.

    Households enrolled in the SNAP program (ne ‘Food Stamps’) receive a mean of $280 a month in benefits. They’re not livin’ large on that.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    And yet it adds up to $70 billion / year. That ain't chump change for a country which apparently can't afford a border wall.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Households enrolled in the SNAP program (ne ‘Food Stamps’) receive a mean of $280 a month in benefits. They’re not livin’ large on that.
     
    They do well enough to breed the next generation of the poor, including many criminals. Some people consider that to be the real problem with such benefits, more than the mere amount of money itself. And, as Jack D pointed out, the amount of money is not insignificant.
  164. @ia

    they liquidate the estate to enjoy the moment both as individuals and as a nation. WHY?
     
    ''Oikophobia'', coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, is here used as a non-clinical description of an 'anti-culture' prevalent among Western artists and intellectuals. (Roger Scruton, ''England and the Need for Nations'', (London: Civitas, 2004). It is a combination of:

    ''oikos'' - from the Greek meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation”
    – Encyclopaedia Britannica

    and

    ''-phobia'' - extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group
    -Webster's Dictionary

    An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of paganism/Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)

    Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." Roger Scruton, ''A Political Philosophy'', p. 24.

    According to Scruton, culture is the ethical transmission "how to feel" passed down from one generation to the next. Virtue is taught through imitation of the heroes, gods and ancestors not by mere copying but through the imagination and "moving with them" which high culture provides. The repudiation of a common tradition blocks the individual's path to membership in the "original experience of the community". Instead of apprehending spiritual and intellectual received wisdom as an epiphany the 'anti-culture' of repudiation produces mere nihilism, irony and false gods. Roger Scruton, ''Culture Counts'' (Encounter Books, 2007), pp.36-9.

    “Oikophobia”, coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, is here used as a non-clinical description of an ‘anti-culture’ prevalent among Western artists and intellectuals.

    ”oikos” – from the Greek meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation”

    That’s a strange coinage for a Brit. “Oik” is a British word for an unpleasant person of the lower classes.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    It may have Greek origins, but it's an off-putting term.
  165. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    You can say that you want to leave a better country for your children and grandchildren. Why would anyone want their children to have a more uncomfortable, less prosperous, less safe life?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Not if it means bad restaurants!
    , @AndrewR
    Like any other proud progressive, I'd much rather have better food than a safe country for my kids. Mmmmm tacos!
  166. @Autochthon
    Lineage, legacy is so fundamental to the human condition – to all life! – a kind of epidemic psychosis is the only explanation for its complete absence from the modern mind, especially since revolutions in genetics should only have redoubled its import and strength.

    And the psychosis is recent. The 1990s are often noted as both the last decade anything like America still existed and the beginning of the end.

    In 1999 Michael Crichton's Eaters of the Dead (1976) was adapted to film as The 13th Warrior, making famous this poem written for the film:


    Lo! There do I see my Father
    Lo! There do I see my Mother and
    My Sisters and my Brothers
    Lo! There do I see the line of my people back to the beginning
    Lo! They do call to me
    They bid me take my place among them....
     
    As recently as 2001 the anthemic "My Culture" was a hit on radio in America and Britain:

    I'm the sum total of my ancestors
    I carry their DNA
    We are representatives of a long line of people
    And we cart them around everywhere
    This long line of people
    That goes back to the beginning of time....
     
    QuaereWhat happened around the turn of the millennium? What event or events caused the madness? The abandonment of reproduction, of any regard for ancestor or descendant? I tend to think this period marks the ripeness of the seeds sewn in 1965, as the numbers of invaders reached a kind of critical mass such that ordinary Americans began to see, if not consciously, that their displacement was a fiat accompli, and also to be effected by the sheer numbers – the overpopulation reaching that point Americans could no longer get a job, afford a house, avoid gridlock in traffic, visit parks and be alone in nature, etc. But that theory doesn't account for what happened in Europe, Australia, New Zealand...

    Porter takes a good stab at things in his blog here:


    Forgetting [Maslow's] physiological needs, think of the other four in two related bands: 1) the foundations of belonging and safety, and 2) the aspirations of esteem and self-actualization. I believe the source of consternation in France, and the West as a whole, is the broad conviction to have 2 while rejecting 1. It is the futile and excruciating attempt to achieve our exquisite societal aspirations while simultaneously eroding our foundations. The result is a vast, typically misdiagnosed dissatisfaction that consistently gives birth to intense division and upheaval.
     
    But that insightful theory leaves the question: "What caused the maladaptive aspirations in the first instance?"

    I genuinely believe we must discern why and how people abandoned the most foundational aspect of life itself: reproduction, of being fruitful and multiplying, and the pathology of an altruism that exercises its charity by giving the resources needed by one's own posterity to strangers. Because all the rest follows from that. I'm a nice guy; I'll give a hungry man a sandwich...but not if my son is hungry too and there is only the one sandwich. And even the crazies still manifest vestiges of this: those few who have children (more often a child) live in gated communities, send them to private schools, and so on. But even they who reproduce disregard lineage: they make a mulatto in despite of their fathers; they liquidate the estate to enjoy the moment both as individuals and as a nation. WHY?

    I think there are two reasons for this psychosis, one genetic and one environmental.

    Whites have less ethnic loyalty than other races because they evolved in an environment where putting trust in strangers outside their kin group was advantageous.

    Then there’s the environmental factor – a whole culture that vilifies and punishes any expression of racial loyalty by whites, a culture backed up by a multi-billion-dollar media and entertainment industry. When Tucker Carlson makes the mildest of comments about immigration, an antifa mob gathers outside his house and intimidates his family and the globalist advertisers try to starve his show off the air.

  167. @Whiskey
    Women love invasion. Even more Alpha men to replace their beta males. Women have zero ethnic loyalty. See Vichy France. Every woman she 17 to 40 was sleeping with an invader. While their men toiled in labor camps.

    Women were about 15% of the resistance and of political deportations to concentration camps in france

  168. @Chase
    The United States is dead. I’m sorry to tel you that; it absolutely breaks my heart. But we aren’t a nation, we are a dying empire.

    It’s not really even bad. Most everything done since 1969 has been a massive mistake. When the country is partitioned, we will be able to get back to what we were doing before we were convinced establishing an equal utopia on earth was an aspirational goal.

    Our division is urban vs rural not regional. There is no logical economic, cultural or ethnic partition as with the USSR. No country will accept us as refugees.

    We have to deal with cleaning up this mess of an empire if we can.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    We cannot.
    , @TTSSYF
    Agreed; there's no easy way out of this. The best option, I believe, is in self-sorting to the states and increased federalism. This could be gradual and non-violent.
  169. @snorlax
    Back in the day, it'd be fighting words to call a man whose family came directly from England or Scotland an "Irish" anything. In Britain and by extension its colonies, to be Irish was sort of like having cooties, regardless of one's religion, wealth, education or actual ethnicity.

    It was unthinkable, for example, to have an Irish-born Prime Minister. When the equivalent—Andrew Jackson—occurred in America, it horrified and shocked the Establishment like nothing else until Trump. The beliefs that he had really been born on the boat over from Ireland so was ineligible and that he didn't really win the 1828 election but instead had been installed by a global Masonic conspiracy bent on enforcing worldwide Satan-worship* became articles of faith among upper-crust Northeasterners.

    Although the original ethnic basis is now long-forgotten, anti-"Irish" contempt persists even to this day in upper-crust America as the socially-acceptable and even encouraged mockery and stereotyping of "hillbillies," "rednecks" and "white trash."

    The very term "Scots-Irish," or "Ulster Scots" in the even more sensitive to the British-Irish distinction UK, were adopted in an attempt—not particularly accurate as they mostly descend from native Irish converts—to avoid being tarred with the "Irish" brush. "Yes, we're from Ireland but we're really Scots."

    So long story short, Presbyterian or otherwise, Scottish or English immigrants would never, ever have self-identified as "Scots-Irish." Britain and Northern Ireland are 12 miles apart, speak a common language and are part of the same country, so it's hardly surprising if some or even most Scots-Irish-American folk songs originated in Britain.

    That the Scots-Irish are indeed Scots-Irish is borne out by the numbers; (Scots-)Irish immigration dwarfed British immigration in the early republic. 1820-29 Ireland: 51,617, rest of UK: 26,336; 1830-39 Ireland: 170,672, rest of UK: 74,350

    *Perhaps the first example of David Icke style conspiracism. c.f. RUSSIA COLLUZION!1!!

    Even before the Potato Famine wasn’t a lot of the Irish immigration Catholic? The 1st St. Patrick’s Day Parades in the US were before the Revolution.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I believe the first St. Patrick's Day parades in New York and Boston were organised by Protestants.
    , @snorlax
    St. Patrick's Day is also celebrated by Anglicans. There were three waves of Irish emigration to America: CoI Anglo-Irish, then Presbyterian Scots-Irish and finally Catholics.

    Wiki:

    The Charitable Irish Society of Boston organized the first observance of Saint Patrick's Day in the Thirteen Colonies in 1737. Surprisingly, the celebration was not Catholic in nature, Irish immigration to the colonies having been dominated by Protestants.
    ...
    New York's first Saint Patrick's Day observance was similar to that of Boston. It was held on 16 March 1762 in the home of John Marshall, an Irish Protestant, and over the next few years informal gatherings by Irish immigrants were the norm. The first recorded parade in New York was by Irish soldiers in the British Army in 1766.
     
    And in your fine city...

    The first documented St. Patrick's Day Celebration in Philadelphia was held in 1771. Philadelphia's Friendly Sons of St. Patrick was found to honor St. Patrick and to provide relief to Irish immigrants in the city. Irish Americans have celebrated St. Patrick's Day in Philadelphia since their arrival in America. General George Washington, a member of Philadelphia's Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, actively encouraged Irish American patriots to join the Continental Army. In 1780, while camped in Morristown, NJ, General Washington allowed his troops a holiday on 17 March "as an act of solidarity with the Irish in their fight for independence." This event became known as The Saint Patrick's Day Encampment of 1780.
     
    Try to beat that for WASPiness. Anyone found a shamrock carved on Plymouth Rock?
  170. @Art Deco
    Households enrolled in the SNAP program (ne 'Food Stamps') receive a mean of $280 a month in benefits. They're not livin' large on that.

    And yet it adds up to $70 billion / year. That ain’t chump change for a country which apparently can’t afford a border wall.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The country can afford a border wall. Nancy Pelosi doesn't want one because it would disrupt the Democratic Party vote farm. David Brooks doesn't want one because he's a poseur.

    The SNAP program could be financed with a 0.5% assessment on personal income. There's a critique of the program to be made. That we 'can't afford' it is not the correct one.
  171. @snorlax
    Back in the day, it'd be fighting words to call a man whose family came directly from England or Scotland an "Irish" anything. In Britain and by extension its colonies, to be Irish was sort of like having cooties, regardless of one's religion, wealth, education or actual ethnicity.

    It was unthinkable, for example, to have an Irish-born Prime Minister. When the equivalent—Andrew Jackson—occurred in America, it horrified and shocked the Establishment like nothing else until Trump. The beliefs that he had really been born on the boat over from Ireland so was ineligible and that he didn't really win the 1828 election but instead had been installed by a global Masonic conspiracy bent on enforcing worldwide Satan-worship* became articles of faith among upper-crust Northeasterners.

    Although the original ethnic basis is now long-forgotten, anti-"Irish" contempt persists even to this day in upper-crust America as the socially-acceptable and even encouraged mockery and stereotyping of "hillbillies," "rednecks" and "white trash."

    The very term "Scots-Irish," or "Ulster Scots" in the even more sensitive to the British-Irish distinction UK, were adopted in an attempt—not particularly accurate as they mostly descend from native Irish converts—to avoid being tarred with the "Irish" brush. "Yes, we're from Ireland but we're really Scots."

    So long story short, Presbyterian or otherwise, Scottish or English immigrants would never, ever have self-identified as "Scots-Irish." Britain and Northern Ireland are 12 miles apart, speak a common language and are part of the same country, so it's hardly surprising if some or even most Scots-Irish-American folk songs originated in Britain.

    That the Scots-Irish are indeed Scots-Irish is borne out by the numbers; (Scots-)Irish immigration dwarfed British immigration in the early republic. 1820-29 Ireland: 51,617, rest of UK: 26,336; 1830-39 Ireland: 170,672, rest of UK: 74,350

    *Perhaps the first example of David Icke style conspiracism. c.f. RUSSIA COLLUZION!1!!

    In Britain and by extension its colonies, to be Irish was sort of like having cooties, regardless of one’s religion, wealth, education or actual ethnicity.

    This wasn’t true in Canada and I doubt it was true in the rest of the Empire. Maybe I’m wrong? If the topic interests you, have a search through these speeches made at Toronto’s Empire Club over the years. I suggest going from oldest to newest: http://speeches.empireclub.org/search

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Back in the period when overt anti-Irish snobbery was the rule in the Anglosphere, Anglophone Canadians were a minority with a tenuous hold on power over the mutually-antagonistic Francophone majority, so they didn't have much choice but to define their ethnonational group in the broadest terms possible as "anyone who isn't Francophone, or isn't Catholic, or otherwise supports the government." To increase the ranks of the disaffected would have been quite literally dangerous.

    On the other hand, Anglo-Americans and of course Anglo-Anglos were overwhelming and unquestionably dominant majorities, so they could afford to be exclusive snobs.
  172. istevefan says:
    @Jack D
    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.

    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.

    No. It only excluded them from naturalization while they under indentured servitude. Once their term was up, they could apply to naturalize. From my understanding, most indentured servants served about 7 years. After that they were free.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    They served usually 7 years.

    If they lived that long.

    There was a financial incentive for the masters to work them to death, especially near the end.

    Similarly, convict laborers were often worked to death. No financial incentive not to.

    Before 1808 African slaves were cheap and were often worked to death. After 1808 the slaves were often too valuable to work to death. That is why many called the convict labor system worse than slavery.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    " After that they were free."

    If they weren't dead yet.
  173. @Jack D
    Even before the Potato Famine wasn't a lot of the Irish immigration Catholic? The 1st St. Patrick's Day Parades in the US were before the Revolution.

    I believe the first St. Patrick’s Day parades in New York and Boston were organised by Protestants.

  174. @Whiskey
    Women love invasion. Even more Alpha men to replace their beta males. Women have zero ethnic loyalty. See Vichy France. Every woman she 17 to 40 was sleeping with an invader. While their men toiled in labor camps.

    Women always end up fornicating with the victors, be they their own kinsmen, or with the enemies, over the bodies of their slain menfolk.

  175. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    I've had the same sorts of discussions in real life and online. I've heard the irreducible conclusions that 1) changing the people will NOT change the place, and 2) they will pay our pensions. In the same breath, they will tell you their exurb/subdivision/neighborhood has flipped and they are looking to move. The notion that different people are different and have different preferences and capacities has been anathematized.

    I think lots of whites will just meekly succumb, as in South Africa, retreating behind masonry walls and concertina wire and paying the security company every month.

    Simultaneously, the gun culture is getting more "gunny," if that makes sense, like genetic burn-off in credal communities. I don't see the people displaying the tribal vibe you see at football games or Trump rallies agreeing to their complete marginalization, like the Middle Eastern Christians.

    1) If changing the people will not change the place, then diversity can’t be a strength. At best it has zero impact.

    2) This is not true. It’s repeated by supposedly respectable journalists and media outlets as if it is, but it just isn’t true. Even in Canada, which has one of the highest(if not the highest) sustained rates of immigration in the developed world(and some of the most skilled immigrants), even Trudeau’s planned increase in immigration numbers will barely put a dent in the changes to the worker-dependent ratio in the coming decades. According to a report released earlier this year from the perfectly-respectable C.D Howe Institute, to preserve the dependency ratio at its current level through immigration alone, Canada would basically need to quadruple its immigration rate and keep it there until the early 2030’s. A few decades later they would need to do the same thing again, on an even larger scale, once that batch of immigrants aged out of the workforce. The only possible solution is a longer working life. Plan accordingly.

    When I read that I was shocked. Surely this must be national news! My whole life I’ve been told that immigrants were going to pay our pensions, and now we can’t rely on that? This is basically the most important national revelation in decades. Why aren’t more people bringing this up? But almost nobody did. It didn’t cause a ripple. A few months later via a letter to the editor in the Ottawa Citizen, I found out why. According to the civil servant in charge of Canada’s immigration department in the late 1980’s, the fact that no conceivable level of immigration could solve the dependency ratio was well understood in government circles decades ago.

    This also misses the fact that in the late 1980’s the average immigrant to Canada would put more into government coffers over the course of his life than he’d take out. That’s since changed, so even if immigration could maintain the ratio of workers to pensioners, it wouldn’t matter because the immigrant workers would be consuming more in services than they contributed in taxes, which is the exact opposite of the rationale for their being admitted in the first place.

  176. I have gone over these questions in my head many times before, and my conclusion is always ‘time to get my gun’. Since I seem to be alone, I have little hope for the future. White people have become pathetic and there is really very few who are willing to publicly fight back. In times past a lynch mob would have formed and stormed the courthouse when James Fields was being tried. Now most white peolpe are happy he is in jail because he is obviously a horrible nazi. We have chosen the form of our destructor, and it is our descendants being frizzy haired mulattos.

  177. @Anonymous

    (As an aside, most liberals in 2018 confirm the enduring bonds of ethnicity whenever they bitch about having to go to Christmas or Thanksgiving with their MAGA uncle. They put up with it because people will tolerate things from their family that they would never put up with from anyone else, and ethnicity is basically a big extended family)
     
    White people are not an ethnicity. The most you could say is that they're an ethnicity currently in formation.

    The contrast with black people in America is useful, because they actually are an ethnicity already. Blacks were imported from various tribes and mixed together at the outset into a single population and culture, cut off from their various original tribes and cultures, and became a subaltern minority population.

    Whereas there has been until recently a continuous flow of white immigrants from various ethnicities that have retained to varying degrees their respective ethnic memories and cultures, and have not yet been mixed into oblivion. Moreover, the mainstream American culture that whites have assimilated into is a mercantile, business oriented commercial culture and civilization that is exported around the world and open to all groups. Consumer habits and choices aren't a meaningful basis for an ethnicity since they're not exclusive folkways. Significant numbers of whites in the US are descended from immigrants who immigrated long after the founding from cultures different from the founding, which is why they don't view themselves as descendants of "ancestors [who] spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building" the US. They look at their family history and see the reality of their ancestors having been immigrants with commercial and material aspirations of a better life. This sort of thing is derided and dismissed by some as Ellis Island worship, but it's sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.

    Now as white people continue to mix and become more deracinated, and demographic change continues, a general white ethnicity likely will develop.

    What about Germans in Germany?
    Dutch in the Netherlands?
    Are they not ethnic groups?

    This phenomenon is not limited to the United States.

  178. Quick, no checking: is this a serious headline or an obscure Monty Python line?
    I’m obsessed with Julie Andrews voicing a racist sea monster
    Answer follows with link.

    [MORE]

    https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/julie-andrews-aquaman-mary-poppins.html

    what could be a newer experience for an actor than voicing a CGI squid who lives at the center of the earth and would almost certainly have a poor opinion of Meghan Markle?

  179. @Jack D
    Even before the Potato Famine wasn't a lot of the Irish immigration Catholic? The 1st St. Patrick's Day Parades in the US were before the Revolution.

    St. Patrick’s Day is also celebrated by Anglicans. There were three waves of Irish emigration to America: CoI Anglo-Irish, then Presbyterian Scots-Irish and finally Catholics.

    Wiki:

    The Charitable Irish Society of Boston organized the first observance of Saint Patrick’s Day in the Thirteen Colonies in 1737. Surprisingly, the celebration was not Catholic in nature, Irish immigration to the colonies having been dominated by Protestants.

    New York’s first Saint Patrick’s Day observance was similar to that of Boston. It was held on 16 March 1762 in the home of John Marshall, an Irish Protestant, and over the next few years informal gatherings by Irish immigrants were the norm. The first recorded parade in New York was by Irish soldiers in the British Army in 1766.

    And in your fine city…

    The first documented St. Patrick’s Day Celebration in Philadelphia was held in 1771. Philadelphia’s Friendly Sons of St. Patrick was found to honor St. Patrick and to provide relief to Irish immigrants in the city. Irish Americans have celebrated St. Patrick’s Day in Philadelphia since their arrival in America. General George Washington, a member of Philadelphia’s Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, actively encouraged Irish American patriots to join the Continental Army. In 1780, while camped in Morristown, NJ, General Washington allowed his troops a holiday on 17 March “as an act of solidarity with the Irish in their fight for independence.” This event became known as The Saint Patrick’s Day Encampment of 1780.

    Try to beat that for WASPiness. Anyone found a shamrock carved on Plymouth Rock?

  180. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    This answer is closely followed by “In 50 years we’ll all be mixed race and so none of this will matter any more.”

  181. @Anonymous

    One assumes that their immigrant parents’ meager wages would go further outside of NYC city limits. How much more per month is your average Chinese immigrant in New York willing to pay so that they can enjoy the familiarity of Queens?
     
    Nobody is going to hire a Chinese immigrant in the suburbs or rural areas. Queens is the only place they can get employment. They go outside of NYC when they have enough capital to start their own businesses or if they know someone who will hire them.

    Then why don’t they work in NYC and commute from cheaper suburban areas?

  182. @Jack D

    but it’s sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.
     
    This is what cracks me up about the "they all have to go back" crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard, like Nazi officials who had trouble getting the proper Racial Purity Certificate for their own lineage (they would have to do humiliating things like have their grandmother swear falsely that they had cheated on their Jewish husbands with an Aryan - thank God for them there was no DNA testing in those days). If the test was 100% WASP ancestry, most of the population would flunk it. Even if you broadened it, there are still millions upon millions of perfectly good ordinary American white people who would flunk. And where do you draw the line - are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)? Amish? German Catholics? Irish? French-Canadians? Does the seemingly uber-WASP family of William F. Buckley Jr. have to go back because they are really Irish? A lot of people think that they are good because they have an ancestor on the Mayflower, but in truth there are hundreds of slots (hard to say how many because most family trees have overlaps) in your family tree so 1 Mayflower ancestor means nothing.

    This is what cracks me up about the “they all have to go back” crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard …

    That’s a Corvinus-level straw man; no one serious in America is imagining policy based on WASP heritage exclusivity. I believe the last group with any power that pushed that ideal was the 1920s Klan. Even the authors of the Immigration Act of 1924 didn’t try to send all non-WASPs back to Europe.

    For the “they all have to go back crowd”, the longtime dividing line is whites (aka European Christian stock) vs. the rest. What you may be (intentionally) missing is a bit of polite understatement in the phrase “you have to go back.” It’s a heads-up from whites who want America to remain majority white saying:

    1) The US was founded by whites for the benefit of whites.
    2) If one doesn’t like whites being in charge, leave.
    3) If one doesn’t like our Anglo-American legal heritage, including the Bill of Rights (This applies to you. #104), leave.
    4) If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.

    So if someone says to you, Jack D, “you have to go back,” think of it as understated prudent advice.

    Merry Christmas. 🙂

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.
     
    You don’t seem to understand that in such a “donnybrook,” the unassimilated - whatever you may mean by that - aren’t the only ones who will suffer. Mom’s basement Nazis haven’t seen large-scale sectarian violence in real life and don’t realize how uncontrolled such a thing becomes. They think somehow a unified block of whites will be able to drive away a unified block of nonwhites “Day of the Rope” style, but that’s not what happened in other sectarian conflicts and that’s likely not what’s going to happen in the U.S.

    Once you unleash large scale civil unrest, you are not going to know who’s going to target whom in the end. Just ask the former Ba’athists and Sunni tribal leaders who launched the early insurgency.
    , @Anonymous

    1) The US was founded by whites for the benefit of whites.
    2) If one doesn’t like whites being in charge, leave.
    3) If one doesn’t like our Anglo-American legal heritage, including the Bill of Rights (This applies to you. #104), leave.
    4) If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.
     
    When it breaks bad, there will be white and nonwhite areas and white areas will be dangerous or downright lethal to nonwhites ( as many nonwhite areas will be so for whites). Presumably there will be "nonracially exclusive" areas where mixed race families and liberals will be safe but they will be limited in number and probably based on some other principle like a religion or a odd form of governance. I figure the current CONUS will be four to seven polities. I'm guessing there will be a fundangelical Christian one in the South, NYC and NNJ will still be safe for Jews provided they keep out of certain areas. Some will be targeted for price tag measures as in Covington's "Burger Kings" attacks. Israel will be their safe haven and redoubt, the beards and hats crowd will not be much bothered but mouthy leftists and neocons might be.

    Covington is dead but the PNW might turn out to be something much like he envisioned: big issues will be all the nuclear stuff, Boeing and M$FT in Seattle, and if they go north Hongcouver will be a mess and three-fourths. California south of the proposed Jefferson State area is a lost cause and will probably be its own country, allied neither with the rump US state nor Mexico-the gold chains boys won't permit LA to be Aztlan and will probably buy Baja California from Mexico on a plata o plomo basis.

    I figure the balloon goes up between 2030 and 2065 or thereabouts.
  183. @istevefan

    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.

     

    No. It only excluded them from naturalization while they under indentured servitude. Once their term was up, they could apply to naturalize. From my understanding, most indentured servants served about 7 years. After that they were free.

    They served usually 7 years.

    If they lived that long.

    There was a financial incentive for the masters to work them to death, especially near the end.

    Similarly, convict laborers were often worked to death. No financial incentive not to.

    Before 1808 African slaves were cheap and were often worked to death. After 1808 the slaves were often too valuable to work to death. That is why many called the convict labor system worse than slavery.

    • Replies: @Foreign Expert
    My impression was that infant mortality and life expectancy of slaves were good, comparable to France, the richest country in Europe. When a farmer buys a tractor does he abuse it or does he try to make it last as long as possible?
    , @istevefan

    They served usually 7 years.

    If they lived that long.
     

    I was not aware that indentured servants to the American colonies had a high mortality rate. You seem to be conflating them with the Europeans enslaved by the Barbary Pirates.

    Most indentured servants went under indentures as a means of paying for their transportation to the New World.


    Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution had come under indentures
     
    If the death rate would have been as high as some are suggesting, it would have inhibited the population growth of the colonies. If we would have had high mortality among a group that comprised 1/2 to 2/3rds of all white immigrants, surely it must have been discussed or written about. I have just never come across accounts of widespread mortality among indentured servants in colonial America.

    Tomlins estimates that 48% were indentured.[4] About 75% of these were under the age of 25. The age of adulthood for men was 24 years (not 21); those over 24 generally came on contracts lasting about 3 years.[5] Regarding the children who came, Gary Nash reports that "many of the servants were actually nephews, nieces, cousins and children of friends of emigrating Englishmen, who paid their passage in return for their labor once in America."[6]

     

    That's interesting that many of the under 24 age servants were actually friends and family members.

    As I mentioned earlier, the Naturalization Act of 1790 would have allowed for this rather large cohort of white immigrants to naturalize once their indenture was over. And that was the point of the original comment.

  184. @TBA

    Institutions built on contracts of individual choice and consent instead of today’s institutions built on laws passed by all powerful governments.
     
    The powers that be aren't libertarian. Governments don't seem to be on their way to become less powerful. More powerful governments might well be introduced to keep a lid on things.

    (Maybe I'm gullible. Was your comment a joke?)

    The powers that be aren’t libertarian. Governments don’t seem to be on their way to become less powerful. More powerful governments might well be introduced to keep a lid on things.

    (Maybe I’m gullible. Was your comment a joke?)

    Not a joke. So, personally, I think it’s too risky, so I support tight border controls and tapping the brakes. But I actually like the idea of a contract and market driven society that doesn’t use voting or nation states.

    Sure, today, the powers that be aren’t libertarian at all. Governments wield enormous of amounts of power throughout all aspects of life. The libertarian argument is that large shocks of ethnic diversity will undermine all of that.

  185. @Reg Cæsar
    An instructive lesson comes from St Paul's Rondo Days:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondo_Days

    This festival celebrates the remains of a black neighborhood split and ruined by the building of an interstate highway. It's been a big deal for 35 years.

    Several white neighborhoods in both Twin Cities suffered a similar fate. Yet you don't see a trace of such celebration there. That's because white don't value those neighborhoods in the same way. They moved out to the consumerist suburbs. It's no accident that Southdale, the iconic first enclosed modern mall in a sea of parking, was built in a Minneapolis suburb.

    Le Corbusier called the house merely "a machine for living in", one of the most offensive things ever said by an architect. Yet this how white Americans think. For every urban bungalow lovingly restored (by those unrelated to the original owner, and after decades of neglect in-between), there are dozens of exurban thingies with out-front garages that look like storage lockers with mother-in-law flats stuck atop them. With nowhere for little Jaden and Addison to play.

    This, to me, is the epitome of exurban ugliness and soullessness:

    A friend of mine lives in one of these boxes. It’s the worst of both worlds: urban claustrophobia combined with suburban isolation.

    My own place – a one-story late-’70s townhouse – isn’t anything to brag about, but it does have high wooden vaulted ceilings and an open floor plan that create an illusion of roominess. I have a small front yard, a small fenced-in back yard, and a strip of grass connecting the two. The area is full of younger couples who are just starting out and older couples who are downsizing from their empty nests.

    (Sadly, I’m not much of an interior decorator. The highlight of the living room is my OfficeMax computer table. My lamps are genuine Kmart originals. The dining-room table was a hand-me-down from my cousin. The only common theme is that everything was either a gift or a clearance item. Unlike most millennials, however, I do own a can opener.)

    My grandparents’ house, where I spent my youthful weekends and holidays, was a sprawling ranch-style affair with low ceilings. The best thing about it was that it was on an acre lot with a big swimming pool (and a sizable patio with a built-in barbecue) and two huge, ultra-climbable trees. In retrospect, it was an ideal childhood home.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Those condos are downright European compared to these.

    Or these. Which are indistinguishable from the storage lockers next door!

    My wife's cousin recently married a guy who grew up in a traditional small-town house, across the street from the high school. Short commute! His parents left when he did, but they just moved back to town. Not to their old house, but about a mile away, around the corner from the one I just linked to. But why?

    , @bomag
    "You might not be interested in denser living patterns; but denser living patterns are interested in you."

    I've always figured the Matrix movies immanenitized the eschaton regarding the trend toward denser urban living coupled with the man - machine conflict.
  186. @Chase
    Ok, that is the counter argument. It’s stupid though, as anyone with eyes can see.

    Ok, that is the counter argument. It’s stupid though, as anyone with eyes can see.

    This is a really weak counter argument. My counter argument to the AnCap open border utopia, is that we have no idea if it would work or not, and encouraging it in this saboteur fashion is reckless.

  187. @theMann
    Wow what a lot of verbiage.


    Simple explanation: in America, Whites as a group are significant net tax payers, non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers. In Economic terms Whites are the host, non- Whites are the parasite.

    There are two, and only two, relations you have to a parasite. The first is that it sucks your blood until you die. The second is that it sucks your blood until you kill it. Period.

    The day will come when the host tries to free itself of the parasite, which attaches via Taxation. That will be an interesting day.
    • Replies: @Svigor
    What about non-natives? Disproportionately Asian, I'd guess.
  188. @theMann
    Wow what a lot of verbiage.


    Simple explanation: in America, Whites as a group are significant net tax payers, non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers. In Economic terms Whites are the host, non- Whites are the parasite.

    There are two, and only two, relations you have to a parasite. The first is that it sucks your blood until you die. The second is that it sucks your blood until you kill it. Period.

    The day will come when the host tries to free itself of the parasite, which attaches via Taxation. That will be an interesting day.

    Simple explanation: in America, Whites as a group are significant net tax payers, non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers. In Economic terms Whites are the host, non- Whites are the parasite.

    This doesn’t fly. These completely economic arguments won’t cut it.

    I’m with JackD–generally Asians in the US are productive, not net tax easters. Though, i agree with iSteveFan that many of them–Chinese in particular–are abusing our welfare system, looting it with elderly parents.

    I know plenty of Asians–family, co-workers, friends–and as a group they are solidly productive law abiding Americans. Some are outstanding, terrific additions to America. But that doesn’t mean i want to invite their relatives much less any of the rest of their nations as well.

    ~~

    No, while it’s true our (American) mass immigration has been highly destructive economically, the argument against mass immigration is not fundamentally an economic argument.

    The Hungarians might actually improve their economy by importing a few overseas Chinese. The Ghanians certainly would be economically better off, importing lots of Koreans. Should they do it?
    Hell no! Being against mass immigration isn’t just about economics.

    No, we want to preserve our nation for ourselves … because it is ours.

    I don’t want to have a bunch of Asians come here, not because “Asians suck” or because i have some big problem with them but because … they aren’t Americans.

    America is a particular place, with a particular people and culture–part of Western civilization. A few high quality people, who look to add value–Asian or not–can come here, no biggie. But fundamentally, our nation belongs to … Americans. We want to preserve it for Americans–our children, their children. We want to preserve America for Americans–our children, our children’s children …

    But mass immigration is giving our future over to foreigners. And it’s wrong, not because they are “bad people” but simply because they are not us.

    • Replies: @istevefan

    No, while it’s true our (American) mass immigration has been highly destructive economically, the argument against mass immigration is not fundamentally an economic argument.

    The Hungarians might actually improve their economy by importing a few overseas Chinese. The Ghanians certainly would be economically better off, importing lots of Koreans. Should they do it?
    Hell no! Being against mass immigration isn’t just about economics.
     

    The argument against MASS immigration should not be based upon economics, the distinction between legal or illegal, or other factors like IQ. Because whatever defense you think you are creating, it is easily outflanked.

    For example, conservatives say they are for legal immigration, not illegal immigration. "OK" says the globalists, "we will just increase the legal number of slots from 1 million to 2 million per year."

    Another conservative argument is that they don't want low IQ people because they would not fit into our high tech society. "OK" says the globalist. "We will expand the visas for high tech workers."

    Either way above and you still lose if your goal was to "conserve" what you had.

    Meanwhile, I really like the example being set by Israel. They make no bones that their mission in life is to be the Jewish state, PERIOD. One member of the Knesset recently said something to the effect that if they had to compromise their democratic principles to meet that goal, they would.

    Ask an Israeli if they would trade the current proportion of Jewish people in Israel, currently around 75% of the population, for an increase in GDP. For example, would they be willing to add 50% to their GDP if it meant the Jewish proportion dropping to 60%? Conversely would they support halving their GDP if it meant the Jewish proportion would increase to 95%?

    Now one can argue Israel differs from the USA because Israel does have an implied mission of being the Jewish state, but the USA doesn't have any mission of being a Christian or an English nation. But we all know from US history that the USA is clearly a European nation in general and a NW European nation in particular. And we have had a history of legislation over the years showing that the people wanted to preserve that demographic.

    It should not be hard to come out and support that. And rather than slink away when someone says you are a hypocrite because your ancestors immigrated here, and thus you should support further immigration. You could reply that your ancestors came here because of what that demographic had created. And that by destroying the demographic mix that made this nation great, you would be turning the America your ancestors yearned for into something unrecognizable to them. If your ancestors had wanted something so different, they could have chosen a Latin new world nation. But they didn't. So why should you create here today what your ancestors rejected? You owe it to them to conserve the place they dreamed of settling.

  189. @Jack D
    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don't think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state. And, based on things like origin of folk songs, a lot of the Appalachian people that we call Scotch -Irish were really from the borderlands in the North of England. If there was any clustering it was by religion (mainly Presbyterian) but Presbyterians came not just from the Scots who moved to Ulster and then move again to the US (the only people truly entitled to the Scotch-Irish label). In short, the whole "Scotch-Irish" thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.

    In short, the whole “Scotch-Irish” thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.

    Only by people who don’t know what the term means. Don’t take history lessons from “Whiskey”. The term was explained in Fischer’s Albion’s Seed

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Grow up.

    Fischer does not care about you.
    , @ben tillman
    Even Whiskey had read Albion's Seed and would agree with you on this.
  190. @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    Many a comment thread contains professions of “giving up” on the United States

    I’ve been following this story since about when Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation came out. The sense of impending doom wasn’t as palpable ten or twenty years ago.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    The bus was moving more slowly, with room to change its course, then; now the bus is travelling one hundred miles per hour only one hundred yards from the edge of the cliff. Brimelowe himself made the point in Alien Nation that there was still time to prevent disaster, but only just. That time is lost.

    Slowly, then all at once, you see....
  191. @Jack D
    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don't think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state. And, based on things like origin of folk songs, a lot of the Appalachian people that we call Scotch -Irish were really from the borderlands in the North of England. If there was any clustering it was by religion (mainly Presbyterian) but Presbyterians came not just from the Scots who moved to Ulster and then move again to the US (the only people truly entitled to the Scotch-Irish label). In short, the whole "Scotch-Irish" thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.

    It’s been way overdone in the hillbilly department, even though the terms redneck and hillbilly are of Scottish origin. Scots Irish, Ulster Scots, borderers, Covenanters or whatever you want to call them are pretty hard to pin down because they wholeheartedly embraced an American identity from the very beginning of the Republic.

    And as Snorlax pointed out in his reply, a lot of them are actually just plain Irish who got tossed in because they went to the same churches.

    If there’s anything that characterized them here in the states it’s mobility, because they are everywhere, yet you never hear about this or that place being “Scots Irish,” even when it’s named after one of them, as so many places are. They don’t even have a sense of identity other than their American-ness, the large majority having long since shed their old customs, and even their religion.

    The only traditions I can think of in my own family (Scots Irish all the way down on my mom’s side) that seem to have come from the old country are eating oats, drinking whiskey, roast beef, rutabagas, fowling and trout fishing. I’d probably recognize a lot more if I spent time in Ulster or the Scottish lowlands, but the fact that I – and the many millions like me – are totally unconscious of them and their origins shows how utterly Americanized we’ve become.

    This being the case, it’s probably more accurate to call “Scots Irish” ethnic Americans. They’d understand the term better themselves.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I call it "gun culture".
    , @black sea

    This being the case, it’s probably more accurate to call “Scots Irish” ethnic Americans. They’d understand the term better themselves.
     
    I thought any confusion regarding the identity of this sub-population was resolved a couple of years ago with the creation of a new demographic category: "The Deplorables."
  192. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    This is what cracks me up about the “they all have to go back” crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard …
     
    That’s a Corvinus-level straw man; no one serious in America is imagining policy based on WASP heritage exclusivity. I believe the last group with any power that pushed that ideal was the 1920s Klan. Even the authors of the Immigration Act of 1924 didn’t try to send all non-WASPs back to Europe.

    For the “they all have to go back crowd”, the longtime dividing line is whites (aka European Christian stock) vs. the rest. What you may be (intentionally) missing is a bit of polite understatement in the phrase “you have to go back.” It’s a heads-up from whites who want America to remain majority white saying:

    1) The US was founded by whites for the benefit of whites.
    2) If one doesn’t like whites being in charge, leave.
    3) If one doesn’t like our Anglo-American legal heritage, including the Bill of Rights (This applies to you. #104), leave.
    4) If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.

    So if someone says to you, Jack D, “you have to go back,” think of it as understated prudent advice.

    Merry Christmas. :)

    If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.

    You don’t seem to understand that in such a “donnybrook,” the unassimilated – whatever you may mean by that – aren’t the only ones who will suffer. Mom’s basement Nazis haven’t seen large-scale sectarian violence in real life and don’t realize how uncontrolled such a thing becomes. They think somehow a unified block of whites will be able to drive away a unified block of nonwhites “Day of the Rope” style, but that’s not what happened in other sectarian conflicts and that’s likely not what’s going to happen in the U.S.

    Once you unleash large scale civil unrest, you are not going to know who’s going to target whom in the end. Just ask the former Ba’athists and Sunni tribal leaders who launched the early insurgency.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    They think somehow a unified block of whites will be able to drive away a unified block of nonwhites “Day of the Rope” style, but that’s not what happened in other sectarian conflicts and that’s likely not what’s going to happen in the U.S.

    Once you unleash large scale civil unrest, you are not going to know who’s going to target whom in the end. Just ask the former Ba’athists and Sunni tribal leaders who launched the early insurgency.
     
    It's going to get bad. I should be safely dead by then, but the youngsters will get a front row seat when they are my age. If you have kids prepare them well, that they might be among the few victors.
    , @J.Ross

    Mom’s basement Nazis haven’t seen large-scale sectarian violence in real life
     
    You mean the people getting their cars torched, getting suckerpunched and beaten without hope of help from police, and getting maximum sentences while their attackers get probation if anything. Please keep nagging them about how they won't get their cocoa in a timely manner.
    We are being dragged toward civil war by the Justice Department's refusal to enforce the law coinciding with aggressive leftist terrorism. That is the thing bringing the war. Once we get there we'll all know how bad it is, and its badness will not be able to undo it. Avoiding the war is a function of actually enforcing the law against leftists, period. If people see the Eric Clantons getting dealt with properly, there will be no motivation to take matters into their own hands.
    , @Svigor
    The Irish eventually made sure the English got the point. Jews got what they wanted in Palestine. America was literally built on ethnic cleansing.
    , @black sea

    Mom’s basement Nazis
     
    I like the phrasing. I think that -- in additon to SJWs, BLM, POC, and NAMs, we can add MBNs to the lexicon.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Twinkie, I understand that you bought a ticket to the world, you’ve come back again, and know this much is true—war is chaos—some would say Hell on Earth, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen here, no matter what you (and I) want for the future.

    You’re an erstwhile military historian and have taught strategy, correct? Have you formally studied hypothetical players, losses, and outcomes for a contemporary or near-future civil war in the United States?

    In the past you’ve cited examples of civil strife and revolution in other lands (Maoism in China, your above example of US occupied Iraq) – any illuminating thoughts specific to chance outcomes of an intra-American shooting war (including possible involvement of outside powers) besides your boringly obvious ‘it’s gonna suck and be unpredictable’ caveat?
  193. @Art Deco
    Households enrolled in the SNAP program (ne 'Food Stamps') receive a mean of $280 a month in benefits. They're not livin' large on that.

    Households enrolled in the SNAP program (ne ‘Food Stamps’) receive a mean of $280 a month in benefits. They’re not livin’ large on that.

    They do well enough to breed the next generation of the poor, including many criminals. Some people consider that to be the real problem with such benefits, more than the mere amount of money itself. And, as Jack D pointed out, the amount of money is not insignificant.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The next generation will ever include people who occupy the lowest income quartile, aka 'the poor'. Neither black population nor the aboriginal population is notable fecund, their collective impecuniousness notwithstanding. Hispanics have a mess of kids. It's a reasonable wager that lasts one generation, SNAP or no SNAP.
  194. @Jack D

    but it’s sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.
     
    This is what cracks me up about the "they all have to go back" crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard, like Nazi officials who had trouble getting the proper Racial Purity Certificate for their own lineage (they would have to do humiliating things like have their grandmother swear falsely that they had cheated on their Jewish husbands with an Aryan - thank God for them there was no DNA testing in those days). If the test was 100% WASP ancestry, most of the population would flunk it. Even if you broadened it, there are still millions upon millions of perfectly good ordinary American white people who would flunk. And where do you draw the line - are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)? Amish? German Catholics? Irish? French-Canadians? Does the seemingly uber-WASP family of William F. Buckley Jr. have to go back because they are really Irish? A lot of people think that they are good because they have an ancestor on the Mayflower, but in truth there are hundreds of slots (hard to say how many because most family trees have overlaps) in your family tree so 1 Mayflower ancestor means nothing.

    If they look and act White and do not engage in anti-White activity , or antisocial or criminal behavior I’ll generally give them a pass.

  195. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.
     
    You don’t seem to understand that in such a “donnybrook,” the unassimilated - whatever you may mean by that - aren’t the only ones who will suffer. Mom’s basement Nazis haven’t seen large-scale sectarian violence in real life and don’t realize how uncontrolled such a thing becomes. They think somehow a unified block of whites will be able to drive away a unified block of nonwhites “Day of the Rope” style, but that’s not what happened in other sectarian conflicts and that’s likely not what’s going to happen in the U.S.

    Once you unleash large scale civil unrest, you are not going to know who’s going to target whom in the end. Just ask the former Ba’athists and Sunni tribal leaders who launched the early insurgency.

    They think somehow a unified block of whites will be able to drive away a unified block of nonwhites “Day of the Rope” style, but that’s not what happened in other sectarian conflicts and that’s likely not what’s going to happen in the U.S.

    Once you unleash large scale civil unrest, you are not going to know who’s going to target whom in the end. Just ask the former Ba’athists and Sunni tribal leaders who launched the early insurgency.

    It’s going to get bad. I should be safely dead by then, but the youngsters will get a front row seat when they are my age. If you have kids prepare them well, that they might be among the few victors.

  196. Elon Musk has weathered a bit of selfmade bad PR but Tesla is still crumbling, Facebook is looking at userbase decline, Google fumbled its attempt to merge with the Chinese government, Apple is still a disaster, and Microsoft Ten manages to stand out even among Microsoft operating systems as an ongoing blue screen. This year in technology has been avoidably horrible. And that’s even before we get to Brave browser, a Firefox competitor for folks who want to surf the internet without using Chrome or Exploder. Brave will set up a charity in your name and take donations. Without telling you about it. Their CEO’s defense: once you learn what they’re doing, you can opt out.
    https://postimg.cc/hhrjR2vy
    https://postimg.cc/7C0HsVjN

  197. @Whiskey
    As if you ever had anything to say other than the Jooooooossssss! Typical WN White Knight cuck. As bad as the boomers.

    I don’t recall you ever having anything interesting to say, or even merely correct. If there is a single damned thing you ever said that was right, I am unaware of it. You are the bald-faced liar who claimed that Hollywood is run by WASP-Brahmin Harvard grads. You are the idiot who predicted an amphibian assault of America by jihadists in Zodiac boats. You are the nincompoop who claims to be “Scots-Irish”, though you don’t even know what the term means (you seem to think it to means “Irish”), and also never express an opinion on any topic that touches upon those actual people. And yet, no matter what the topic may be, you always deflect attention away from one particular tribe with which you ostensibly have no affiliation at all.

  198. @Jack D

    Why’d already English-speaking Scots... immigrants form enclaves?
     
    There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.

    Obviously speaking the language helps but it's still going to be easier for a new immigrant to cluster in an immigrant neighborhood where there is an Irish priest, an Irish politician to help him get a job, etc. But if you already speak the language then you are going to stay in the ghetto for a shorter amount of time. At most, (non-black) immigrant ghettos tend to be 1 or at most 2 generation things - the kids go to college and scatter to the 4 winds and don't move back to the old neighborhood with rare exceptions.

    “There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.”

    Canada.

    • Replies: @Hgh
    Kearny, NJ
    , @Cagey Beast
    “There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.”

    Canada.

    Correct.
  199. @istevefan

    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.

     

    No. It only excluded them from naturalization while they under indentured servitude. Once their term was up, they could apply to naturalize. From my understanding, most indentured servants served about 7 years. After that they were free.

    ” After that they were free.”

    If they weren’t dead yet.

  200. @Twinkie

    If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.
     
    You don’t seem to understand that in such a “donnybrook,” the unassimilated - whatever you may mean by that - aren’t the only ones who will suffer. Mom’s basement Nazis haven’t seen large-scale sectarian violence in real life and don’t realize how uncontrolled such a thing becomes. They think somehow a unified block of whites will be able to drive away a unified block of nonwhites “Day of the Rope” style, but that’s not what happened in other sectarian conflicts and that’s likely not what’s going to happen in the U.S.

    Once you unleash large scale civil unrest, you are not going to know who’s going to target whom in the end. Just ask the former Ba’athists and Sunni tribal leaders who launched the early insurgency.

    Mom’s basement Nazis haven’t seen large-scale sectarian violence in real life

    You mean the people getting their cars torched, getting suckerpunched and beaten without hope of help from police, and getting maximum sentences while their attackers get probation if anything. Please keep nagging them about how they won’t get their cocoa in a timely manner.
    We are being dragged toward civil war by the Justice Department’s refusal to enforce the law coinciding with aggressive leftist terrorism. That is the thing bringing the war. Once we get there we’ll all know how bad it is, and its badness will not be able to undo it. Avoiding the war is a function of actually enforcing the law against leftists, period. If people see the Eric Clantons getting dealt with properly, there will be no motivation to take matters into their own hands.

  201. b)Would the indigenous white populations of said countries be willing to accept being that much poorer if they knew that in exchange they could live in communities that they actually recognized and understood?

    This is what I think of when economists talk about the economic benefits of immigration or diversity. How much money do middle class families spend to avoid the negative externalities of diversity?

    Wealthier families who choose to stay in a diverse area spend more on security and on private schools.

    But lots of families move to areas that are less diverse, and the mechanism that keeps their neighborhoods less diverse is high housing prices. High housing prices for middle class suburbs near diverse cities are a feature, not a bug. They keep the lower classes away, and keep the lower class’s children out of their schools. How much wealth is tied up in unnecessarily large yards, overcomplicated zoning, environmental regulations, and such costs that would have no constituency except that they tend to reduce supply of housing in attractive areas to price out unwanted minorities?

    How much of the higher education bubble is caused by the need to keep up with the housing race?

    How does the amount of money we spend to avoid diversity compare to the putative economic benefits of diversity?

  202. @Desiderius
    That you’re lower than a paramecium. Reproduction is all about the long run. We’re alive in the long run of our ancestors.

    That this even needs to be said is utterly pathetic. Keynes was a prat.

    ” Keynes was a prat.”

    Keynes was a poof. They don’t think very far ahead. They don’t need to.

  203. istevefan says:
    @AnotherDad

    Simple explanation: in America, Whites as a group are significant net tax payers, non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers. In Economic terms Whites are the host, non- Whites are the parasite.
     
    This doesn't fly. These completely economic arguments won't cut it.

    I'm with JackD--generally Asians in the US are productive, not net tax easters. Though, i agree with iSteveFan that many of them--Chinese in particular--are abusing our welfare system, looting it with elderly parents.

    I know plenty of Asians--family, co-workers, friends--and as a group they are solidly productive law abiding Americans. Some are outstanding, terrific additions to America. But that doesn't mean i want to invite their relatives much less any of the rest of their nations as well.

    ~~

    No, while it's true our (American) mass immigration has been highly destructive economically, the argument against mass immigration is not fundamentally an economic argument.

    The Hungarians might actually improve their economy by importing a few overseas Chinese. The Ghanians certainly would be economically better off, importing lots of Koreans. Should they do it?
    Hell no! Being against mass immigration isn't just about economics.

    No, we want to preserve our nation for ourselves ... because it is ours.

    I don't want to have a bunch of Asians come here, not because "Asians suck" or because i have some big problem with them but because ... they aren't Americans.

    America is a particular place, with a particular people and culture--part of Western civilization. A few high quality people, who look to add value--Asian or not--can come here, no biggie. But fundamentally, our nation belongs to ... Americans. We want to preserve it for Americans--our children, their children. We want to preserve America for Americans--our children, our children's children ...

    But mass immigration is giving our future over to foreigners. And it's wrong, not because they are "bad people" but simply because they are not us.

    No, while it’s true our (American) mass immigration has been highly destructive economically, the argument against mass immigration is not fundamentally an economic argument.

    The Hungarians might actually improve their economy by importing a few overseas Chinese. The Ghanians certainly would be economically better off, importing lots of Koreans. Should they do it?
    Hell no! Being against mass immigration isn’t just about economics.

    The argument against MASS immigration should not be based upon economics, the distinction between legal or illegal, or other factors like IQ. Because whatever defense you think you are creating, it is easily outflanked.

    For example, conservatives say they are for legal immigration, not illegal immigration. “OK” says the globalists, “we will just increase the legal number of slots from 1 million to 2 million per year.”

    Another conservative argument is that they don’t want low IQ people because they would not fit into our high tech society. “OK” says the globalist. “We will expand the visas for high tech workers.”

    Either way above and you still lose if your goal was to “conserve” what you had.

    Meanwhile, I really like the example being set by Israel. They make no bones that their mission in life is to be the Jewish state, PERIOD. One member of the Knesset recently said something to the effect that if they had to compromise their democratic principles to meet that goal, they would.

    Ask an Israeli if they would trade the current proportion of Jewish people in Israel, currently around 75% of the population, for an increase in GDP. For example, would they be willing to add 50% to their GDP if it meant the Jewish proportion dropping to 60%? Conversely would they support halving their GDP if it meant the Jewish proportion would increase to 95%?

    Now one can argue Israel differs from the USA because Israel does have an implied mission of being the Jewish state, but the USA doesn’t have any mission of being a Christian or an English nation. But we all know from US history that the USA is clearly a European nation in general and a NW European nation in particular. And we have had a history of legislation over the years showing that the people wanted to preserve that demographic.

    It should not be hard to come out and support that. And rather than slink away when someone says you are a hypocrite because your ancestors immigrated here, and thus you should support further immigration. You could reply that your ancestors came here because of what that demographic had created. And that by destroying the demographic mix that made this nation great, you would be turning the America your ancestors yearned for into something unrecognizable to them. If your ancestors had wanted something so different, they could have chosen a Latin new world nation. But they didn’t. So why should you create here today what your ancestors rejected? You owe it to them to conserve the place they dreamed of settling.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Many, if not most states, have laws in place regarding the introduction of invasive species of the plant and animal kingdoms. The impact of invasive species on natives is well researched and of great concern to most biologists and ecologists with regard to the full spectrum of multiplying creation. Except for the abomination of whitefolk sheltered by imagined boundaries drawn in blood and violence, motivated by hatred and financed through slavery, and currently maintained only by men of limited social and cultural status, who no longer recognize their place.
  204. I’ve asked those questions – many times – and the response is for the other party to stick their noses in the air and call me an idiot. At best, they say, “That comment is so stupid, I won’t dignify it with a reply.”

    All they do is virtue signal – that’s why they love social media and especially Upworthy.

    As long as I and those close to me are OK, sod’em.

    If they cringe then snarl at the word Rotherham, they deserve everything that’s coming.

  205. Anonymous[394] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan

    And where do you draw the line – are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)?
     
    You may draw the line at those who were covered by the Naturalization Act of 1790. Given that was the first act of its kind written by the leading members of the founding stock, and signed into law by the Founding Father himself, it most clearly signifies for whom the founding stock had in mind to augment their fledgling nation.

    The main problem for white nationalism is that the country wasn’t founded on white nationalist principles. That’s why you had John Quincy Adams, a son of a Founding Father, win a case overwhelmingly at the Supreme Court almost 200 years ago for some random Africans by appealing to the Declaration of Independence. Once you accept that the founding principles apply to some random Africans and the entire world, and indeed can only be fulfilled if the rest of the world is free, then it’s a short step to allowing immigration and citizenship from around the world. “Invade the world, invite the world” becomes less surprising.

    Instead of having a liberal theory of universal individual rights, along with a commerce based society and culture, which obviously reinforce each other, as the basis, you would want some sort of communal racial or ethnic principle as the founding principle.

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-175-years-ago-the-supreme-courts-landmark-amistad-decision

    Former President and Secretary of State Adams, then serving in the House of Representatives, agreed to help the Africans plead their case to the Court.

    Pointing to a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the courtroom, Adams said, “I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature’s God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case. That law, in its application to my clients, I trust will be the law on which the case will be decided by this Court.”

    He then called out the Van Buren administration. “One of the grievous charges brought against George III was, that he had made laws for sending men beyond seas for trial. That was one of the most odious of those acts of tyranny which occasioned the American revolution. The whole of the reasoning is not applicable to this case, but I submit to your Honors that, if the President has the power to do it in the case of Africans, and send them beyond seas for trial, he could do it by the same authority in the case of American citizens. By a simple order to the marshal of the district, he could just as well seize forty citizens of the United States, on the demand of a foreign minister, and send them beyond seas for trial before a foreign court.”

    After a lengthy argument, Adams concluded by reviewing the Court’s honorable tradition since he first appeared before it decades earlier. Days later, in a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the captives of the Amistad.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    The nation was not overtly founded on white nationalist principles, because it didn't have to be. It was taken for granted.
    , @istevefan

    That’s why you had John Quincy Adams, a son of a Founding Father, win a case overwhelmingly at the Supreme Court almost 200 years ago for some random Africans by appealing to the Declaration of Independence.
     
    Didn't those Africans go back to Africa after the Supreme Court ruled in their favor?
  206. @Massimo Heitor
    1) No. 3) No. 4) No.

    To play devil's advocate on #2:

    What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be?
     
    Institutions built on contracts of individual choice and consent instead of today's institutions built on laws passed by all powerful governments. Basically, AnCap.

    How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future?
     
    By buying/selling products and services from each other for their own benefit.

    What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble?
     
    Naked self-interest. Even if groups hate each other, they will want to buy and sell from each other. Violence will be unattractive on a cost/reward basis.

    What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength” into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?
     
    Nothing. No nations, no wars.

    And yet, people prefer to pay taxes to a massive government who in the name of them all will exert violence if necessary against those who break community rules. Buying and selling peace? We have always tried that, ever since the first land demarcations ever. “You hunt here, I hunt there”.

  207. @Thea
    Our division is urban vs rural not regional. There is no logical economic, cultural or ethnic partition as with the USSR. No country will accept us as refugees.

    We have to deal with cleaning up this mess of an empire if we can.

    We cannot.

  208. @Cagey Beast
    In Britain and by extension its colonies, to be Irish was sort of like having cooties, regardless of one’s religion, wealth, education or actual ethnicity.

    This wasn't true in Canada and I doubt it was true in the rest of the Empire. Maybe I'm wrong? If the topic interests you, have a search through these speeches made at Toronto's Empire Club over the years. I suggest going from oldest to newest: http://speeches.empireclub.org/search

    Back in the period when overt anti-Irish snobbery was the rule in the Anglosphere, Anglophone Canadians were a minority with a tenuous hold on power over the mutually-antagonistic Francophone majority, so they didn’t have much choice but to define their ethnonational group in the broadest terms possible as “anyone who isn’t Francophone, or isn’t Catholic, or otherwise supports the government.” To increase the ranks of the disaffected would have been quite literally dangerous.

    On the other hand, Anglo-Americans and of course Anglo-Anglos were overwhelming and unquestionably dominant majorities, so they could afford to be exclusive snobs.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Sad if true.
    , @Cagey Beast
    This does not match my understanding of my own country's history. The War of 1812 was an "all hands on deck" moment for Canada. French, Scots Catholics, Irish, English and Indians all showed up for that. The 1837 rebellions, and their aftermath, created even more political alliances that cut across sectarian and linguistic lines.

    The friction between Irish and French Catholic clergy, the old money gentry versus the bourgeois liberals and the fights over denominational schooling created a Canada with "cross cutting cleavages"*, rather than your imagined land of WASP overlords and ethnic White helots. The results were different from the social structure of New England that you're applying to the whole of the Anglosphere. Let's just leave it at that.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-cutting_cleavage

  209. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    How much more per month is your average Chinese immigrant in New York willing to pay so that they can enjoy the familiarity of Queens?
     
    With respect (because the OP seems like a thoughtful person in general and is deserving of it), this particular question is really kind of a dumb question and actually has it backwards. Immigrants have been clustering in immigrant ghettos forever (even in the Colonial period there were German speaking enclaves in the colonies) because when you are fresh off the boat (today a 747) you have no choice but to "enjoy" living in some overpriced overcrowded flat in the immigrant ghetto. You don't speak the language so you can only get a job with an immigrant employer who speaks your language. You can't go shopping in a regular supermarket for the same reason - you need immigrant run shops or else you might mistake furniture polish for cooking oil and poison your family. You don't have a driver's license and maybe are afraid to even venture into the subway system where you might get lost. You're in no position to negotiate a lease with an English speaking landlord with whom you can't communicate.

    Later on (sometimes MUCH later - the next generation) the immigrant or his kids can't WAIT to get the hell out of Chinatown but for the time being he feels as if he really has no choice. Chinese are really cheap with the dollar and if they could save money by living elsewhere they would (and later on they do), but at first they can't for the reasons stated.

    This is not to say that we should be taking more (0r any) non-English speaking immigrants but the idea that the immigrant is living in his immigrant slum purely because he "enjoys" it is a fallacy.

    I defer to your experience in US, but in the Greater Toronto Area this hasn’t been true for a while now. There are still poor areas, and these are often literally diverse with people from a variety of backgrounds living cheek by jowl because they have no other choice. But in the suburban parts of Toronto and the surrounding regions you have gilded ghettos consisting of pricey houses that 95% of Canadians would be happy living in, but for some weird reason one or perhaps two recent immigrant groups dominate.

    This isn’t unique to recent arrivals. Why does such a huge part of Toronto’s Jewish community (the majority of whose ancestors immigrated in the 1920’s at the latest), cram themselves into a relatively thin strip of land between Yonge(or if we’re being generous, Bayview) and Dufferin? These people are generally wealthy, appear assimilated, and probably couldn’t speak Yiddish if they tried. To be sure, their greater average wealth gives them more choices when it comes to where they can live, but if what you’re saying is true you’d expect to see them evenly distributed among wealthy neighbourhoods across the GTA, which definitely isn’t the case. And it certainly isn’t the case that these Jews have some ancestral attachment to the streets of their immigrant forefathers(those neighbourhoods were mostly bulldozed or experienced ethnic succession decades ago).

    Why is it that any any university, you see Canadian-born, English-speaking students ethnically segregating to such a large degree? It isn’t a matter of whites being mean to non-whites. If that were true you’d see students grouped into whites and everyone else would mix, but if anything it’s the nonwhites who exhibit more in-group cohesion.

    Part of this is probably the fault of rich educated whites. When they got gentrification fever(the late 1980’s maybe?), they targeted heritage houses in urban areas that traditionally acted as jumping-off points for generations of immigrants. They were the sort of traditional ethnic ghettos you’re probably thinking of. Once these areas became prohibitively expensive for new immigrants they had no choice but to head to the suburban zones, which in Canada are designed to minimize interaction with your neighbours. I can’t help but wonder if this slows integration.

  210. @International Jew

    Many a comment thread contains professions of “giving up” on the United States
     
    I've been following this story since about when Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation came out. The sense of impending doom wasn't as palpable ten or twenty years ago.

    The bus was moving more slowly, with room to change its course, then; now the bus is travelling one hundred miles per hour only one hundred yards from the edge of the cliff. Brimelowe himself made the point in Alien Nation that there was still time to prevent disaster, but only just. That time is lost.

    Slowly, then all at once, you see….

  211. @Anon7
    “Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst?”

    When I watch BBC shows that are set in the Period from 1910-1965, that are historically accurate in terms of their casting (all white people), I’m transfixed by the beauty of the land and the wonderful architecture that has endured for so many centuries. It even survived the Blitz.

    It didn’t survive Leftism, though. Now, every single time I see a beautiful church, I think to myself “oh, that will make a lovely mosque.” The stately libraries I’m not too sure about, since you don’t need much of a library when you only read one book, the Koran.

    Are they crazy? Are they tired? Are they hypnotized? Of course, I could direct all of those questions to myself and my neighbors, since we seem to be doing the same thing.

    Is it the end of Empire, ala John Glubb? Or is the West just tired out, ready for replacement by men who still tell their wives to take care of their eight kids?

    As far as answers are concerned, my answer is Trump and Trumpism. Stand up and say what other people cringe from, and keep pushing for every last step in the right direction. Money for a real wall, removal of all non-citizens, an end to immigration except for real necessity. A move forward to a vigorous masculine society.

    Real necessity? Jesus, this nonsense always slips in. There is no reason to accept a single immigrant to the F.U.S.A. It’s been full-up for at least a century. It can find astronauts and nuclear engineers among the children of the astronauts and nuclear engineers who were here before all this madnes started. There is not now, and never has been in history, any shortages of skills or labour: only deficiencies of wages from stingy, rich assholes.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    My comments are backed up (hope Steve approves them all, and soon), and I've already used my Agree button, but I could not agree more with your comment. We need a halt to ALL immigration for the foreseeable future. As Ann Coulter said, "America needs some 'me' time."
  212. @Art Deco
    There's no way you can end the manufacture of enclaves except by (1) turning off the spigot entirely or (2) establishing a Soviet-system of internal passports.

    I’m not suggesting ending enclaves. I’m suggesting that the government stop encouraging them and subsidizing them as a matter of policy. As your examples show, when immigrants are not automatically and formally enclaved, they assimilate better–not perfectly, but better.

  213. @Jack D

    but it’s sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.
     
    This is what cracks me up about the "they all have to go back" crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard, like Nazi officials who had trouble getting the proper Racial Purity Certificate for their own lineage (they would have to do humiliating things like have their grandmother swear falsely that they had cheated on their Jewish husbands with an Aryan - thank God for them there was no DNA testing in those days). If the test was 100% WASP ancestry, most of the population would flunk it. Even if you broadened it, there are still millions upon millions of perfectly good ordinary American white people who would flunk. And where do you draw the line - are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)? Amish? German Catholics? Irish? French-Canadians? Does the seemingly uber-WASP family of William F. Buckley Jr. have to go back because they are really Irish? A lot of people think that they are good because they have an ancestor on the Mayflower, but in truth there are hundreds of slots (hard to say how many because most family trees have overlaps) in your family tree so 1 Mayflower ancestor means nothing.

    [A]re French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)? Amish? German Catholics? Irish? French-Canadians?

    These are empirical questions with empirical answers available and known to those of us who’ve bothered to read books. The U.S.A. was founded long after writing was invented and records kept. Among other things, it was also not founded by only White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

    Consider getting a library card, would you?

  214. @istevefan

    No, while it’s true our (American) mass immigration has been highly destructive economically, the argument against mass immigration is not fundamentally an economic argument.

    The Hungarians might actually improve their economy by importing a few overseas Chinese. The Ghanians certainly would be economically better off, importing lots of Koreans. Should they do it?
    Hell no! Being against mass immigration isn’t just about economics.
     

    The argument against MASS immigration should not be based upon economics, the distinction between legal or illegal, or other factors like IQ. Because whatever defense you think you are creating, it is easily outflanked.

    For example, conservatives say they are for legal immigration, not illegal immigration. "OK" says the globalists, "we will just increase the legal number of slots from 1 million to 2 million per year."

    Another conservative argument is that they don't want low IQ people because they would not fit into our high tech society. "OK" says the globalist. "We will expand the visas for high tech workers."

    Either way above and you still lose if your goal was to "conserve" what you had.

    Meanwhile, I really like the example being set by Israel. They make no bones that their mission in life is to be the Jewish state, PERIOD. One member of the Knesset recently said something to the effect that if they had to compromise their democratic principles to meet that goal, they would.

    Ask an Israeli if they would trade the current proportion of Jewish people in Israel, currently around 75% of the population, for an increase in GDP. For example, would they be willing to add 50% to their GDP if it meant the Jewish proportion dropping to 60%? Conversely would they support halving their GDP if it meant the Jewish proportion would increase to 95%?

    Now one can argue Israel differs from the USA because Israel does have an implied mission of being the Jewish state, but the USA doesn't have any mission of being a Christian or an English nation. But we all know from US history that the USA is clearly a European nation in general and a NW European nation in particular. And we have had a history of legislation over the years showing that the people wanted to preserve that demographic.

    It should not be hard to come out and support that. And rather than slink away when someone says you are a hypocrite because your ancestors immigrated here, and thus you should support further immigration. You could reply that your ancestors came here because of what that demographic had created. And that by destroying the demographic mix that made this nation great, you would be turning the America your ancestors yearned for into something unrecognizable to them. If your ancestors had wanted something so different, they could have chosen a Latin new world nation. But they didn't. So why should you create here today what your ancestors rejected? You owe it to them to conserve the place they dreamed of settling.

    Many, if not most states, have laws in place regarding the introduction of invasive species of the plant and animal kingdoms. The impact of invasive species on natives is well researched and of great concern to most biologists and ecologists with regard to the full spectrum of multiplying creation. Except for the abomination of whitefolk sheltered by imagined boundaries drawn in blood and violence, motivated by hatred and financed through slavery, and currently maintained only by men of limited social and cultural status, who no longer recognize their place.

  215. anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    I appreciate your comments. My wife is also from Vietnam, and my ancestors on my mother and father’s side have been here since before 1776. We were Confederates in 1861.
    I don’t know if the 50 states will stay together. It will be better for all of us if they do, because any dissolution will not be peaceful, and any newly formed separate states will be at war with each other going forward. The Kamala Harris’ will see to that.
    On the other hand my strongest loyalty is not to the USA. If the country splits up I will return to Arkansas and take my chances there.
    And to those on the blog who don’t like the Vietnamese, I say I accept your hate and return it ten-fold. Make sure you don’t set foot on my land.

  216. @anony-mouse
    There are 4 states that are over 90% non-Hispanic White: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population

    Within those states (and others) I'm sure there are places that are all-White.

    Of course Steve, like most Unz.com American writers choses to live in a place with a White % far less than 90%. It's like the constant drumbeat of Unz writers and commenters praising small rural Iowa counties that they would never live in for a week.

    Why do so many Unz.com writers hate Whites?

    That’s interesting. When my family drove to the coast every year, we went through VT, NH, ME. Didn’t know we were driving through whitezone.

    The reason those states (the other is WV) are all devoid of Hispanics is that it’s hard to find work there and hard to live in mountainous terrain (the Adirondack park area of upstate NY is also mostly the same whites who have been there for ages). That’s why it’s difficult for whites to move there too.

    I think the real question is whether Unz writers are living in their hometowns or in places it’s popular to move to. Did Steve grow up in Iowa?

  217. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    This is what cracks me up about the “they all have to go back” crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard …
     
    That’s a Corvinus-level straw man; no one serious in America is imagining policy based on WASP heritage exclusivity. I believe the last group with any power that pushed that ideal was the 1920s Klan. Even the authors of the Immigration Act of 1924 didn’t try to send all non-WASPs back to Europe.

    For the “they all have to go back crowd”, the longtime dividing line is whites (aka European Christian stock) vs. the rest. What you may be (intentionally) missing is a bit of polite understatement in the phrase “you have to go back.” It’s a heads-up from whites who want America to remain majority white saying:

    1) The US was founded by whites for the benefit of whites.
    2) If one doesn’t like whites being in charge, leave.
    3) If one doesn’t like our Anglo-American legal heritage, including the Bill of Rights (This applies to you. #104), leave.
    4) If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.

    So if someone says to you, Jack D, “you have to go back,” think of it as understated prudent advice.

    Merry Christmas. :)

    1) The US was founded by whites for the benefit of whites.
    2) If one doesn’t like whites being in charge, leave.
    3) If one doesn’t like our Anglo-American legal heritage, including the Bill of Rights (This applies to you. #104), leave.
    4) If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.

    When it breaks bad, there will be white and nonwhite areas and white areas will be dangerous or downright lethal to nonwhites ( as many nonwhite areas will be so for whites). Presumably there will be “nonracially exclusive” areas where mixed race families and liberals will be safe but they will be limited in number and probably based on some other principle like a religion or a odd form of governance. I figure the current CONUS will be four to seven polities. I’m guessing there will be a fundangelical Christian one in the South, NYC and NNJ will still be safe for Jews provided they keep out of certain areas. Some will be targeted for price tag measures as in Covington’s “Burger Kings” attacks. Israel will be their safe haven and redoubt, the beards and hats crowd will not be much bothered but mouthy leftists and neocons might be.

    Covington is dead but the PNW might turn out to be something much like he envisioned: big issues will be all the nuclear stuff, Boeing and M$FT in Seattle, and if they go north Hongcouver will be a mess and three-fourths. California south of the proposed Jefferson State area is a lost cause and will probably be its own country, allied neither with the rump US state nor Mexico-the gold chains boys won’t permit LA to be Aztlan and will probably buy Baja California from Mexico on a plata o plomo basis.

    I figure the balloon goes up between 2030 and 2065 or thereabouts.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    downright lethal to nonwhites ( as many nonwhite areas will be so for whites)

     

    Will be?
  218. @RunningMan
    You are fully invested because your wife is vietnamese and your kids are the new Multiculti Kids

    You are the Multicult

    Well, some around here will reject anyone but British-Americans, but there is zero multiculturalism in our family. We’re American with no hyphen. We all speak solely unaccented English in our house, celebrate only the American holidays, and play baseball, not soccer or whatever the hell they play in Vietnam. My older son is in high school and knows exactly what the James Damore business was all about. You’re free to refuse to make common cause with people like us, but it seems self-defeating.

  219. @Jack D
    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don't think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state. And, based on things like origin of folk songs, a lot of the Appalachian people that we call Scotch -Irish were really from the borderlands in the North of England. If there was any clustering it was by religion (mainly Presbyterian) but Presbyterians came not just from the Scots who moved to Ulster and then move again to the US (the only people truly entitled to the Scotch-Irish label). In short, the whole "Scotch-Irish" thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.

    Unless he’s talking about eggs, whisky, broth, tape, or pie, I don’t think he meant “Scotch” anything.

    I reckon you mean “Scots-Irish.”

  220. @anony-mouse
    There are 4 states that are over 90% non-Hispanic White: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population

    Within those states (and others) I'm sure there are places that are all-White.

    Of course Steve, like most Unz.com American writers choses to live in a place with a White % far less than 90%. It's like the constant drumbeat of Unz writers and commenters praising small rural Iowa counties that they would never live in for a week.

    Why do so many Unz.com writers hate Whites?

    You have the right to White Flight over and over again, unto the umpteenth generation, goy. What are you whining about?

  221. @Bill
    "Again, most people in rental housing are singles, young couples, and unrelated persons sharing rent."

    At best technically true. Downscale blacks living in urban environments live in rental units. The have one adult or a random grab-bad of unrelated adults. These households look strange to white people both in data and in person. However, children are very often present, and this is what a an urban, downscale, black family looks like.

    The only people who live in such a unit the way white people mean live are a matriarch who provides the income and her own minor children. However, there is often a rotating grab-bag of other individuals including minor children relatives, adult relatives and various minor and adult friends.

    The claim that these people do not experience significant moving costs is batshit crazy. The matriarchs form geographically localized alliances with one another which are disrupted by moving. The disruptions are costly to themselves, their own children, and the random grab-bag of other individuals rotating through the household.

    When people bitch about gentrification, it is this they are ostensibly bitching about.

    At best technically true. Downscale blacks living in urban environments live in rental units. The have one adult or a random grab-bad of unrelated adults. These households look strange to white people both in data and in person. However, children are very often present, and this is what a an urban, downscale, black family looks like.

    About 20% of the population lives in rental housing in households with more than two people present. About 1/3 of the black population does. About 1.6% of the population lives in non-family households with more than 2 people present. The data on the black population on this metric is dated, collected 18 years ago. At that time, 1.1% of the black population lived in non-family households with more than two people present.

    Current rates for renting a 15′ U-Haul for an intra-metropolitan move around DC are about $82 plus fuel costs and tax.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    $82.00 Sure; moving house is very affordable. Say! I've seen those specials, too: U-Haul pays the first and last months' rent, the security deposit, the application fee, and the charges from the movers to load and unload the truck. They replace the inevitable lost and damaged belongings which fall victim in any move. They throw in new friends and neighbours who all know and love and support you just exactly the way the ones you knew for years in the old neighbourhood did. A bargain at any price!
  222. @Jack D

    but it’s sillier to imagine that people are going to ignore their own histories and pretend that their ancestors were George Washington and a bunch of WASPs.
     
    This is what cracks me up about the "they all have to go back" crowd. Once you start down the road with this kind of racial purity shit test, you wind up hoisted on your own petard, like Nazi officials who had trouble getting the proper Racial Purity Certificate for their own lineage (they would have to do humiliating things like have their grandmother swear falsely that they had cheated on their Jewish husbands with an Aryan - thank God for them there was no DNA testing in those days). If the test was 100% WASP ancestry, most of the population would flunk it. Even if you broadened it, there are still millions upon millions of perfectly good ordinary American white people who would flunk. And where do you draw the line - are French people Founding Stock (or only French Protestants)? Amish? German Catholics? Irish? French-Canadians? Does the seemingly uber-WASP family of William F. Buckley Jr. have to go back because they are really Irish? A lot of people think that they are good because they have an ancestor on the Mayflower, but in truth there are hundreds of slots (hard to say how many because most family trees have overlaps) in your family tree so 1 Mayflower ancestor means nothing.

    If the test was 100% WASP ancestry, most of the population would flunk it.

    So we won’t let Jewish concern trolls make up our rules, phony problem solved.

  223. @Daniel Williams

    The complaints about ‘gentrification’ are largely humbug.
     
    It’s a different for blacks.

    They do know their neighbors. They aren’t afraid to go outside, and for the most part are too poor to amuse themselves aside from watching TV, playing with their phones, and socializing with their neighbors.

    Plus, the phenomenon of “outside kids” makes for larger and more complicated families than anything most whites—and especially white yuppies—are used to. Imagine if you had three or four half-siblings, who in turn had grown up with several others of their own? (This probably also encourages inadvertent cousin-marriage in the ‘hood. Someone should study this.)

    Yes, virtually all of these people rent their apartments (and they move a lot) but when they move, they don’t go far. It’s not like they’re following jobs with IBM, so they might as well stay close to grandma.

    Gentrification is real—and a big deal to the people—because eventually their new rich neighbors tire of being intimidated or attacked by blacks, and then develop the political power to have the blacks’ tenements torn down (in the name of some social ideal). The blacks are then given Section 8 vouchers for housing in distant exurban “communities” as all the local stuff becomes prohibitively expensive.

    The total fertility rate for black women is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime. She’ll have her children resident with her. If there’s a man in residence, he’ll typically be the sire of one and have another from previous trysts living elsewhere.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    The fertility rate of black women is not the fertility rate of black men, for whom having (even fat, ugly or junkie) non-black girlfriends and baby mommas is a major status symbol. Go to any racially mixed downscale community, or just to Wal-Mart, and note all the 200+ lb white and Latina women with racially assorted children in tow.

    The topline number also masks the dysgenic fertility pattern among blacks; ghetto blacks reproduce like the protagonists of our host's World's Most Important Graph, while Derbyshire's IWSBs reproduce like Singaporeans. Here's a NFL player with 21 (presumably nearly all or all half-) siblings, which the story doesn't mention until the sixth paragraph not for PC reasons,* but because an athlete with dozens of siblings is very much a dog-bites-man story.

    *Boomers, Christcucks and, TBH, normies in general find anecdotes about very large families endearing, irrespective of race and socioeconomic status, particularly when they (this is where PC comes in) imply by omission all the siblings were born to and raised in the same family unit.
    , @Daniel Williams
    I’m not sure I understand how this relates to what I wrote. Are you disputing the three or four half-siblings bit?

    Pew says 2.5. Imagine that I, LaDaniel, live with my moms and my half-brother Shitavious (her child) during the week and see my father’s other children, Kim and Quanice, on the weekends. I have three half-siblings. Assuming that .5 kicks in and moms meets a new man, I’ll have four. Pretty reasonable, right?

    Of course, Kim and Quanice will need to see their other parent(s) at some point ... Who will, presumably, have 2.5 children as well. Sometimes they’ll visit when I am present. So you see how complex a web we can spin. And all these people live a few blocks from each other! I’ll grow up with quasi-sibling connections to lots of people, plus various cousins.

    It’s a form of community we respectable folk have trouble comprehending. To gentrify their neighborhoods means to break up a very intricate set of relationships. It’s a major inconvenience.

    Also, your assertion that when one neighborhood gets more expensive (from people arriving), another becomes less expensive (from people leaving) would only make sense if we weren’t stuffing this country full of Hispanics as quickly as we are.
  224. Recently Razib Khan answered the questions posed above with “miscegenation”. No more black, brown, yellow, white, no more ethnic issues. My guess is that that’s the world favored by most leftists today.

  225. @Jack D
    The Naturalization Act excluded indentured servants although one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had arrived under indentures. So I guess all of those descended from indentured servants have to go back too.

    Jewish concern troll still concern trolling. Good to know you’re so worried about what’s best for us, Jack.

  226. Time wasted babbling about Russian hackers is time not spent discussing the never-ending efforts of our betters to make the internet completely unusable. Imagine not being about to find important bills because the mailbox is full of advertisements.
    http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/69015896
    Anon tldr’d:

    The word “sponsored” is separated into 8 span tags, 4 of them are probably hidden, just so you can’t filter “sponsored” in your ad blocker, probably. Also everything has a random generated string for class or id, again, to prevent your from blocking it.

  227. @Jack D
    And yet it adds up to $70 billion / year. That ain't chump change for a country which apparently can't afford a border wall.

    The country can afford a border wall. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want one because it would disrupt the Democratic Party vote farm. David Brooks doesn’t want one because he’s a poseur.

    The SNAP program could be financed with a 0.5% assessment on personal income. There’s a critique of the program to be made. That we ‘can’t afford’ it is not the correct one.

  228. @Twinkie

    non Whites , including Asians as a group, are huge net tax consumers.
     
    https://i1.wp.com/www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/WelfareUseNativeHouseholds.jpg

    https://www.amren.com/features/2015/10/welfare-whos-on-it-whos-not/

    https://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-final.pdf

    What about non-natives? Disproportionately Asian, I’d guess.

  229. @Twinkie

    If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.
     
    You don’t seem to understand that in such a “donnybrook,” the unassimilated - whatever you may mean by that - aren’t the only ones who will suffer. Mom’s basement Nazis haven’t seen large-scale sectarian violence in real life and don’t realize how uncontrolled such a thing becomes. They think somehow a unified block of whites will be able to drive away a unified block of nonwhites “Day of the Rope” style, but that’s not what happened in other sectarian conflicts and that’s likely not what’s going to happen in the U.S.

    Once you unleash large scale civil unrest, you are not going to know who’s going to target whom in the end. Just ask the former Ba’athists and Sunni tribal leaders who launched the early insurgency.

    The Irish eventually made sure the English got the point. Jews got what they wanted in Palestine. America was literally built on ethnic cleansing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Irish would still be at it with homemade gelignite if post-Communist Czechs hadn't made Semtex available, and if they hadn't targeted the banks, on the Willie Sutton principle. The financial world made the Brits buy off the IRA or crush them, and crushing them would have been too bloody, so they bought them off.
  230. @Mr. Anon

    Households enrolled in the SNAP program (ne ‘Food Stamps’) receive a mean of $280 a month in benefits. They’re not livin’ large on that.
     
    They do well enough to breed the next generation of the poor, including many criminals. Some people consider that to be the real problem with such benefits, more than the mere amount of money itself. And, as Jack D pointed out, the amount of money is not insignificant.

    The next generation will ever include people who occupy the lowest income quartile, aka ‘the poor’. Neither black population nor the aboriginal population is notable fecund, their collective impecuniousness notwithstanding. Hispanics have a mess of kids. It’s a reasonable wager that lasts one generation, SNAP or no SNAP.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The next generation will ever include people who occupy the lowest income quartile, aka ‘the poor’.
     
    Yes, but there is 'the poor' and there are 'our poor' of the inner-city - the result of welfare dependency that is by now five or six generations deep - inbred, stupid, and violent. They may well be qualitatively different than people who are merely 'the poor'.
  231. 1)Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

    I don’t get this “culture” thing. I don’t care what they think. I care about who they are. If they’re not us, they need to stay in their own country. We need a country of our own.

  232. @Almost Missouri

    "There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this."
     
    Canada.

    Kearny, NJ

  233. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

    What can I say to that…

    That they’re wrong! Pretty obvious!

    A human both is constituted by lower-level genetic structures and (at least potentially) is a part of higher-level genetic structures (or organisms). In your case, that organism reckons its age as 5779 tears.

    These lower- and higher-level structures survive the person.

    Or, less scientifically, and more common-sensically, you can say what AnotherDad said:

    You can say what normal people have always understood:

    We all die as individuals, but we live on as a people, a culture, a nation, a race, a civilization, through our children.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Through our kin. Not everyone has children, and, for example, and everything else being equal, someone with one kid but no siblings is "outlived" by someone with no kids but three siblings who each have one kid.
  234. @Anonymous
    Ask them why they care so much about global warming.

    I have had the same dialogue with my father, my daughter’s grandfather. Why do you care what the weather is 200 years from now if you don’t care about whether she will live in a country that’s more like the U.S. or more like Brazil twenty years from now? I am received with blank stares…

  235. @Tiny Duck
    white men have no real right to decide anything seeing as how they have and continue to only created death and destruction. Like Leonard Pitts says white men have 1000 years of affirmative action and it's time to level the playing field.

    Without white privilege white males would have no wealth

    Affirmative action is for weak people who are unable to achieve success on their own merits.

    White people never had affirmative action. We built the greatest civilizations in the history of mankind by blood, sweat, and tears. It is your beloved non-whites who must have hand outs to avoid poverty and misery.

    And sadly, even with the white man’s handouts, your people are generally unable to rise above a very low level of existence.

  236. @Jack Hanson
    The reality is that large swathes of America will become "No Go" zones - for non whites and the government they serve when/if America tips majority-minority.

    Likely the most inhospitable/rural parts, Appalachia in the East and swathes of desert and prairie in the West, but what comes out of that will be stronger than what was.

    Approve this.

    • LOL: AndrewR
  237. @Bill P
    It's been way overdone in the hillbilly department, even though the terms redneck and hillbilly are of Scottish origin. Scots Irish, Ulster Scots, borderers, Covenanters or whatever you want to call them are pretty hard to pin down because they wholeheartedly embraced an American identity from the very beginning of the Republic.

    And as Snorlax pointed out in his reply, a lot of them are actually just plain Irish who got tossed in because they went to the same churches.

    If there's anything that characterized them here in the states it's mobility, because they are everywhere, yet you never hear about this or that place being "Scots Irish," even when it's named after one of them, as so many places are. They don't even have a sense of identity other than their American-ness, the large majority having long since shed their old customs, and even their religion.

    The only traditions I can think of in my own family (Scots Irish all the way down on my mom's side) that seem to have come from the old country are eating oats, drinking whiskey, roast beef, rutabagas, fowling and trout fishing. I'd probably recognize a lot more if I spent time in Ulster or the Scottish lowlands, but the fact that I - and the many millions like me - are totally unconscious of them and their origins shows how utterly Americanized we've become.

    This being the case, it's probably more accurate to call "Scots Irish" ethnic Americans. They'd understand the term better themselves.

    I call it “gun culture”.

  238. @Art Deco
    The total fertility rate for black women is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime. She'll have her children resident with her. If there's a man in residence, he'll typically be the sire of one and have another from previous trysts living elsewhere.

    The fertility rate of black women is not the fertility rate of black men, for whom having (even fat, ugly or junkie) non-black girlfriends and baby mommas is a major status symbol. Go to any racially mixed downscale community, or just to Wal-Mart, and note all the 200+ lb white and Latina women with racially assorted children in tow.

    The topline number also masks the dysgenic fertility pattern among blacks; ghetto blacks reproduce like the protagonists of our host’s World’s Most Important Graph, while Derbyshire’s IWSBs reproduce like Singaporeans. Here’s a NFL player with 21 (presumably nearly all or all half-) siblings, which the story doesn’t mention until the sixth paragraph not for PC reasons,* but because an athlete with dozens of siblings is very much a dog-bites-man story.

    *Boomers, Christcucks and, TBH, normies in general find anecdotes about very large families endearing, irrespective of race and socioeconomic status, particularly when they (this is where PC comes in) imply by omission all the siblings were born to and raised in the same family unit.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    In the Census Bureau's survey data collected in 2015, about 15.22 million people under the age of 25 identified themselves as black. Another 2.56 million under the age of 25 identified themselves as multi-racial with black ancestry. If I'm not mistaken, coupling across that particular color bar involves black men and other sorts of women about 2/3 of the time and black women with other sorts of men about 1/3 of the time. That suggests 1.7 million children sired by black men coupling with other sorts of women. Distributed over 25 age cohorts, you have 68,000 children per cohort. OTOH, you have 15.2 million blacks distributed over 25 cohorts, or 609,000 per cohort. The ratio of the former to the latter is 0.11. It's conceivable black men are more fecund than black women, but not by large margin.
    , @Art Deco
    ghetto blacks reproduce like the protagonists of our host’s World’s Most Important Graph,

    1. I saw a TV report a couple years back on the distribution of Section 8 vouchers in Houston which featured an interview with a woman who lived with her 7 bastard children out of an SUV. (I think it was on PBS)

    2. Quite a number of years ago, I saw a documentary by one of the networks (could have been PBS, I forget) which purported to describe life in America today. They tell the viewer they arrive in Nashua, NH and they knock on a door at random and the first household they find is supervised by a matriarch (born in 1962). She's married. She has her children and grandchildren living with her. There are eleven people living in that house, among them 7 adults (of whom maybe three have work). It's a reasonable wager they lied to their viewers and scrounged hard to find that family, because fewer than 1% of all households have more than 8 people living in them.


    What do these two stories have in common? Both subject households were freaks. The media look for freaks. In case 1, I'm wagering the monoculture at the network is sufficiently intense that they have no idea how an ordinary person would evaluate this woman. In case two, they were trying to make a propaganda point about the functioning of the economy; they laid it on rather thick, though.


    In 2015, about 22% of the population at large resident in households was to be found in households with more than 4 people in them. The last assessment of the black population done collecting this data was in 2010. At that time, about 27.5% of the blacks living in households were found in households with more than 4 people in them.

    Data collected in 2017 by the Census Bureau put the birthrate of women between their 15th and 50th birthday at 54 per 100,000 among black women and 51 per 100,000 among white women. The CDC data for 2015 showed that 70% of the women giving birth that year were having their 1st or 2d child. About 65% of the black women giving birth were having their 1st or 2d child. About 11% of all children born that year were to women having their 4th, 5th, 6th etc. child. About 16% of the children born to black women were the mother's 4th, 5th, 6th etc child.

    Black women who are popping babies like peas (sired by transient men) do exist. It's a small subset of the black population.
    , @The Practical Conservative
    You're wrong, Art Deco is right. A small number of hardcore multigen black women have a lot of kids, but it's the same 100-150k women and their daughters aren't repeating the experiment at the same rates, which is why black birth is only propped up by married African immigrants having larger families, but they're married and aren't 100k births a year, although they soon will be.
  239. @Couch Scientist
    The wicked rot of nihilism. When you dont believe anything matters, the default position is not to care.

    How does a people so quickly stop caring about its own surival?

    Living on a thin line, there is no England now.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuGFlP5Duuw

    Is this actual nihilism? Living on a thin line presumably alludes to The Thin Red Line of Scottish soldiers (200) who rebuffed a much bigger force of Russian Cavalry in the Crimean war: ie there is hope in extremis?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Red_Line_(Battle_of_Balaclava)

  240. @Autochthon
    All good explanations of the phenomenon's operation, but I'm not sure I see an explanation of the underlying cause here, either. What causes this madness, this oikophobia? To my knowledge it's no precedent in history, that a civilization should destroy itself, willfully – gleefully, even. Religions and traditions have shifted before: Europeans adopted Christianity, but they continued being Germans, Celts, and Slavs. There was an accretion and syncretism that occurred. Perhaps that's it, though: nihilistic atheism necessarily means nothing whatsoever matters; all is vanity and futility as atoms bounce about in space. And that, I suppose, like the self-extinction, has no precedent in history either. And he one common thing about the peoples still reproducing, preserving their culture, and conquering the world – Mohammedans, Orientals, Jews, Mestizos, Hindoos, and Africans, is that they retain a religion of some kind: Islam, Confucian traditions and ancestor-reverence, Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity (the mestizos with their Catholicism, weird though it be with Santo Muerte and all the rest of it, and the Africans are mostly now Christian or Mohammedan).

    So, whether we meant it to or not, whether it's meaningful of itself or not, atheism necessarily causes this madness when it becomes too prevalent among the masses? A small number of folks like Voltaire and his ilk could handle the idea of no God responsibly, but in some critical percentage of the population of average intelligence the thing metastasises? It was all there in The Brothers Karamazov: If God does not exist, everything is permitted?

    If that hypothesis has legs, is there any hope? People will have a religion, it seems, so they've be erected be Church of the Globohomo & Our Lady of Kill-Whitey. I don't think conventional theism will return because the paradigm is all too empirical and materialistic. We just cannot convince anyone of The Bearded Man Above. Astute theologians realise it's all more nuanced than that and that the scientific, rational views are not mutually exclusive of theism, but, again, only a small cognitive elite understand that; the vast majority will never view it ever again as anything but what Patton Oswalt famously called "The Old Sky-Cake Dodge."

    So is the perhaps hope in revitalizing andnopilariaing a kind of Buddhism or Stoicism that might reawaken an ethos of responsibility in Europeans? Otherwise, I cannot see any end until even the invading hordes succumb to the madness (and they are, slowly but surely: sodomite parades in Buenos Aires, Muslims and Hindoos friending for pornography and consumerism, Africans pouring into Europe Because Facebook. They are all on course for the same crazy in the end. And what? Then it's just Tales from the Dying Earth, a world of idlers and conmen watching the sun sputter and dim? Max Rockatansky and Cugel the Clever wandering the wastes?

    We need to cultivate some kind of Aurelianism, if you will, or the like or that seems the inevitable outcome.

    Outstanding comment. Thanks. And dare I say, God bless.

  241. @Arclight
    Not sure how many other soon-to-be minorities feel the same way, but my attitude is that part of my duty to my kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on when taxes are crushing their paychecks to fund the massive welfare state we'll have in the future to keep the ultra-diverse population docile.

    I suspect that when the population finally tips to minority white, it will be discovered that the gap in household wealth in different racial/ethnic groups that is often bemoaned today has not changed at all.

    I’ve taken your path as well in addition to the following.

    – I grew up shooting, hunting and doing martial arts. My children have as well.
    – All my kids have passports.
    – I have foreign bank accounts in predictable countries.
    – Have gold, cash and guns on hand and preferably in multiple locations along your planned egress routes.

    – If you aren’t country folk (I’m a hillbilly) get on good terms with some. You might need to bail out to a position further from the urban nightmares.

    – Give your kids Derbyshire’s “The Talk” when they are old enough. Kids will go through their idealistic phase. I found that telling them the PoC hate how they look and want to take their money was highly, highly effective.

  242. I agree; the evil wrought by contraception manifests in so many ways.

    Thinking about somewhat recent national pols, I think family size tends to correlate with Republicanism, but not necessarily in conservatism where it counts (immigration).

    HW Bush, 4 sibs, 6 kids, score 10
    Martin OMalley, 5 sibs, 4 kids, score 9
    DJT 4 sibs, 5 children, score 9
    John McCain, 2 sibs, 7 kids, score 9
    Mitt Romney, 4 sibs, 5 kids, score 9
    Jeb, 5 sibs, 3 kids, score 8
    George W Bush, 5 sibs, 2 kids, score 7
    Rubio, 3 sibs, 4 kids, score 7
    Joe Biden, 3 sibs, 3 kids, score 6
    Tom Tancredo 2 sibs, 3 children, score 5
    Ted Cruz, 2 halfs not in house, 2 kids, score 4
    Hillary Clinton 2 sibs, 1 kid, score 3
    Tom cotton, 1 sib, two kids, score 3
    BHM, raised an only some halves, 2 kids, score 3
    Jeff Sessions, only child, 3 kids, score 3
    Bill Clinton, 1 sib(that he knew) 1 kid(known), score 2
    Bernie Sanders, 1 sib, 1 kid, score 2

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Now go back and deduct 2 points for every child that ended up marrying a Jewish guy employed as a hedge fund manager is some such equivalent.
  243. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "How does a people so quickly stop caring about its own surival? "

    One way is to convince them to stop having children. It's been working.

    Poles and Hungarians have very low birth rates, yet aren’t very keen on mass immigration and leftist identity politics, and the US actually has pretty reasonable birthrates by the standards of other western countries.

    If you want to help turn this around, you got to stop preaching traditionalist boilerplate and start addressing the causes of this problem empirically.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Both Poland and Hungary governments are actually addressing this and are attempting to incentivize child birth. Revisit birth rates in another generation removed from Soviet control.

    "and the US actually has pretty reasonable birthrates by the standards of other western countries. "

    You forgot to add that the US birthrate (what is it, 2.01?) is propped up significantly by Hispanic and other minority contributions. The non Hispanic white birthrate is 1.66, which is really all that matters. The only lower birthrate in the US is Asian.

    "If you want to help turn this around, you got to stop preaching traditionalist boilerplate and start addressing the causes of this problem empirically."

    It also helps if you're honest about the topic. You can take your "preaching traditionalist boilerplate" strawman elsewhere. Empirically speaking, whites in the US are being outbred. The "causes of this problem" as you say, is immaterial if the right kind of people aren't around anymore to address them.
  244. anon[178] • Disclaimer says:

    “I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776….There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.”

    My family has been here even longer, and I’m starting to see the appeal of change. You may not be ready to give up on the political entity known as the USA, but you were certainly ready to give up on California and flee to the Midwest as soon as you got the opportunity. You don’t see the irony in that? Well, you may be ready to flee California on a dime, but I’m not ready to flee my Southern country in the same way due to the changes immigration is inflicting upon the political power dynamics here. If I have to choose between Stacey Abrams x10 or plan b, it’s definitely plan b: partition – separate strokes for separate folks. I’m just stunned that more people don’t see it this way. What’s wrong with ya’ll? Sunk costs fallacy? I swear, these Unionists are going to have us fighting until there is no place to flee to and we lose everything – our fundamental liberties such as freedom of speech and of association…maybe even our lives if you watch the CIA-controlled media’s unhinged reaction to Trump pulling our white guys out of Syria.

    I mean, the writing should be visible on the wall by now, but yet it isn’t for some; people still embrace magical thinking and are remarkably closed-minded to obvious trends. I appreciate the sentiment, but have you ever seriously considered how likely “a return to federalism” is, as you proposed? You don’t really think the government Ruling Class is just going to hand over its power to a few old fogies, do you? That’s a bit like saying we could solve the federal deficit if everyone just stopped committing crime and getting sick. Yeah, I guess. But how likely is that to occur? What strategy do you Unionists propose that stands any real-world chance of success other than voting for the same set of controlled, corrupt GOP candidates while hoping for some sort of miracle that you can’t really define? Shouldn’t Trump’s inability to reduce legal immigration prove the old ways will not work anymore – if they ever did in the first place? And Trump was the best shot at this you’ve ever been given – ever.

    “It’s my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let’s debate, but once the debate is settled, let’s get behind the country”

    No, I don’t agree. This is tantamount to saying “let’s have a debate where you lose, then you cast aside your ideals for a set of poorer options that will leave you with little or nothing in the end.” Basically, it’s what every corrupt GOP nominee before Trump has demanded. Republicans rejected that in 2016, and I’m rejecting it now. And you saw how these people acted when Trump unexpectedly won. They did everything they could to sabotage him and his policies because what they demand from us they were never really serious about themselves; they even bragged about it in the NYT (tell me that wasn’t Pence or Haley). Besides, some things you don’t compromise on – or abandon. I’m not ready to sacrifice my fundamental liberties and identity for the sake of faux national unity when my opponent is the only one that benefits from said unity. I am not loyal to those who aren’t loyal to me, and I will never fight for those who fight against me.

    I don’t feel connected to the left wing extremists who censor jokes and science or witch-hunt dissenters and get them fired or who write thousands of racist articles attacking me for having “white privilege” despite me growing up in squalor – largely as a result of the corrupt and inept policies of this country’s ruling class. I feel no connection whatsoever to the mobs who trashed my people’s monuments and desecrated our graves. That’s not my county, that’s not who I am.

    I’m sick of not having a culture the way other real countries do. I’m sick of being told my countrymen must die in Middle Eastern wars or that I have to buy crap, easily broken phones from a company whose CEO receives awards for suppressing controversial speech from a Gestapo-like organization while also banning me from buying the competition’s better-priced phones under the guise of “national security threats”; whatever. I’m sick of my movies, books, and video games sucking, polluted with extremist ideologies and hate directed at me for being white and male (Battlefield V rewrote WWII to minimize the contributions of white men, Wolfenstein the New Colossus was marketed as “let’s make America free of Nazis again”, an obvious dig at Trump and his voters, and both Dragon Age and Mass Effect: Andromeda purposely downgraded the appearance of the female characters so they all looked ugly because that’s apparently what’s in vogue with intersectional feminists these days).

    I’m sick of having to watch every word I say least it be recorded and uploaded to the internet for millions of true believers to see and mock – life ruined for wrongthink; there was a story during the 2016 election where a kid turned in her parents publicly for the crime of being Trump supporters in the same way kids turned in their parents under the Iron Curtain decades ago. I’m sick of rule by mob and the heckler’s veto. I’m sick of selective prosecution of dissidents.* I’m sick of a corrupt government that does nothing to reign in illegal tech monopolies that are obviously engaging in collusion and racketeering – they conspire to deplatform (ban) political speech they disapprove of while preventing any competing platform rising up and allowing the same.

    And how exactly is it okay to let virtually all the most prominent media exist in just three cities that aren’t representative of the rest of the country – NYC, DC, and LA? And why is the government allowing ever more mergers of these media corporations that do not share our values or aspirations? That would seem to be a very dangerous thing considering current trends.
    None of that stuff is supposed to happen in a free country, but yet it does here all the time. Or, at the very least, there would be some hope that we could address these issues in a functioning country. What hope is there for addressing any of those concerns constructively? Is this political arrangement really worth preserving if it does nothing for you? Is that not just blind loyalty?

    *James Fields, the guy who ran over a girl in Charlottesvile with his car after being trapped by a mob of protesters, got over 400 years in prison. He was stuck with a crap public defender because he couldn’t find a lawyer after mobs of extremists threatened disbarment campaigns against them. And all for the crime of killing exactly one person. Don’t tell me that wasn’t an outrageous injustice spurred on by racist hate and a desire to punish a wrongthinker. What he did was wrong, but no one deserves that. It’s called proportionality and respect for persons. Bin Laden would’ve gotten better if he were dumped into NYC after 9/11; he would have at least gotten a lawyer. To put this into perspective, Daniel Holtzclaw, a former Oklahoma cop, raped or sexually assaulted over a dozen black women and got just 263 years in prison. He had two very competent attorneys despite the case being reported on nationally and the verdict being read on live television.

    “The country can afford a border wall. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want one because it would disrupt the Democratic Party vote farm. David Brooks doesn’t want one because he’s a poseur. The SNAP program could be financed with a 0.5% assessment on personal income. There’s a critique of the program to be made. That we ‘can’t afford’ it is not the correct one.”

    True dat.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
    • Replies: @bomag
    Most excellent comment.

    He was stuck with a crap public defender because he couldn’t find a lawyer after mobs of extremists threatened disbarment campaigns against them.
     
    In a sane world, these threats of disbarment campaigns would generate pushback; the most egregious examples generating some prosecution. Lawyers enjoy a measure of immunity just to avoid this type of thing. At the very least there should have been a change of venue.
  245. @Carol
    How can you tell it's an ebt card? I don't think I could tell them from debit cards like I use

    In PA at least they say “Access” in giant yellow letters on a green background – quite visible. In ghetto of Philadelphia it is rare to see a black person paying any other way. Some of them are dressed better than I am.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  246. @Emblematic
    The whites in South Africa who handed control of their country over to the blacks.

    The whites in South Africa who handed control of their country over to the blacks.

    The original problem wasn’t “handing control over”, it was allowing their presence in the first place. Most of South Africa was occupied only by Bushmen, if anybody at all, when the white man arrived.

  247. Anon[141] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    University of Helsinki Tries Anonymized Academic Hiring

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/12/20/university-helsinki-tries-anonymized-academic-hiring

    Finland’s leading university is trying the use of anonymized applications for academic roles as part of a nationwide push toward greater equality in hiring practices.

    The University of Helsinki confirmed that it was conducting two pilot programs focused on academic recruitment, in which applications were stripped of candidates’ names, dates of birth, ethnicities and genders.

    Universities are increasingly experimenting with name-blind student recruitment, and advocates of its use in the hiring process argue that it could help to limit the impact of unconscious biases that penalize women and minorities.

    However, there are questions over whether it could catch on in academic departments, in which recruitment decisions are closely tied to a researcher’s publication record and scholarly reputation.

    Introducing anonymization risks costing more in time and effort as recruiters attempt to guess the identity of applicants, particularly in the intimate circles of academia, Seifert added.

    “Over all [it’s] a nonstarter in my view, and another example of minor administrative measures used to cover up deeper problems of prejudice in the sector,” he said.

    Gregor Gall, affiliate research associate in economic and social history at the University of Glasgow, also in the U.K., agreed that anonymized hiring in academia was impractical “because candidates will find it difficult to anonymize their work — especially if it is sole authored — and much of any candidate’s strength of their application will be based on published work, which is publicly traceable.”

    “Even if candidates make it to interview as a result of anonymous recruitment, they may still suffer from the very same bias and discrimination … from selection panels,” he concluded.

    You can see this train wreck coming from a mile away. By anonymizing, there will be fewer women and minorities hired. (That is, unless the publications include the word “hip-hop”). Then the blame will shift back to “bias” in publication: Journals don’t publish or academics don’t cite publications by women.

    In something as right tail as academia, if you could figure out how to eliminate all bias, you’d end up with mostly white men, and Asian men in STEM.

  248. Slightly OT, but related to content on this blog. This has to be in contention for tweet of the year. This is a gem and must be shown to President Trump.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    And just like Trump, your dad had no real interest in forcing the Democrats to keep up their end of the bargain. Hopefully, Trump won't sign a bait-and-switch bill like your father did that was legally vague to the point that the ability to enforce employer restrictions was meaningless or leave us with entities designed to fail like the immigration courts that were created.
  249. @Art Deco
    The total fertility rate for black women is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime. She'll have her children resident with her. If there's a man in residence, he'll typically be the sire of one and have another from previous trysts living elsewhere.

    I’m not sure I understand how this relates to what I wrote. Are you disputing the three or four half-siblings bit?

    Pew says 2.5. Imagine that I, LaDaniel, live with my moms and my half-brother Shitavious (her child) during the week and see my father’s other children, Kim and Quanice, on the weekends. I have three half-siblings. Assuming that .5 kicks in and moms meets a new man, I’ll have four. Pretty reasonable, right?

    Of course, Kim and Quanice will need to see their other parent(s) at some point … Who will, presumably, have 2.5 children as well. Sometimes they’ll visit when I am present. So you see how complex a web we can spin. And all these people live a few blocks from each other! I’ll grow up with quasi-sibling connections to lots of people, plus various cousins.

    It’s a form of community we respectable folk have trouble comprehending. To gentrify their neighborhoods means to break up a very intricate set of relationships. It’s a major inconvenience.

    Also, your assertion that when one neighborhood gets more expensive (from people arriving), another becomes less expensive (from people leaving) would only make sense if we weren’t stuffing this country full of Hispanics as quickly as we are.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I’m not sure I understand how this relates to what I wrote. Are you disputing the three or four half-siblings bit?

    Yes.
    , @Lot
    Black American birthrate has been below 2 for a while now, though very dysgenic, with college educated black women having much lower fertility compared to college white women.

    Also adding to the family dynamic you describe is a high rate of grandmothers as the primary parent to their grandchildren.
  250. @Art Deco
    The next generation will ever include people who occupy the lowest income quartile, aka 'the poor'. Neither black population nor the aboriginal population is notable fecund, their collective impecuniousness notwithstanding. Hispanics have a mess of kids. It's a reasonable wager that lasts one generation, SNAP or no SNAP.

    The next generation will ever include people who occupy the lowest income quartile, aka ‘the poor’.

    Yes, but there is ‘the poor’ and there are ‘our poor’ of the inner-city – the result of welfare dependency that is by now five or six generations deep – inbred, stupid, and violent. They may well be qualitatively different than people who are merely ‘the poor’.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    the result of welfare dependency that is by now five or six generations deep – inbred, stupid, and violent. They may well be qualitatively different than people who are merely ‘the poor’.

    Again, about 3% of the black population is enrolled in TANF at any one time. About 4% are enrolled in SSI, which requires a disability adjudication. (The comparable figures in the non-black population would be about 1% and 2.5%). I don't think cousin-coupling is particularly common among slum blacks or blacks in general.
  251. @Bill P
    It's been way overdone in the hillbilly department, even though the terms redneck and hillbilly are of Scottish origin. Scots Irish, Ulster Scots, borderers, Covenanters or whatever you want to call them are pretty hard to pin down because they wholeheartedly embraced an American identity from the very beginning of the Republic.

    And as Snorlax pointed out in his reply, a lot of them are actually just plain Irish who got tossed in because they went to the same churches.

    If there's anything that characterized them here in the states it's mobility, because they are everywhere, yet you never hear about this or that place being "Scots Irish," even when it's named after one of them, as so many places are. They don't even have a sense of identity other than their American-ness, the large majority having long since shed their old customs, and even their religion.

    The only traditions I can think of in my own family (Scots Irish all the way down on my mom's side) that seem to have come from the old country are eating oats, drinking whiskey, roast beef, rutabagas, fowling and trout fishing. I'd probably recognize a lot more if I spent time in Ulster or the Scottish lowlands, but the fact that I - and the many millions like me - are totally unconscious of them and their origins shows how utterly Americanized we've become.

    This being the case, it's probably more accurate to call "Scots Irish" ethnic Americans. They'd understand the term better themselves.

    This being the case, it’s probably more accurate to call “Scots Irish” ethnic Americans. They’d understand the term better themselves.

    I thought any confusion regarding the identity of this sub-population was resolved a couple of years ago with the creation of a new demographic category: “The Deplorables.”

    • Replies: @Bill P
    It would be nice if it were that simple, but my rich uncles and democrat mother would beg to differ.

    The deplorables in my family are the urban ethnics -- Irish Catholics and Norwegians (yes, there were urban ethnic Norwegians in Washington state until quite recently).
  252. @Paleo Liberal
    They served usually 7 years.

    If they lived that long.

    There was a financial incentive for the masters to work them to death, especially near the end.

    Similarly, convict laborers were often worked to death. No financial incentive not to.

    Before 1808 African slaves were cheap and were often worked to death. After 1808 the slaves were often too valuable to work to death. That is why many called the convict labor system worse than slavery.

    My impression was that infant mortality and life expectancy of slaves were good, comparable to France, the richest country in Europe. When a farmer buys a tractor does he abuse it or does he try to make it last as long as possible?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    This was likely true AFTER 1808, when the price of slaves skyrocketed. In Colonial Times, when the cost of slaves was cheap compared to the financial benefits of working them to death, many slaves were worked to death.
  253. @Mr. Anon

    In short, the whole “Scotch-Irish” thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.
     
    Only by people who don't know what the term means. Don't take history lessons from "Whiskey". The term was explained in Fischer's Albion's Seed

    Grow up.

    Fischer does not care about you.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    What the Hell do you mean? I don't care if he cares about me.
  254. anonymous[368] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor
    NPR today stated that women are diversity. Forget the exact context, but it was a White woman quoted saying something like, "Trump needs moar wymminz to bring his diversity numbers up." I was like "WTF is this shit? Do White women honestly believe that a room full of White men is made diverse by adding White women? That their diversity overlords are satisfied with that?"

    svigor, how many checks do you get from Tel Aviv every month to sound useless, to sound like a caricature who discredits his own positions ?

    if you don’t know you sound stupid, that is one thing

    if you do know, you deserve, I guess, every shekel.

    Read the Bible, you poor creature, particularly the Book of Proverbs and the exhortation

    not to waste your time in foolishness

    Nobody cares what you say anymore
    because you are a fool

    wake up and be a man

    nobody cares what Svigor has to say after a day listening to NPR

    do something better with your life

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Svigor's been commenting here a long time.

    You seemingly have been here only a day or two, and I already don't care what you say.
  255. @The Anti-Gnostic
    I've had the same sorts of discussions in real life and online. I've heard the irreducible conclusions that 1) changing the people will NOT change the place, and 2) they will pay our pensions. In the same breath, they will tell you their exurb/subdivision/neighborhood has flipped and they are looking to move. The notion that different people are different and have different preferences and capacities has been anathematized.

    I think lots of whites will just meekly succumb, as in South Africa, retreating behind masonry walls and concertina wire and paying the security company every month.

    Simultaneously, the gun culture is getting more "gunny," if that makes sense, like genetic burn-off in credal communities. I don't see the people displaying the tribal vibe you see at football games or Trump rallies agreeing to their complete marginalization, like the Middle Eastern Christians.

    I’ve had the same sorts of discussions in real life and online. I’ve heard the irreducible conclusions that 1) changing the people will NOT change the place, and 2) they will pay our pensions.

    1. No one cares about “the place”.

    2. No fucking way. And, who cares? Who wants to live to watch his kind eradicated?

  256. @Twinkie

    If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.
     
    You don’t seem to understand that in such a “donnybrook,” the unassimilated - whatever you may mean by that - aren’t the only ones who will suffer. Mom’s basement Nazis haven’t seen large-scale sectarian violence in real life and don’t realize how uncontrolled such a thing becomes. They think somehow a unified block of whites will be able to drive away a unified block of nonwhites “Day of the Rope” style, but that’s not what happened in other sectarian conflicts and that’s likely not what’s going to happen in the U.S.

    Once you unleash large scale civil unrest, you are not going to know who’s going to target whom in the end. Just ask the former Ba’athists and Sunni tribal leaders who launched the early insurgency.

    Mom’s basement Nazis

    I like the phrasing. I think that — in additon to SJWs, BLM, POC, and NAMs, we can add MBNs to the lexicon.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "I like the phrasing. I think that — in additon to SJWs, BLM, POC, and NAMs, we can add MBNs to the lexicon."

    It's great, I mean, other than the fact that there's actually no such thing as MBN's, other than in the mind's of self important wet blankets like Twinkie.

    It seems to me that the trolls living in mom's basement are more along the lines of college attending or graduated antifa types, than whites who are starting to realize there is in fact an effort to eliminate and replace them worldwide.

    And I'll say it again, anyone using the term Nazi (you know, a member of a foreign political party now defunct for almost 75 years) to describe a person contributing to modern day discourse in the US is not a serious thinker.
  257. @Mr. Anon

    In short, the whole “Scotch-Irish” thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.
     
    Only by people who don't know what the term means. Don't take history lessons from "Whiskey". The term was explained in Fischer's Albion's Seed

    Even Whiskey had read Albion’s Seed and would agree with you on this.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Even Whiskey had read Albion’s Seed and would agree with you on this.
     
    But he doesn't.
  258. @Jack D
    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don't think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state. And, based on things like origin of folk songs, a lot of the Appalachian people that we call Scotch -Irish were really from the borderlands in the North of England. If there was any clustering it was by religion (mainly Presbyterian) but Presbyterians came not just from the Scots who moved to Ulster and then move again to the US (the only people truly entitled to the Scotch-Irish label). In short, the whole "Scotch-Irish" thing (a term unknown in the UK, btw, where they are called Ulster Scots) has been overdone.

    Ah, I see you mean the Scotch-Irish . I don’t think that is true. Even in the state where the largest #s went (western Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh is not what most people think of when you say Scotch-Irish) they were never more than maybe 1/4 of the population. In some places they might have sort of set the cultural tone of the area but they were never the majority in any state.

    You have got to be kidding.

    Where I grew up they were 95% of the indigenous white population.

  259. istevefan says:
    @anony-mouse
    There are 4 states that are over 90% non-Hispanic White: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population

    Within those states (and others) I'm sure there are places that are all-White.

    Of course Steve, like most Unz.com American writers choses to live in a place with a White % far less than 90%. It's like the constant drumbeat of Unz writers and commenters praising small rural Iowa counties that they would never live in for a week.

    Why do so many Unz.com writers hate Whites?

    Of course Steve, like most Unz.com American writers choses to live in a place with a White % far less than 90%.

    That’s a somewhat misleading statement. Steve has lived in California all his life, except for his time in Texas at Rice and his early career job in Chicago. If I am wrong please correct.

    Since Steve is 60, he would have lived in California when it was overwhelmingly white. In 1970, California was 80% white.

    Ditto for most of the other places in the USA. So for most of us we did not choose to live around non-whites. Non-whites chose to live around us. And picking up and moving is not always an option.

  260. @ben tillman

    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.

    What can I say to that…
     

    That they're wrong! Pretty obvious!

    A human both is constituted by lower-level genetic structures and (at least potentially) is a part of higher-level genetic structures (or organisms). In your case, that organism reckons its age as 5779 tears.

    These lower- and higher-level structures survive the person.

    Or, less scientifically, and more common-sensically, you can say what AnotherDad said:


    You can say what normal people have always understood:

    We all die as individuals, but we live on as a people, a culture, a nation, a race, a civilization, through our children.
     

    Through our kin. Not everyone has children, and, for example, and everything else being equal, someone with one kid but no siblings is “outlived” by someone with no kids but three siblings who each have one kid.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    True, you are right, and gay men with no children certainly have a stake in the game.
  261. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor
    The Irish eventually made sure the English got the point. Jews got what they wanted in Palestine. America was literally built on ethnic cleansing.

    The Irish would still be at it with homemade gelignite if post-Communist Czechs hadn’t made Semtex available, and if they hadn’t targeted the banks, on the Willie Sutton principle. The financial world made the Brits buy off the IRA or crush them, and crushing them would have been too bloody, so they bought them off.

  262. “That’s a somewhat misleading statement. Steve has lived in California all his life … Since Steve is 60, he would have lived in California when it was overwhelmingly white. In 1970, California was 80% white.”

    Ouch. Another one bites the dust. Who knew Leftists were dumb, disingenuous liars?

  263. @anony-mouse
    There are 4 states that are over 90% non-Hispanic White: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population

    Within those states (and others) I'm sure there are places that are all-White.

    Of course Steve, like most Unz.com American writers choses to live in a place with a White % far less than 90%. It's like the constant drumbeat of Unz writers and commenters praising small rural Iowa counties that they would never live in for a week.

    Why do so many Unz.com writers hate Whites?

    Or maybe they choose to live in places where they were born and raised (or at least have lived for a long time) that have been demographically transformed by your kind.

    What? You don’t want to pack up and move hundreds if not thousands of miles away to a place you have no ties to just to own the minorities? Talk about hypocrisy!”

    Get out, troll

  264. At Breitbart: A Bezos Blog SJW tries to kill by tattling the crowdfunded wall effort started by a triply-amputated veteran. He fails, probably less because of any justice existing in the world and more because Jeff Bezos spent the year apologizing for bathroom policies and doesn’t want to now be seen as a wheelchair-tipper.

    A reporter with the left-wing Washington Post disapproves of a triple-amputee veteran’s Go Fund Me campaign to pay for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border that has raised more than $13 million. The reporter tried to shut it down, claiming the effort violated the fundraising website’s terms because it discriminated against mostly Latinos trying to get into the United States.

    Tony Romm, who is a tech reporter for the Post and contributes to MSNBC and other leftist media outlets, announced his effort to shut down veteran Brian Kolfage’s wall funding campaign that has raised almost $14 million in five days.

    “So there’s an effort on GoFundMe to raise cash money for a border wall. Has more than $5M in donations (seeking $1B) and claims to have contacts in the Trump admin (have asked for more). But it got me thinking: is that, like, allowed on the site?” Romm tweeted.

    • Replies: @Rob McX

    The reporter tried to shut it down, claiming the effort violated the fundraising website’s terms because it discriminated against mostly Latinos trying to get into the United States.
     
    Xenophobia is what defines any country - discriminating in favour of its own people against outsiders who want to replace them. When a country stops doing that, it's just a piece of land there for the taking.
  265. @istevefan
    Slightly OT, but related to content on this blog. This has to be in contention for tweet of the year. This is a gem and must be shown to President Trump.

    https://twitter.com/ReaganWorld/status/1075805326459322368

    And just like Trump, your dad had no real interest in forcing the Democrats to keep up their end of the bargain. Hopefully, Trump won’t sign a bait-and-switch bill like your father did that was legally vague to the point that the ability to enforce employer restrictions was meaningless or leave us with entities designed to fail like the immigration courts that were created.

  266. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that “in the long run we are all dead”.
    What can I say to that…

    True. The Bible says all is vanity.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1%3A1-18&version=ESV

    And the Sisyphus Myth says the boulder will roll down again. And again and again.

    But then, would it be better for Sisyphus If the boulder could be rolled to the top and it remained there? What would he do then? The very struggle that gave his being meaning would be no more.

    Why do sports teams play the game? They may win the championship, but it won’t be the final game to decide everything. There’s a new season and new games and new struggle. But without that continuance of struggle, there is no meaning to life.

    In a way, didn’t the people of the West(and Japan) grow soft and lost because things got so peaceful and nice for too long? All seemed well, and they got apathetic or decadent. They lost the meaning of true struggle.

    In this struggle, white folks must think foundationally and prophetically. This is what Jews have done. Jews don’t look to just improve something that already exists. That’s more like the Japanese. They took the essence of Chinese values and culture and improved on them. Japanese also took elements of Western technology and culture, improving them in some cases. But Japanese lack foundational sense. They work on what exists in the first place. They take it, learn, and improve it. They don’t think foundationally or prophetically.

    Jews do. Among all the sci-fi writers, who was most prophetic? It was Isaac Asimov with his FOUNDATION series. Now, I only read 1/3 of the first book and found it both original/brilliant and cluttered with too much silly Star-Treky stuff. Still, the central idea was awesome. A sci-fi version of the prophetic mind. A super-consciousness that looks into the future with endless calculations to see how multiple events will interact and play out. It wasn’t just about the here-and-now but the hereafter beyond hereafter. It is prophetic.
    But prophecy must serve something. After all, prophecy can never be neutral. It looks to the future — what could be, may be, will be, must be — fro a certain vantage point. So, Moses prophesied for the Jewish Tribe, not for all tribes. Therefore, a prophecy needs a powerful foundation that serves as the premise of the far-seeing prophecy. It must uproot rival or existing trees and plant a new one as the new foundation and then let it grow. While Japanese had a unique civilization, it was not a foundational one because the foundational ideas of Japanese civilization came from India(Buddism) and Confucianism(China). Japanese took other foundational trees and trimmed them in bonsai manner to make them unique. And modern Japan took its foundational ideas from the West.

    While Jews also adopted ideas and ways from other peoples, they do have a powerful foundational basis of their civilization. It is the Covenant and their concept of God. Now, if Jews considered themselves a unique people with their own God in a world with other tribes and their gods, their Covenant would have been far less ambitious. But even as Jews formed a special bond with their God, they also said their God is the only God. That means all other gods are false, and that means Jews must eventually rule the world. If the Jewish God is the only God and the God of all and if Jews are the Chosen of this only God, then surely Jews must be masters of the world. This is Jewish foundational thinking, and it is the basis of their grand prophetic vision. Jews think in terms of “how can we foresee, manipulate, shape, twist, and hasten future events to realize the ultimate dream of hegemony or Haga-mony? Such a powerful foundation calls for tremendous power of foresight. We see this in men like Henry Kissinger and George Soros. They calculate how certain tactics and strategies will have such and such effects. They try to foresee and predict what others fail to do so. And even though they serve agendas such as American Interests or Liberal Democracy, there is a core(and hidden) sense of “IS it good for Jews?”

    But, men are not god, and even the ‘best’ plans may go awry… like so much in Kubrick movies where the Perfect Plan has a fatal flaw that derails the whole plan in the end. (Even HAL fails in 2001.) Most sci-fi writers didn’t think foundationally. Ray Bradbury dealt with various aspects of technology and their implications. Asimov was a foundational thinker. This was also true in his Robot Series. (I only read one short story, but I got the gist.) There are foundational rules for a robot-society. Robots must follow three simple rules and these lead to endless permutations. The game is to foresee the outcome of these permutations more than anyone in order to gain mastery over the robot world. It’s like in business, those who can see further into the future wins than those who obsess only in the here and now. (Of course, insider knowledge has a lot to do with corruption than genius, but then, there is brilliant corruption and stupid corruption that leads to quick downfall, as with Jordan Belfort who was smart but lacking in cold wisdom.)

    White folks must understand that they are against a force that is foundational and prophetic in its essence. This is why Ellis Island Narrative is so necessary to this power. It isn’t just about Jews and later immigrants coming to become good Americans. Its reach is far more ambitious and grandiose. It is to alter the foundational narrative of America from Anglo-beginning to the Immigrant-narrative. Thus, Anglos were not the foundational people of America but merely scouts and adventurers(stained with ‘sin’ of slavery, btw) whose ultimate goal was to serve as fertilizer to the REAL FOUNDATION of the later immigrants, the holiest poster-children of which are the Jews. So, even though most American Jews have considerable roots in America that goes back nearly 100 yrs or more, they still portray themselves as the embodiment of Real America that was founded and redeemed through massive immigration that must never end because the true foundation of America is Reinvention by immigration. (Granted, Jews might think twice about this IF future immigrants could topple Jews from their high perch, but Jewish prophecy says NO. Browns will be helots, black Africans will need Affirmative Action and side with Jews, and yellows will be dogs due to servile personality. So, more immigration only fulfills the Jewish foundational prophecy. Eventually, the Anglo/Americans are to be replaced by non-white Immigrant-Waves who shall serve the Jews since America-as-Immigration-nation is their foundational idea.)

    Foundational ideas are most powerful. It is the basis upon which all else follow. It’s like analog vs digital. If the foundational technology is analog, then all the talent will go to improving the potential of analog. But if the foundational technology is digital, then all the talent will go to improving the possibilities of digital. Most people are sheeple and conformists. They lack broader sense of things. So, they work within a narrow framework of what is presented to them. They don’t dare to question the foundational premises and principles of their limited existence. Now, if Jews had been like most other immigrants, they too would have accepted the pre-existing Anglo/American foundation and tried to fit in. But Jews didn’t survive 2000 yrs in exile by thinking thus. They are a Covenant-Conscious people, and they just had to, consciously or subconsciously, propose a New foundational idea for America that would favor their own vaunted place in American Society. They sought to do the same in Russia with communism(that, for a time, was great for Jewish power). And Jews have succeeded in this in the US, which is why even so many moron whites cheer for their own replacement since they are convinced that the essential foundation of America is IMMIGRATION-NATION.

    Things have gotten so bad that whites are lost as to what to do. Because so many people, whites included, are convinced that ‘racism’ is the worst sin — any pro-white idea is ‘racist’ — , they feel paralyzed to act in their own self-interest. So, how do white folks counter and topple the current Foundation? Since it’s deemed wrong for whites to be pro-white, whites must(for the time being) find a way to counter the Current Foundation by proposing to serve Another People. And that people should be the Indians. The New Narrative must be that the true covenant of America is between Indians and Nature that goes back 20,000 yrs. Yes, that is sacred, timeless, and noble America. But Immigration destroyed this covenant between the red man and nature. From this perspective, immigration is associated with ‘genocide’, imperialism, destruction of nature, and bad stuff. So, anyone who is pro-immigration becomes associated with imperialism, ‘genocide’, and despoilment of nature.
    Then, what is the most urgent and profound responsibility of America? To restore Indian culture, honor, and pride. And to restore sacred nature. Indian-Nature covenant must be made the core essence of America. And the main duty of whites must be to the native folks who were destroyed by IMMIGRATION. Such a foundation can undermine the Immigration Narrative. (Now, there is no need for whites to worry since Indians will never really reclaim the land and take over in any manner — demographically, economically, politically, and etc. Their main value will be symbolic as the TRUE CHAMPION VICTIMS of America, a people esp destroyed by Immigration. Indians will never retake America like Jews retook the Holy Land. But Indian-Zioninsm or Inzionism will be of great moral and propagandistic value for whites in undermining the Immigration Narrative. Libs like to emote, “But what about the children?” Anglo/Americans must emote, “What about the Indians?” They must confess that their biggest crime was ‘genocide’ of Indians that resulted from Immigration. So, immigration must stop NOW so that whites can focus on restoring Indians and redeeming America’s main historical ‘sin’. And nature must be restored too. America was a world of natural bounty, but so much of it was lost due to arrival of so many peoples. Therefore, in order to restore nature, immigration must be stopped. Whites must push for super-environmentalism that seeks to restore many areas back to nature. (At least 1/3 of each state must be restored to pristine nature.) If immigration-lobby says that a certain town is decaying and needs to be revived by immigrants, white must say, “No, it must be restored to nature.” Tear things down and build a pond and let a forest grow and let animals return.

    Inzionism can overturn the current foundation of America as an Immigration Nation. Now, it’d be nice to refound America as an Anglo/American nation but the Anglo label has been so tarred that it’s not possible in the near term. But INDIGENOUS RIGHTS, that is powerful even by rules of PC. So, the foundational principle of America must go from Immigration Nation to Indigenous Nation, i.e. All Americans from the Old World should feel remorse for what immigration did to the indigenous folks. So, all future policies must focus on “Is it good for the Inzions?” And is it good for Nature, which existed in covenant with the Indians who were dancing with wolves, beavers, gophers, and ‘buffaloes’.

    We must demand a statue of Geronimo, Sitting Bull, or Crazy Horse in D.C., and it must be 3x bigger than MLK statue, the bouncer on the mall. And school textbooks must make kids revere Chief Dan George as the real ‘founding father’ of America. (And since 20% of cowboys were black, blacks must also apologize for their ‘genocide’ of the red man. And Chinese must share in the guilt for building railroads that hastened the conquest of all Western territories.) And we must demand that a giant Indian statue be built next to the Statue of Liberty with a plaque that says, “Immigration reduced us Indians to a bunch of wretched huddled masses chewing on stale bacon in Reservations. And give back Manhattan, and here’s your stinking bead.” And Pocahontas must be condemned as an ‘Aunt Tomahawk’ traitor.

    Now, if Indians had any real chance of retaking America, this would be a stupid move. But they don’t, and so, they will be of only symbolic value in the Narrative-Moral War.

    Our true founding father:

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    Thus, Anglos were not the foundational people of America but merely scouts and adventurers(stained with ‘sin’ of slavery, btw) whose ultimate goal was to serve as fertilizer to the REAL FOUNDATION of the later immigrants, the holiest poster-children of which are the Jews.
     
    In this view, Fiddler On The Roof is not the origin myth for American Jewry, but for America itself.

    Supporting evidence is the attachment of Emma Lazarus' poem The New Colossus to the Statue of Liberty. The poem ostentatiously rejects the "storied pomp" of "ancient lands", only to quietly replace it with the pomp of a land that is older still.

    America has been re-founded without anybody noticing, and failure to grasp this point renders all resistance futile: the new foundation turns "legacy Americans" into relics of the past, just as much as the Native Americans. You are right that a new outlook is needed in order to fight these changes, but backward-looking "Inzionism" will not do - nothing less than another re-foundation is needed.

  267. @black sea

    This being the case, it’s probably more accurate to call “Scots Irish” ethnic Americans. They’d understand the term better themselves.
     
    I thought any confusion regarding the identity of this sub-population was resolved a couple of years ago with the creation of a new demographic category: "The Deplorables."

    It would be nice if it were that simple, but my rich uncles and democrat mother would beg to differ.

    The deplorables in my family are the urban ethnics — Irish Catholics and Norwegians (yes, there were urban ethnic Norwegians in Washington state until quite recently).

    • Replies: @black sea
    Well, there's always a Deplorable somewhere in the woodpile.
  268. Righteous Negress speaks the truth. These people not only toss litter on streets but into ballot boxes.

  269. @Bill P
    It would be nice if it were that simple, but my rich uncles and democrat mother would beg to differ.

    The deplorables in my family are the urban ethnics -- Irish Catholics and Norwegians (yes, there were urban ethnic Norwegians in Washington state until quite recently).

    Well, there’s always a Deplorable somewhere in the woodpile.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    Yup, their dad -- my grandpa. Deplorable through and through. Taught me how to shoot at age eight, let me play with his wwii souvenirs, loved his whiskey and tobacco. Lived past 90, too.
  270. @black sea
    Well, there's always a Deplorable somewhere in the woodpile.

    Yup, their dad — my grandpa. Deplorable through and through. Taught me how to shoot at age eight, let me play with his wwii souvenirs, loved his whiskey and tobacco. Lived past 90, too.

  271. @Twinkie

    If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.
     
    You don’t seem to understand that in such a “donnybrook,” the unassimilated - whatever you may mean by that - aren’t the only ones who will suffer. Mom’s basement Nazis haven’t seen large-scale sectarian violence in real life and don’t realize how uncontrolled such a thing becomes. They think somehow a unified block of whites will be able to drive away a unified block of nonwhites “Day of the Rope” style, but that’s not what happened in other sectarian conflicts and that’s likely not what’s going to happen in the U.S.

    Once you unleash large scale civil unrest, you are not going to know who’s going to target whom in the end. Just ask the former Ba’athists and Sunni tribal leaders who launched the early insurgency.

    Twinkie, I understand that you bought a ticket to the world, you’ve come back again, and know this much is true—war is chaos—some would say Hell on Earth, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen here, no matter what you (and I) want for the future.

    You’re an erstwhile military historian and have taught strategy, correct? Have you formally studied hypothetical players, losses, and outcomes for a contemporary or near-future civil war in the United States?

    In the past you’ve cited examples of civil strife and revolution in other lands (Maoism in China, your above example of US occupied Iraq) – any illuminating thoughts specific to chance outcomes of an intra-American shooting war (including possible involvement of outside powers) besides your boringly obvious ‘it’s gonna suck and be unpredictable’ caveat?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    besides your boringly obvious
     
    I was considering giving you a lengthy, serious reply about this topic until I read the above.
  272. @Tiny Duck
    white men have no real right to decide anything seeing as how they have and continue to only created death and destruction. Like Leonard Pitts says white men have 1000 years of affirmative action and it's time to level the playing field.

    Without white privilege white males would have no wealth

    Blacks had a few thousand years of affirmative action in Africa and all it got them was leopard-skin loin cloths & communicating by drum. (the communicating by drum thing is kinda cool, I give ’em that.) – white guy wandering in the waste land wondering what he did wrong.

  273. @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    We cannot all have our way every time.

    But the “way” that was taken for granted in 1800; 1850; 1900; and 1950 has been compromised away in an attempt to accommodate critics.

    Now the critics just hate us even more, and have convinced many to actively abolish themselves.

    We’ve come to a point where we’ve given away too much. We need to take some back, or live on in a compromised existence.

  274. @Clyde
    Kevin Purcell’s Philly War Zone is a good account of losing your neighborhood.

    https://www.amazon.com/Philly-War-Zone-Growing-Battleground/dp/1465350780

    5.0 out of 5 starsGrowing up in SWP (1960-1970)
    July 31, 2014
    Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
    I grew up at 58th & Warrington and lived there from 1960 until the neighborhood changed totally in 1970. As a kid I went to grade school at Longstreeth then MBS. We moved to another section of SWP (Finnegan Playground) in 1970 and I later went to West Catholic.

    As a young kid I remember playing at Myers Playground with many of my friends. During this time the neighborhood was just about all white. I remember hearing my parents talk about the Realtors block breaking.

    From 1969-1970 the neighborhood got so bad me and my brother would have to cut thru the allys as we were being chased by groups of blacks. The breaking point was when my father and mother took us out to dinner on a Sunday and hanging out on our front steps was a group of about 10 blacks in their late teens (maybe early 20's). My father went up the steps first but the blacks wouldn't move so my father said to make room so we could all go up the steps to get to our front door. I remember one punk was the leader and he got up and told my father he had to say please or he wouldn't move. My father was a former boxer and was 40 years old at the time so he could still handle himself BUT my mother interceded and said please let us get by. That was the day my father swallowed his pride for the safety of his family.

    Later that evening I remember my mother and father talking and my father saying that was it we were moving. Soon after we put our house up for sale. Eventually my father bought another house by Finnegan Playground and continued to pay the mortgage on the first house as well as the new house.

    The last story I will mention is when I was 9 or 10. Our next door neighbors were black and my parents and them were great friends. Me and the one son Eddie were best of friends for the couple years we lived next door to each other. That all changed one day when me and my brother were playing at Cobbs Creek and Eddie was with a group of his friends who were all black. I remember like it was yesterday that I said hi to him and his friends told him to fight me. I'm sure it was peer pressure but he came at me and we fought. I remember the other kids pushing my brother and them calling me a hunkie. That is a day etched in my mind FOREVER.

    In trying to sell our house the neighborhood was so bad my dad kept dropping the price on the house until he could no longer afford to pay 2 mortgages. It was then he sold our house for $1 just to transfer the mortgage over to the new owners name who took over the remaining mortgage. My father lost 10 years of equity on that house.

    These are but a few stories of how a tight knit working class neighborhood was transformed into a Racial War Zone with whites having to band together just to go school or the corner store or to play at the playground or shop on Woodland Ave.

    These are just a few of my memories that at that time shaped my life whether right, wrong or indifferent. I'm sure many of the blacks growing up looked at it in the opposite light - that's human nature.

    A day doesn't go by that I don't think about both of the neighborhoods I grew up in SWP!

    Knew a few people from that area/time. The sense of loss is profound.

    Reminds us that it is hard to preserve nice things.

  275. @Ibound1
    You can say that you want to leave a better country for your children and grandchildren. Why would anyone want their children to have a more uncomfortable, less prosperous, less safe life?

    Not if it means bad restaurants!

  276. @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    Let’s debate, but once the debate is settled, let’s get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    That’s how it used to be. But it can only work when both sides intend to continue living with each other in a going nation. If your grandchildren and mine and their yet-unimagined grandchildren all expected to live in the same nation and have similar debates and compromise with each other, then we could all accept losing sometimes. Even those of us who lost today’s debates would still be part of the community and still participate in the decisions next year, next decade, and even next century through our posterity.

    But the game has changed. We’re being replaced. There are about 220MM of us who are the children of the 200MM Americans of the early 1970s, 45 years ago. But the population is 335MM. Fully one third of the people in this country are new arrivals and their posterity and their values are not the same as ours.

    They expect to have their way and they’ve been selected to match the preferences of just a few of our existing factions. Those factions see it as their ultimate victory over us. After centuries of working together, they’ve quit the long game of cooperation and trading victories and brought in foreign ringers to end us. They’ve switched from the game of centuries to the game of total annihilation.

    And there won’t be a debate next generation. And our posterity won’t share the same community with the same conversations decades or centuries from now. They’ve chosen to end the long covenant and now it’s all over.

    The new foreigners will set our future now and we will go on as tolerated minorities within it. The winners that imported the ringers will soon find they don’t control their factions either. Pro-peace and pro-environment and pro-working families Democrats have already seen it happening.

    Democracy is the obvious first casualty. When you’ve permanently replaced your enemies with outsiders, you can’t expect them to accept the legitimacy of those votes. Republicans see little reason to accept popular voting against their gerrymanders and rural state advantages anymore now that the vote margin is made up of foreigners brought in against their will. And the other faction has already chosen replacement and abandoned any pretense of persuasion.

    The nation as a going concern is next. Will it be a breakup, an exodus, a collapse? Maybe, but the successful sabotage of common purpose and investment means that America as a land and a people cannot continue.

    I’m sorry that this is happening to us. We were warned, back when there was time to fix it. But it’s all over. Don’t expect anyone to finish the debate and get behind the country anymore. It’s all fights to the death from here on out.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  277. @anonymous
    Grow up.

    Fischer does not care about you.

    What the Hell do you mean? I don’t care if he cares about me.

    • Replies: @anonymous. . .
    Fischer is an academic. Even the best of academicians don't really care about anything real, by definition, their strivings in life would not have been to be academicians (with a few exceptions) if they did.

    Grown up Americans should not cite to academicians when they are talking about things they care about.

    We cite to things like Washington's Farewell Address, Eisenhower's communications the day before the Normandy landings, the transcripts of the Apollo missions, that sort of thing.

    I did not mean to sound insulting ....
  278. @anonymous
    svigor, how many checks do you get from Tel Aviv every month to sound useless, to sound like a caricature who discredits his own positions ?

    if you don't know you sound stupid, that is one thing

    if you do know, you deserve, I guess, every shekel.

    Read the Bible, you poor creature, particularly the Book of Proverbs and the exhortation

    not to waste your time in foolishness

    Nobody cares what you say anymore
    because you are a fool

    wake up and be a man

    nobody cares what Svigor has to say after a day listening to NPR

    do something better with your life

    Svigor’s been commenting here a long time.

    You seemingly have been here only a day or two, and I already don’t care what you say.

    • Replies: @anonymous. . .
    R. Lee Ermey said: "what we have here is a failure to communicate"
  279. @ben tillman
    Even Whiskey had read Albion's Seed and would agree with you on this.

    Even Whiskey had read Albion’s Seed and would agree with you on this.

    But he doesn’t.

  280. @Jack Hanson
    The reality is that large swathes of America will become "No Go" zones - for non whites and the government they serve when/if America tips majority-minority.

    Likely the most inhospitable/rural parts, Appalachia in the East and swathes of desert and prairie in the West, but what comes out of that will be stronger than what was.

    Sure, bud.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Don't let me stop you from choking down blaqpills when you're not exulting about the benefits of Shariah, bud.
  281. @Ibound1
    You can say that you want to leave a better country for your children and grandchildren. Why would anyone want their children to have a more uncomfortable, less prosperous, less safe life?

    Like any other proud progressive, I’d much rather have better food than a safe country for my kids. Mmmmm tacos!

  282. @snorlax
    Back in the period when overt anti-Irish snobbery was the rule in the Anglosphere, Anglophone Canadians were a minority with a tenuous hold on power over the mutually-antagonistic Francophone majority, so they didn't have much choice but to define their ethnonational group in the broadest terms possible as "anyone who isn't Francophone, or isn't Catholic, or otherwise supports the government." To increase the ranks of the disaffected would have been quite literally dangerous.

    On the other hand, Anglo-Americans and of course Anglo-Anglos were overwhelming and unquestionably dominant majorities, so they could afford to be exclusive snobs.

    Sad if true.

  283. @Jack D
    When HIAS was placing the Jewish refugees that they sponsored after WWII, they tried to scatter them across the US. My father was originally supposed to be placed in New Orleans but then he got switched to St. Louis (where I still have cousins) and he had friends sent to Des Moines, Denver, etc.

    Some of these enclaves are literally manufactured, such as when they send all the Somalis to Minnesota. To some extent there is reshuffling later - once the sponsorship period ends there is nothing to keep you from getting on a train and moving to NY (as my father did) but a lot of the enclaves were US creations initially and not the immigrants own choice. Would Somalis or Hmong have picked the coldest part of the US given a choice?

    As I understand It, the Somaili settlement now in Lewiston,Maine originally was implanted in Georgia. Then scouts brought back the word that welfare benefits in Maine were superlative compared to the meager amounts then given in Georgia. Thense, a great northern migration.

  284. @Whiskey
    But do invaders want them?

    My Boolean skills used on “30% of Internet traffic” tell me that French and mature return many instances of both desiring and desirable women.

  285. @Tiny Duck
    white men have no real right to decide anything seeing as how they have and continue to only created death and destruction. Like Leonard Pitts says white men have 1000 years of affirmative action and it's time to level the playing field.

    Without white privilege white males would have no wealth

    white men have no real right to decide anything seeing as how they have and continue to only created death and destruction.

    Is it time to take the “right” (as defined by the Twitter Mob, no doubt) back and create some more?

    Cordon off bad areas NOW, see how it works out.

  286. @Tyrion 2

    5)If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?
     
    These are all great questions and I have posed them myself to people in the UK. The problem is that the inevitable underlying answer is that "in the long run we are all dead".

    What can I say to that...

    in the long run we are all dead

    and this is why anyone who has heard Keynes’ aphorism avoids using the phrase “in the long run”.

    It is reasonable to ask what the country or the world will be like in 100 years’ time, and the answer “we’ll all be dead then” would be considered thoughtless and narcissistic. Using the phrase “in the long run” sets a rhetorical trap that invites Keynes’ reply, which appears reasonable and witty, but for many questions is just as poor an answer as “we’ll all be dead then”.

  287. @snorlax

    There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.
     
    Entire states, actually.

    Nova Scotia

  288. @Almost Missouri
    I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but once "we" become minority, all bets are off. All the rule-of-law things that we now take for granted, will go out the window. Our descendants will have to learn a whole new political philosophy: not much philosophy--or even much politics--it will be simply Might Makes Right.

    You say your "duty to [your] kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on", but has it occurred to you that when law means whatever the rulers say it means, then "equity" will become their equity, "real estate" will state their reality, etc. All your painstakingly accumulated assets for them, the fruit of your devotion, labor and commitment, will become liabilities: giant glowing bullseyes in the sights of the vibrant SJW coercive state and their Great Social Justice Program to redistribute unjust assets away from your descendants to their own cronies?

    I have written here before about a friend's modest and self-reliant family in Cuba who assumed they had nothing to fear from the Castro-ist revolution, and how wrong they turned out to be, so I won't repeat it now. Consider instead a (thinly) fictional story in The Atlantic(?) ten or twenty years ago set in South Africa. A middle class white family wakes up to find they now have a black family living in their back yard, peremptorily requesting handouts from the homeowners. The homeowners are distressed, a little afraid, but find there is nothing the authorities will do about it as it is an increasingly common situation which may have some meta-"justice" in it. What's more, they find out that other neighbors have worse families living in their yards, so the homeowners aren't really so badly off. Then the black family in their yard drives off even more predatory would-be yard-invaders, so the homeowners actually feel kind of grateful for their new property sharing situation.

    This will be a best case scenario.

    This is bullshit, sorry. American ain’t South Africa, won’t be. Brazil is much more “diverse” than America, always has been, truly, a “nation of immigrants” and its screwed up and it sucks in many ways, but whites in Brazil have plenty of good fences, walls and security guards, and still manage to hold onto their pile.

    The problem over the next 30-50 years is going to be divided government and political paralysis, ever growing problems of corruption, higher taxes combined with profligacy, imperial over-reach, rising ethnic hatreds and tensions, ethnonationalist separatism, and fights about language. America is too old for a real revolution, unless the bottom falls out, but divided enough for plenty of violent civil unrest. Its going to get shittier and shittier, and meaner and meaner, but it won’t be Zimbabwe.

    Immigration destroys wages, fosters political corruption and machine politics, creates political division over values and culture, and increases economic capital at the expense of human capital. That is to say, its typical rapacious, exploitative capitalism at its worse, and the idea that you can have a system that is about maximizing exploitation of everything (natural resources, labor, cultures) and at the same time it will leave white families alone (I guess because they’re “white” and they created this Beast) is hopelessly naive. In the absence of political controls on capitalism drastically limiting its scale, including its territorial scale, this process will go on forever, until some military, environmental or financial catastrophe destroys the whole system.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    You call bullshit but say it is going to get shittier and shittier, meaner and meaner, with wages destroyed, political paralysis and corruption, rising ethnic hatreds and tensions, and rapacious, exploitative capitalism at its worst. All of that, but we're not going to be Zimbabwe. Gee, what a relief.
    , @bomag
    Brazil as a hopeful example offers little encouragement.

    True that a Latin American underclass tends to be politically apathetic, and will temper the tendency to go full Zimbabwe.

    "There's a lot of ruin in a nation", and I guess we'll be finding out how much.
  289. @Art Deco
    What about the Asians, who after becoming legal, bring over their elderly parents from the old country who then begin collecting social security bennies even though they had never set foot before in the USA? I have no statistics on how prevalent that it, so I cannot quantify it.

    It would be SSI they're collecting. About 6% of all SSI recipients are non-citizens. About 20% of the elderly collecting SSI are non-citizens. Elderly aliens collecting SSI amount to about 236,000 people. Orientals and East Indians among them amount to about 49,000 people.

    https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2017/sect05.pdf

    In my experience, it isn’t just SSI they’re collecting. I know of two people who brought their elderly mothers here (from Korea and the Middle East) for Medicare, including cancer treatment. Neither woman paid a dime into the system but is getting very expensive treatment.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I'm fairly sure you have to be 'fully insured' or 'permanently insured' to qualify for Medicare, or to be the spouse of someone who is, which requires a certain work history. Medicaid is another matter.

    I'm thinking there's a granular detail missing from this account.

  290. @Prester John
    Duckling, do please avoid the tiresome cliche "People of Color" in the same breath with "White Racists". It makes no logical sense in as much as "white" is defined as a "color".

    I recommend that no one feed the Duck. It just encourages it to keep coming back, flapping its wings and honking for more attention and feeding.

  291. @Art Deco
    At best technically true. Downscale blacks living in urban environments live in rental units. The have one adult or a random grab-bad of unrelated adults. These households look strange to white people both in data and in person. However, children are very often present, and this is what a an urban, downscale, black family looks like.

    About 20% of the population lives in rental housing in households with more than two people present. About 1/3 of the black population does. About 1.6% of the population lives in non-family households with more than 2 people present. The data on the black population on this metric is dated, collected 18 years ago. At that time, 1.1% of the black population lived in non-family households with more than two people present.

    Current rates for renting a 15' U-Haul for an intra-metropolitan move around DC are about $82 plus fuel costs and tax.

    $82.00 Sure; moving house is very affordable. Say! I’ve seen those specials, too: U-Haul pays the first and last months’ rent, the security deposit, the application fee, and the charges from the movers to load and unload the truck. They replace the inevitable lost and damaged belongings which fall victim in any move. They throw in new friends and neighbours who all know and love and support you just exactly the way the ones you knew for years in the old neighbourhood did. A bargain at any price!

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    1. That isn't a special deal. That's the current base price.

    2. You get the bulk of your security deposit back from your current landlord, unless you trashed his place.

    3. I doubt you'll be hit with an application fee unless you're renting from a corporation landlord (who don't invest much in sketchy neighborhoods). The last corporation landlord we rented from charged us a $35 fee.

    4. The lost and damaged objects in my last move numbered precisely 1. It was a lampshade I can do without.

    5. Your friends don't disappear from your mundane life unless you move to a different commuter belt. We are discussing intrametropolitan moving.

    6. Again, what % of the people you regularly socialize with are neighbors or even people you can reach on foot?
  292. @Couch Scientist
    I agree; the evil wrought by contraception manifests in so many ways.

    Thinking about somewhat recent national pols, I think family size tends to correlate with Republicanism, but not necessarily in conservatism where it counts (immigration).

    HW Bush, 4 sibs, 6 kids, score 10
    Martin OMalley, 5 sibs, 4 kids, score 9
    DJT 4 sibs, 5 children, score 9
    John McCain, 2 sibs, 7 kids, score 9
    Mitt Romney, 4 sibs, 5 kids, score 9
    Jeb, 5 sibs, 3 kids, score 8
    George W Bush, 5 sibs, 2 kids, score 7
    Rubio, 3 sibs, 4 kids, score 7
    Joe Biden, 3 sibs, 3 kids, score 6
    Tom Tancredo 2 sibs, 3 children, score 5
    Ted Cruz, 2 halfs not in house, 2 kids, score 4
    Hillary Clinton 2 sibs, 1 kid, score 3
    Tom cotton, 1 sib, two kids, score 3
    BHM, raised an only some halves, 2 kids, score 3
    Jeff Sessions, only child, 3 kids, score 3
    Bill Clinton, 1 sib(that he knew) 1 kid(known), score 2
    Bernie Sanders, 1 sib, 1 kid, score 2

    Now go back and deduct 2 points for every child that ended up marrying a Jewish guy employed as a hedge fund manager is some such equivalent.

  293. @Almost Missouri
    I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but once "we" become minority, all bets are off. All the rule-of-law things that we now take for granted, will go out the window. Our descendants will have to learn a whole new political philosophy: not much philosophy--or even much politics--it will be simply Might Makes Right.

    You say your "duty to [your] kids and so on is to accumulate as much real estate, equities, etc. as possible now so that they at least have something to lean on", but has it occurred to you that when law means whatever the rulers say it means, then "equity" will become their equity, "real estate" will state their reality, etc. All your painstakingly accumulated assets for them, the fruit of your devotion, labor and commitment, will become liabilities: giant glowing bullseyes in the sights of the vibrant SJW coercive state and their Great Social Justice Program to redistribute unjust assets away from your descendants to their own cronies?

    I have written here before about a friend's modest and self-reliant family in Cuba who assumed they had nothing to fear from the Castro-ist revolution, and how wrong they turned out to be, so I won't repeat it now. Consider instead a (thinly) fictional story in The Atlantic(?) ten or twenty years ago set in South Africa. A middle class white family wakes up to find they now have a black family living in their back yard, peremptorily requesting handouts from the homeowners. The homeowners are distressed, a little afraid, but find there is nothing the authorities will do about it as it is an increasingly common situation which may have some meta-"justice" in it. What's more, they find out that other neighbors have worse families living in their yards, so the homeowners aren't really so badly off. Then the black family in their yard drives off even more predatory would-be yard-invaders, so the homeowners actually feel kind of grateful for their new property sharing situation.

    This will be a best case scenario.

    If you are in the mood can you tell the Cuban family story.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    I have a Cuban friend. His family lived in Cuba after the Castro revolution. They thought it didn’t apply to them since they weren’t connected to the previous regime. So they just carried on living as they always had. But it turned out that even if they didn’t take any interest in the new regime, the new regime took an interest in them. One by one, the things they owned, became interesting to, then the property of, people connected to the new regime: first their meager savings, then their car, then their business, then their furniture, then their house, then their land. If they had daughters, that would probably have been next. As it was, they had sons, so the next extraction was forced labor. They finally fled Cuba with a change of clothes. They consider themselves lucky to this day.
     
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/sabrina-rubin-erdelys-malice-in-blunderland/?highlight=cuba#comment-1623803

    Unfortunately, there won't be a USA for us to flee to with a change of clothes.
  294. @unpc downunder
    Poles and Hungarians have very low birth rates, yet aren't very keen on mass immigration and leftist identity politics, and the US actually has pretty reasonable birthrates by the standards of other western countries.

    If you want to help turn this around, you got to stop preaching traditionalist boilerplate and start addressing the causes of this problem empirically.

    Both Poland and Hungary governments are actually addressing this and are attempting to incentivize child birth. Revisit birth rates in another generation removed from Soviet control.

    “and the US actually has pretty reasonable birthrates by the standards of other western countries. ”

    You forgot to add that the US birthrate (what is it, 2.01?) is propped up significantly by Hispanic and other minority contributions. The non Hispanic white birthrate is 1.66, which is really all that matters. The only lower birthrate in the US is Asian.

    “If you want to help turn this around, you got to stop preaching traditionalist boilerplate and start addressing the causes of this problem empirically.”

    It also helps if you’re honest about the topic. You can take your “preaching traditionalist boilerplate” strawman elsewhere. Empirically speaking, whites in the US are being outbred. The “causes of this problem” as you say, is immaterial if the right kind of people aren’t around anymore to address them.

  295. @donald j. tingle
    It’s good to discuss deeper issues, but why not discuss the actual mechanism by which America has been enervated and debilitated since the 1970’s?

    If you don’t understand that that mechanism, by which the truly wealthy among us have been able to reap for themselves and their symbionts in the government the bulk of the benefits of the increased productivity since then, is inflationary monetary policy, and the consequences of that policy, such as women being forced to work to maintain family incomes, you don’t understand the dynamics that have fostered a predatory ruling class with a necessarily cosmopolitan attitude, a disdain for losers who have not got rich, and a thirst for cheap labor.

    Immigration is an effect, not a cause.

    I submit that it’s more of a chicken and egg sort of thing as to cause or effect. The change in immigration policy occurred in 1965. I remember going to a party in the 1960s and seeing an Indian woman in a sari with bindi and thinking how exotic it was. By the 1970s, it was becoming common to see Korean churches sprouting up in our neighborhood. By the 1990s, when I made a visit to our main post office, I thought I had walked into a United Nations building.

    We’ve always had our greedy one-percenters, agitators, and communists, but it would be hard to convince me that those elements have not been ramped up by orders of magnitude as a result of massive immigration of people from all over the world who are unwilling and/or unable to assimilate. At least, back then, we were squabbling among ourselves.

    I’m sure Lefties think they can hammer out the innate human desire to band together in tribes or ethnic groups and dominate other groups, but it hasn’t ever happened anywhere. Even if we in America were to blend over the next 200 years into a new mixed breed of human, there would always be those who were smarter, more beautiful, paler, etc., than others, and would dominate. Amerindians had this place all to themselves, and they still fought with each other and enjoyed torture and ritualized killing for entertainment. The Sunnis and Shiites want to kill each other, even though they purportedly worship the same god. India and Pakistan regularly are one push of the button away from nuclear war with each other. China is busy creating new islands, colonizing Africa, and stealing American technology. The Russians enjoy sewing discord in America and do a fine job of it.

    I can’t even go to a homeowners association meeting without witnessing neighbors getting all worked up over the slightest thing. I don’t know why anyone thinks the dissolution of nations and borders and global governance would work, except by force.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    All other living beings face the same challenge and consequence, why not us?
  296. @Almost Missouri

    "There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this."
     
    Canada.

    “There were Scotch neighborhoods? I never heard of this.”

    Canada.

    Correct.

  297. @Rob McX
    True. When vibrant blacks and browns become the majority, it will be "Bend over, Whitey" time. It brings to mind the saying "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".

    We have only to look at the Obama administration to see how a black-brown majority will corrupt our government and institutions, since it did a very fine job of it in eight short years. Maxine Waters already can barely contain herself about wanting to nationalize the oil companies or impeach Trump. We’ll have Hank Johnson voting to bring our troops home from Guam so we don’t cause it to tip over, and we’ll be sent back to Mars to retrieve our U.S. flag.

  298. @snorlax
    Back in the period when overt anti-Irish snobbery was the rule in the Anglosphere, Anglophone Canadians were a minority with a tenuous hold on power over the mutually-antagonistic Francophone majority, so they didn't have much choice but to define their ethnonational group in the broadest terms possible as "anyone who isn't Francophone, or isn't Catholic, or otherwise supports the government." To increase the ranks of the disaffected would have been quite literally dangerous.

    On the other hand, Anglo-Americans and of course Anglo-Anglos were overwhelming and unquestionably dominant majorities, so they could afford to be exclusive snobs.

    This does not match my understanding of my own country’s history. The War of 1812 was an “all hands on deck” moment for Canada. French, Scots Catholics, Irish, English and Indians all showed up for that. The 1837 rebellions, and their aftermath, created even more political alliances that cut across sectarian and linguistic lines.

    The friction between Irish and French Catholic clergy, the old money gentry versus the bourgeois liberals and the fights over denominational schooling created a Canada with “cross cutting cleavages”*, rather than your imagined land of WASP overlords and ethnic White helots. The results were different from the social structure of New England that you’re applying to the whole of the Anglosphere. Let’s just leave it at that.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-cutting_cleavage

    • Replies: @snorlax
    That's the retconned/PCified version. While there's always been a significant minority of Francophones who invested themselves in the (Anglophone) Canadian national product, the bulk have never really been reconciled to it.

    Source: Am half French-Canadian.
    , @snorlax
    I'll add that the 20th-century national mythology about the alleged great Canadian victory in the War of 1812 is false. Pretty much all the fighting on the British side was by the British garrisons and expeditionary forces and their Indian and Spanish co-belligerents; Canadians played virtually no part.

    It was also not a great British and/or Canadian victory but at best a partial defeat, in the sense that the US failed in the aim of conquering all of British North America.

    However, the British were forced to surrender all their forts in the woulda-been Canadian modern-day American Midwest, territory of far greater importance than all of modern-day Canada, the Indians were forced to lay down their arms and accept US sovereignty, never to rise again and the Spanish were forced to cede all claims on and settlements and forts in the Louisiana Territory and Florida.
  299. @James N. Kennett

    "Oikophobia", coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, is here used as a non-clinical description of an ‘anti-culture’ prevalent among Western artists and intellectuals.
    ...
    ”oikos” – from the Greek meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation”
     
    That's a strange coinage for a Brit. "Oik" is a British word for an unpleasant person of the lower classes.

    It may have Greek origins, but it’s an off-putting term.

  300. @Thea
    Our division is urban vs rural not regional. There is no logical economic, cultural or ethnic partition as with the USSR. No country will accept us as refugees.

    We have to deal with cleaning up this mess of an empire if we can.

    Agreed; there’s no easy way out of this. The best option, I believe, is in self-sorting to the states and increased federalism. This could be gradual and non-violent.

  301. @Art Deco
    1)Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

    If my own reading of the literature on the sociology of immigration is any guide (and I did quite a lot of it in 1996), the notion that you're obligated to adapt to immigrants has been taken-for-granted by academics who specialize in the study of immigration to such a degree that locating a contrary perspective requires some rummaging around. George Borjas was in that era the only researcher you were likely to locate who might be classified as an immigration skeptic, and his work was meticulous, quantitative, and addressed dry pragmatic considerations. Samuel Huntington was writing a few years later. His work was pitched to general audiences. Specifically scholarly work on immigration is not his book, nor is the sort of social theory wherein one might advance a normative argument.

    What your commenter is addressing is the 'unification of the elites' and the manifestation of certain attitudes as markers of in-groups and out-groups among the professional-managerial set. A couple of years back, I saw a story about a physician and hospital administrator of some prominence who was fired from his job for making blandly factual statements (nestled in a critical assumptions) about male homosexuality in an intramural memorandum. Even clinical faculty with multi-year contracts are at-will employees when the narcissitic gay mafia might be offended.

    And you see the universal assumption in higher education, absent only when an institution is so demand deficient it needs any body it can get, that non-ethnic white males are a malignancy whose very presence is an embarrassment and a threat to the status of your institution. The closest you get to a dissent on that point would be a small current of academics (e.g. Glynn Custred) who are inveterate advocates of rank-ordering according to grades and test scores. The social and cultural contempt at the heart of these assumptions is not directly addressed by anyone.

    Is the Academy even useful? It consumes vast amounts of money to give us childless women; worship of the homo, trans, and various Others; radical politics that are counter-productive; studies that don’t replicate; etc.

    Time to release those detained and auction off the property.

    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
  302. @Anonymous
    The main problem for white nationalism is that the country wasn't founded on white nationalist principles. That's why you had John Quincy Adams, a son of a Founding Father, win a case overwhelmingly at the Supreme Court almost 200 years ago for some random Africans by appealing to the Declaration of Independence. Once you accept that the founding principles apply to some random Africans and the entire world, and indeed can only be fulfilled if the rest of the world is free, then it's a short step to allowing immigration and citizenship from around the world. "Invade the world, invite the world" becomes less surprising.

    Instead of having a liberal theory of universal individual rights, along with a commerce based society and culture, which obviously reinforce each other, as the basis, you would want some sort of communal racial or ethnic principle as the founding principle.

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-175-years-ago-the-supreme-courts-landmark-amistad-decision

    Former President and Secretary of State Adams, then serving in the House of Representatives, agreed to help the Africans plead their case to the Court.

    Pointing to a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the courtroom, Adams said, “I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature’s God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case. That law, in its application to my clients, I trust will be the law on which the case will be decided by this Court.”

    He then called out the Van Buren administration. “One of the grievous charges brought against George III was, that he had made laws for sending men beyond seas for trial. That was one of the most odious of those acts of tyranny which occasioned the American revolution. The whole of the reasoning is not applicable to this case, but I submit to your Honors that, if the President has the power to do it in the case of Africans, and send them beyond seas for trial, he could do it by the same authority in the case of American citizens. By a simple order to the marshal of the district, he could just as well seize forty citizens of the United States, on the demand of a foreign minister, and send them beyond seas for trial before a foreign court.”

    After a lengthy argument, Adams concluded by reviewing the Court’s honorable tradition since he first appeared before it decades earlier. Days later, in a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the captives of the Amistad.
     

    The nation was not overtly founded on white nationalist principles, because it didn’t have to be. It was taken for granted.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If that were true, it would be inconceivable for a son of a Founding Father to appeal to its founding principles before the Supreme Court and claim that they apply to Africans and everyone else.
  303. @Autochthon
    Real necessity? Jesus, this nonsense always slips in. There is no reason to accept a single immigrant to the F.U.S.A. It's been full-up for at least a century. It can find astronauts and nuclear engineers among the children of the astronauts and nuclear engineers who were here before all this madnes started. There is not now, and never has been in history, any shortages of skills or labour: only deficiencies of wages from stingy, rich assholes.

    My comments are backed up (hope Steve approves them all, and soon), and I’ve already used my Agree button, but I could not agree more with your comment. We need a halt to ALL immigration for the foreseeable future. As Ann Coulter said, “America needs some ‘me’ time.”

  304. @snorlax
    The fertility rate of black women is not the fertility rate of black men, for whom having (even fat, ugly or junkie) non-black girlfriends and baby mommas is a major status symbol. Go to any racially mixed downscale community, or just to Wal-Mart, and note all the 200+ lb white and Latina women with racially assorted children in tow.

    The topline number also masks the dysgenic fertility pattern among blacks; ghetto blacks reproduce like the protagonists of our host's World's Most Important Graph, while Derbyshire's IWSBs reproduce like Singaporeans. Here's a NFL player with 21 (presumably nearly all or all half-) siblings, which the story doesn't mention until the sixth paragraph not for PC reasons,* but because an athlete with dozens of siblings is very much a dog-bites-man story.

    *Boomers, Christcucks and, TBH, normies in general find anecdotes about very large families endearing, irrespective of race and socioeconomic status, particularly when they (this is where PC comes in) imply by omission all the siblings were born to and raised in the same family unit.

    In the Census Bureau’s survey data collected in 2015, about 15.22 million people under the age of 25 identified themselves as black. Another 2.56 million under the age of 25 identified themselves as multi-racial with black ancestry. If I’m not mistaken, coupling across that particular color bar involves black men and other sorts of women about 2/3 of the time and black women with other sorts of men about 1/3 of the time. That suggests 1.7 million children sired by black men coupling with other sorts of women. Distributed over 25 age cohorts, you have 68,000 children per cohort. OTOH, you have 15.2 million blacks distributed over 25 cohorts, or 609,000 per cohort. The ratio of the former to the latter is 0.11. It’s conceivable black men are more fecund than black women, but not by large margin.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    It's "conceivable" that black men are more fecund than black women? Nice pun. But I don't think fecundity is defined as the number of children one has. You can be fecund and childless. And why use "fecund" when you can just say, "It's possible black men have more children than black women do, ..."?
    , @snorlax
    This gets into a more meta point, but can we trust our government statistics? Bizarrely in retrospect, we used to take Soviet economic statistics at face value, until the Cold War ended and their GDP turned out to be only a fraction of what they claimed. Liberals continue to take Cuban statistics at face value.

    USG is becoming more Soviet by the day. One way you can test if the Census Bureau data comport with observed reality is by doing the experiment I suggested in my previous post.

    The oft-quoted and never changing "11 million" number of illegal aliens is, IIRC, based on Census Bureau alleged data.
    , @The Practical Conservative
    Well, some of the black women having kids with nonblack men are classifying the kids as other races fully (white only, Hispanic only, etc.), so there's a disappearance effect that is difficult to pull out from the data on interracial and multiracial births.
  305. @Art Deco
    In the Census Bureau's survey data collected in 2015, about 15.22 million people under the age of 25 identified themselves as black. Another 2.56 million under the age of 25 identified themselves as multi-racial with black ancestry. If I'm not mistaken, coupling across that particular color bar involves black men and other sorts of women about 2/3 of the time and black women with other sorts of men about 1/3 of the time. That suggests 1.7 million children sired by black men coupling with other sorts of women. Distributed over 25 age cohorts, you have 68,000 children per cohort. OTOH, you have 15.2 million blacks distributed over 25 cohorts, or 609,000 per cohort. The ratio of the former to the latter is 0.11. It's conceivable black men are more fecund than black women, but not by large margin.

    It’s “conceivable” that black men are more fecund than black women? Nice pun. But I don’t think fecundity is defined as the number of children one has. You can be fecund and childless. And why use “fecund” when you can just say, “It’s possible black men have more children than black women do, …”?

  306. @Art Deco
    In the Census Bureau's survey data collected in 2015, about 15.22 million people under the age of 25 identified themselves as black. Another 2.56 million under the age of 25 identified themselves as multi-racial with black ancestry. If I'm not mistaken, coupling across that particular color bar involves black men and other sorts of women about 2/3 of the time and black women with other sorts of men about 1/3 of the time. That suggests 1.7 million children sired by black men coupling with other sorts of women. Distributed over 25 age cohorts, you have 68,000 children per cohort. OTOH, you have 15.2 million blacks distributed over 25 cohorts, or 609,000 per cohort. The ratio of the former to the latter is 0.11. It's conceivable black men are more fecund than black women, but not by large margin.

    This gets into a more meta point, but can we trust our government statistics? Bizarrely in retrospect, we used to take Soviet economic statistics at face value, until the Cold War ended and their GDP turned out to be only a fraction of what they claimed. Liberals continue to take Cuban statistics at face value.

    USG is becoming more Soviet by the day. One way you can test if the Census Bureau data comport with observed reality is by doing the experiment I suggested in my previous post.

    The oft-quoted and never changing “11 million” number of illegal aliens is, IIRC, based on Census Bureau alleged data.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    until the Cold War ended and their GDP turned out to be only a fraction of what they claimed.

    No, the problem is that it's difficult to validly compare production statistics between market economies, command economies, and command economies being reconstructed into market economies. The World Bank has revised and revised. The Maddison Project has also addressed the issue.


    Some people on these boards seem to oscillate between self-confident opinions about social reality and radical skepticism that you can know anything. My head is spinning.
  307. @snorlax
    The fertility rate of black women is not the fertility rate of black men, for whom having (even fat, ugly or junkie) non-black girlfriends and baby mommas is a major status symbol. Go to any racially mixed downscale community, or just to Wal-Mart, and note all the 200+ lb white and Latina women with racially assorted children in tow.

    The topline number also masks the dysgenic fertility pattern among blacks; ghetto blacks reproduce like the protagonists of our host's World's Most Important Graph, while Derbyshire's IWSBs reproduce like Singaporeans. Here's a NFL player with 21 (presumably nearly all or all half-) siblings, which the story doesn't mention until the sixth paragraph not for PC reasons,* but because an athlete with dozens of siblings is very much a dog-bites-man story.

    *Boomers, Christcucks and, TBH, normies in general find anecdotes about very large families endearing, irrespective of race and socioeconomic status, particularly when they (this is where PC comes in) imply by omission all the siblings were born to and raised in the same family unit.

    ghetto blacks reproduce like the protagonists of our host’s World’s Most Important Graph,

    1. I saw a TV report a couple years back on the distribution of Section 8 vouchers in Houston which featured an interview with a woman who lived with her 7 bastard children out of an SUV. (I think it was on PBS)

    2. Quite a number of years ago, I saw a documentary by one of the networks (could have been PBS, I forget) which purported to describe life in America today. They tell the viewer they arrive in Nashua, NH and they knock on a door at random and the first household they find is supervised by a matriarch (born in 1962). She’s married. She has her children and grandchildren living with her. There are eleven people living in that house, among them 7 adults (of whom maybe three have work). It’s a reasonable wager they lied to their viewers and scrounged hard to find that family, because fewer than 1% of all households have more than 8 people living in them.

    What do these two stories have in common? Both subject households were freaks. The media look for freaks. In case 1, I’m wagering the monoculture at the network is sufficiently intense that they have no idea how an ordinary person would evaluate this woman. In case two, they were trying to make a propaganda point about the functioning of the economy; they laid it on rather thick, though.

    In 2015, about 22% of the population at large resident in households was to be found in households with more than 4 people in them. The last assessment of the black population done collecting this data was in 2010. At that time, about 27.5% of the blacks living in households were found in households with more than 4 people in them.

    Data collected in 2017 by the Census Bureau put the birthrate of women between their 15th and 50th birthday at 54 per 100,000 among black women and 51 per 100,000 among white women. The CDC data for 2015 showed that 70% of the women giving birth that year were having their 1st or 2d child. About 65% of the black women giving birth were having their 1st or 2d child. About 11% of all children born that year were to women having their 4th, 5th, 6th etc. child. About 16% of the children born to black women were the mother’s 4th, 5th, 6th etc child.

    Black women who are popping babies like peas (sired by transient men) do exist. It’s a small subset of the black population.

  308. @Daniel Williams
    I’m not sure I understand how this relates to what I wrote. Are you disputing the three or four half-siblings bit?

    Pew says 2.5. Imagine that I, LaDaniel, live with my moms and my half-brother Shitavious (her child) during the week and see my father’s other children, Kim and Quanice, on the weekends. I have three half-siblings. Assuming that .5 kicks in and moms meets a new man, I’ll have four. Pretty reasonable, right?

    Of course, Kim and Quanice will need to see their other parent(s) at some point ... Who will, presumably, have 2.5 children as well. Sometimes they’ll visit when I am present. So you see how complex a web we can spin. And all these people live a few blocks from each other! I’ll grow up with quasi-sibling connections to lots of people, plus various cousins.

    It’s a form of community we respectable folk have trouble comprehending. To gentrify their neighborhoods means to break up a very intricate set of relationships. It’s a major inconvenience.

    Also, your assertion that when one neighborhood gets more expensive (from people arriving), another becomes less expensive (from people leaving) would only make sense if we weren’t stuffing this country full of Hispanics as quickly as we are.

    I’m not sure I understand how this relates to what I wrote. Are you disputing the three or four half-siblings bit?

    Yes.

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
    Then maybe you should’ve waited for your Midol to kick in and read the paragraphs that followed. I took the time to write a substantive response to your gibberish.
  309. @snorlax
    This gets into a more meta point, but can we trust our government statistics? Bizarrely in retrospect, we used to take Soviet economic statistics at face value, until the Cold War ended and their GDP turned out to be only a fraction of what they claimed. Liberals continue to take Cuban statistics at face value.

    USG is becoming more Soviet by the day. One way you can test if the Census Bureau data comport with observed reality is by doing the experiment I suggested in my previous post.

    The oft-quoted and never changing "11 million" number of illegal aliens is, IIRC, based on Census Bureau alleged data.

    until the Cold War ended and their GDP turned out to be only a fraction of what they claimed.

    No, the problem is that it’s difficult to validly compare production statistics between market economies, command economies, and command economies being reconstructed into market economies. The World Bank has revised and revised. The Maddison Project has also addressed the issue.

    Some people on these boards seem to oscillate between self-confident opinions about social reality and radical skepticism that you can know anything. My head is spinning.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    The Soviets published GDP statistics, and Westerners accepted them at face value. Third-party estimates of Soviet GDP arrived at similar numbers as they relied on also-falsified Soviet production statistics.*

    My head is spinning.
     
    Well, if you're having trouble exorcising Pazuzu, I've provided you with an easy fix.

    Go to Wal-Mart, buy some gifts for the kids on the gentile side of your family, and report back if I'm right or I'm wrong.

    *Even the real numbers would have been misleading, as 1) Western statisticians treated Soviet goods as fungible with their Western equivalents, e.g. a Belarus is just as good as a John Deere and 2) the Soviets often left crops rotting in the fields!!! and manufactured goods gathering dust in warehouses, because they were unable due to transportation shortages or just didn't care (not my problem!) to actually bring them to market.
  310. @black sea

    Mom’s basement Nazis
     
    I like the phrasing. I think that -- in additon to SJWs, BLM, POC, and NAMs, we can add MBNs to the lexicon.

    “I like the phrasing. I think that — in additon to SJWs, BLM, POC, and NAMs, we can add MBNs to the lexicon.”

    It’s great, I mean, other than the fact that there’s actually no such thing as MBN’s, other than in the mind’s of self important wet blankets like Twinkie.

    It seems to me that the trolls living in mom’s basement are more along the lines of college attending or graduated antifa types, than whites who are starting to realize there is in fact an effort to eliminate and replace them worldwide.

    And I’ll say it again, anyone using the term Nazi (you know, a member of a foreign political party now defunct for almost 75 years) to describe a person contributing to modern day discourse in the US is not a serious thinker.

  311. @Mr. Anon

    The next generation will ever include people who occupy the lowest income quartile, aka ‘the poor’.
     
    Yes, but there is 'the poor' and there are 'our poor' of the inner-city - the result of welfare dependency that is by now five or six generations deep - inbred, stupid, and violent. They may well be qualitatively different than people who are merely 'the poor'.

    the result of welfare dependency that is by now five or six generations deep – inbred, stupid, and violent. They may well be qualitatively different than people who are merely ‘the poor’.

    Again, about 3% of the black population is enrolled in TANF at any one time. About 4% are enrolled in SSI, which requires a disability adjudication. (The comparable figures in the non-black population would be about 1% and 2.5%). I don’t think cousin-coupling is particularly common among slum blacks or blacks in general.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Again, about 3% of the black population is enrolled in TANF at any one time. About 4% are enrolled in SSI, which requires a disability adjudication. (The comparable figures in the non-black population would be about 1% and 2.5%).
     
    "Again......" Art Deco's annoying, smug, passive-agressive catch-phrase. As if you are some kind of irrefutable authority.

    Again, a small fraction of the population can cause a lot of problems. Ever hear of the 80/20 rule?

    I don’t think cousin-coupling is particularly common among slum blacks or blacks in general.
     
    I'm not talking about blacks in general, but about the hard-core inner-city poor blacks. And - as to your baseless contention:

    a.) How would you know?

    b.) How would they?
  312. @Jack D
    This woman has the luck of the Irish. She got a CAT scan when she fell and broke her ribs and they happened to see the nodules on the x-ray - otherwise they would not have caught them. The tumors were confined to 1 lobe of her lungs, which they removed. This type of surgery has an extremely high 5 year survival rate. You can live just fine missing a lobe and if the cancer has not spread (and they say it hadn't) then you are fully cured.

    Ginsburg also survived pancreatic cancer in 2009 - that's really unbelievable because it has something like an 80+% mortality rate and it usually kills you pretty quickly.

    Ginsburg is clearly not in robust good health but old ladies like this have a way of sticking around for a long time (women are the stronger sex). They may not be exactly healthy but they ain't dead either.

    Jack, Yes, a triple survivor of cancer is rare indeed, but, the medical staff at Sloan could not by law reveal anything other than what RBG allowed them to reveal.

  313. istevefan says:
    @Paleo Liberal
    They served usually 7 years.

    If they lived that long.

    There was a financial incentive for the masters to work them to death, especially near the end.

    Similarly, convict laborers were often worked to death. No financial incentive not to.

    Before 1808 African slaves were cheap and were often worked to death. After 1808 the slaves were often too valuable to work to death. That is why many called the convict labor system worse than slavery.

    They served usually 7 years.

    If they lived that long.

    I was not aware that indentured servants to the American colonies had a high mortality rate. You seem to be conflating them with the Europeans enslaved by the Barbary Pirates.

    Most indentured servants went under indentures as a means of paying for their transportation to the New World.

    Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution had come under indentures

    If the death rate would have been as high as some are suggesting, it would have inhibited the population growth of the colonies. If we would have had high mortality among a group that comprised 1/2 to 2/3rds of all white immigrants, surely it must have been discussed or written about. I have just never come across accounts of widespread mortality among indentured servants in colonial America.

    Tomlins estimates that 48% were indentured.[4] About 75% of these were under the age of 25. The age of adulthood for men was 24 years (not 21); those over 24 generally came on contracts lasting about 3 years.[5] Regarding the children who came, Gary Nash reports that “many of the servants were actually nephews, nieces, cousins and children of friends of emigrating Englishmen, who paid their passage in return for their labor once in America.”[6]

    That’s interesting that many of the under 24 age servants were actually friends and family members.

    As I mentioned earlier, the Naturalization Act of 1790 would have allowed for this rather large cohort of white immigrants to naturalize once their indenture was over. And that was the point of the original comment.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Slaveowners who killed their slaves could be and were prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. I'm not all that familiar with the history of indentured servitude, but it's hard to imagine masters who killed their white indentured servants were treated any less harshly.
  314. @istevefan

    They served usually 7 years.

    If they lived that long.
     

    I was not aware that indentured servants to the American colonies had a high mortality rate. You seem to be conflating them with the Europeans enslaved by the Barbary Pirates.

    Most indentured servants went under indentures as a means of paying for their transportation to the New World.


    Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution had come under indentures
     
    If the death rate would have been as high as some are suggesting, it would have inhibited the population growth of the colonies. If we would have had high mortality among a group that comprised 1/2 to 2/3rds of all white immigrants, surely it must have been discussed or written about. I have just never come across accounts of widespread mortality among indentured servants in colonial America.

    Tomlins estimates that 48% were indentured.[4] About 75% of these were under the age of 25. The age of adulthood for men was 24 years (not 21); those over 24 generally came on contracts lasting about 3 years.[5] Regarding the children who came, Gary Nash reports that "many of the servants were actually nephews, nieces, cousins and children of friends of emigrating Englishmen, who paid their passage in return for their labor once in America."[6]

     

    That's interesting that many of the under 24 age servants were actually friends and family members.

    As I mentioned earlier, the Naturalization Act of 1790 would have allowed for this rather large cohort of white immigrants to naturalize once their indenture was over. And that was the point of the original comment.

    Slaveowners who killed their slaves could be and were prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. I’m not all that familiar with the history of indentured servitude, but it’s hard to imagine masters who killed their white indentured servants were treated any less harshly.

  315. istevefan says:
    @Anonymous
    The main problem for white nationalism is that the country wasn't founded on white nationalist principles. That's why you had John Quincy Adams, a son of a Founding Father, win a case overwhelmingly at the Supreme Court almost 200 years ago for some random Africans by appealing to the Declaration of Independence. Once you accept that the founding principles apply to some random Africans and the entire world, and indeed can only be fulfilled if the rest of the world is free, then it's a short step to allowing immigration and citizenship from around the world. "Invade the world, invite the world" becomes less surprising.

    Instead of having a liberal theory of universal individual rights, along with a commerce based society and culture, which obviously reinforce each other, as the basis, you would want some sort of communal racial or ethnic principle as the founding principle.

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-175-years-ago-the-supreme-courts-landmark-amistad-decision

    Former President and Secretary of State Adams, then serving in the House of Representatives, agreed to help the Africans plead their case to the Court.

    Pointing to a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the courtroom, Adams said, “I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature’s God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case. That law, in its application to my clients, I trust will be the law on which the case will be decided by this Court.”

    He then called out the Van Buren administration. “One of the grievous charges brought against George III was, that he had made laws for sending men beyond seas for trial. That was one of the most odious of those acts of tyranny which occasioned the American revolution. The whole of the reasoning is not applicable to this case, but I submit to your Honors that, if the President has the power to do it in the case of Africans, and send them beyond seas for trial, he could do it by the same authority in the case of American citizens. By a simple order to the marshal of the district, he could just as well seize forty citizens of the United States, on the demand of a foreign minister, and send them beyond seas for trial before a foreign court.”

    After a lengthy argument, Adams concluded by reviewing the Court’s honorable tradition since he first appeared before it decades earlier. Days later, in a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the captives of the Amistad.
     

    That’s why you had John Quincy Adams, a son of a Founding Father, win a case overwhelmingly at the Supreme Court almost 200 years ago for some random Africans by appealing to the Declaration of Independence.

    Didn’t those Africans go back to Africa after the Supreme Court ruled in their favor?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, and various whites have also gone back to Europe before. That's not the point. The point is that you had a son of a Founding Father and one of the earliest Presidents claiming that the founding principles apply to Africans and everybody.
  316. @Art Deco
    until the Cold War ended and their GDP turned out to be only a fraction of what they claimed.

    No, the problem is that it's difficult to validly compare production statistics between market economies, command economies, and command economies being reconstructed into market economies. The World Bank has revised and revised. The Maddison Project has also addressed the issue.


    Some people on these boards seem to oscillate between self-confident opinions about social reality and radical skepticism that you can know anything. My head is spinning.

    The Soviets published GDP statistics, and Westerners accepted them at face value. Third-party estimates of Soviet GDP arrived at similar numbers as they relied on also-falsified Soviet production statistics.*

    My head is spinning.

    Well, if you’re having trouble exorcising Pazuzu, I’ve provided you with an easy fix.

    Go to Wal-Mart, buy some gifts for the kids on the gentile side of your family, and report back if I’m right or I’m wrong.

    *Even the real numbers would have been misleading, as 1) Western statisticians treated Soviet goods as fungible with their Western equivalents, e.g. a Belarus is just as good as a John Deere and 2) the Soviets often left crops rotting in the fields!!! and manufactured goods gathering dust in warehouses, because they were unable due to transportation shortages or just didn’t care (not my problem!) to actually bring them to market.

  317. “Would the indigenous white populations of said countries be willing to accept being that much poorer if they knew that in exchange they could live in communities that they actually recognized and understood?”

    Except the Americas (North and South) did not originally consist of “indigenous white populations”. Europeans came here as colonizers. Moreover, today’s Americans generally do recognize and understand their communities, so there is no need for this trade-off to be poorer as you are suggesting.

    “Of course, that would mean giving whites a choice in how their country is run”

    American whites do have a choice how their country is run. It’s called elections. We just had the mid-terms a month ago.

    “Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst?”

    Our ancestors consisted of white and non-white, European and non-European, and Jew and non-Jew, who ALL spent four hundred years since 1607 building our nation. Of course, along the way, we had one group (Africans) enslaved and another group (native Americans) removed by force from their territory. All in the name of progress, right?

    Furthermore, recall how WASPS were intent on making sure that non-WASPs, most notably the Irish, the Italians, and the Poles, would not enter our shores because of their alien customs and out of fear these groups would outbreed them. WASPs were assuredly hostile because they believed they would lose their grip on power.

    “How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future?”

    As we always have as the American people. Refer to the Progressive Era, by which diverse groups of people worked in concert to solve major political, economic, and social problems.

    “What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength”…

    That would be a false premise on your part.

    “into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?”

    Who is this “enemy”?

    “Do you want to leave for your descendants a future where they live as a despised minority…”

    That would be another false premise on your part.

    “with their continued existence totally at the mercy of a majority who are conditioned from birth to believe that every misfortune or inconvenience they experience is ultimately the work of whites?”

    So, are playing the victim here? Why?

    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Our ancestors consisted of white and non-white, European and non-European, and Jew and non-Jew, who ALL spent four hundred years since 1607 building our nation. Of course, along the way, we had one group (Africans) enslaved and another group (native Americans) removed by force from their territory. All in the name of progress, right?

    Furthermore, recall how WASPS were intent on making sure that non-WASPs, most notably the Irish, the Italians, and the Poles, would not enter our shores because of their alien customs and out of fear these groups would outbreed them. WASPs were assuredly hostile because they believed they would lose their grip on power.
    ----------------------------------------
    The WASPS actually did lose their grip on power, are you suggesting we do the same? Is this your aspiration wanting to emulate the group that built things and loses control of it? Is this your goal?

    , @Daniel Williams

    Our ancestors consisted of white and non-white, European and non-European, and Jew and non-Jew, who ALL spent four hundred years since 1607 building our nation.
     
    Of course there were some non-whites in the United States during that period, but unless you’re saying that their contributions were approximately equal to the contributions of white Protestants then your argument isn’t very persuasive.

    There was almost certainly, say, a Sikh or two in this country in 1800, but to point to him and say “Sikhs helped build this country” (when he was outnumbered a million to one by white Protestants) is disingenuous.

  318. @The Anti-Gnostic
    I've had the same sorts of discussions in real life and online. I've heard the irreducible conclusions that 1) changing the people will NOT change the place, and 2) they will pay our pensions. In the same breath, they will tell you their exurb/subdivision/neighborhood has flipped and they are looking to move. The notion that different people are different and have different preferences and capacities has been anathematized.

    I think lots of whites will just meekly succumb, as in South Africa, retreating behind masonry walls and concertina wire and paying the security company every month.

    Simultaneously, the gun culture is getting more "gunny," if that makes sense, like genetic burn-off in credal communities. I don't see the people displaying the tribal vibe you see at football games or Trump rallies agreeing to their complete marginalization, like the Middle Eastern Christians.

    “I think lots of whites will just meekly succumb, as in South Africa, retreating behind masonry walls and concertina wire and paying the security company every month.”

    Whites like yourself?

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    Why taunt like that? You don't know him. He was making a general statement, like most do on this website when making a point about the big picture.
  319. @Faraday's Bobcat
    I am a native Midwesterner who lived in California for seven years. It was fun until we had kids. At that point, the feeling that we were living in an international airport instead of a country began to eat at us and we went back to the Midwest.

    On the topic of unifying principles: I just spent an afternoon at a large and famous U.S. military museum which was chockablock with remembrances of past victories in an uncritical context of national purpose and rightness, all the way up through the Iraq Attaq. Much could be criticized about that context, but is it not time to put unity above the no-compromise attitude so many bring to national policy questions? It's my country, right or wrong. Love it or leave it. I am serious. Let's debate, but once the debate is settled, let's get behind the country, or at least move on to the next problem in a spirit of common purpose. We cannot all have our way every time.

    Steve does great work here, and I just sent him some coin. But I sometimes wonder whether the chosen topics, and moreso the comments they generate, are doing more harm or good. Many a comment thread contains professions of "giving up" on the United States from both a left and right perspective! I don't know who hates America more, the Howard Zinn left or the Vox Day right. Both sides probably contain a sprinkling of foreign-funded trolls who want Americans to hate each other. I am not ready to give up on the United States. My ancestors were here fifty years before 1776. My wife's family came here as refugees in 1975; you can easily guess where from. There is no Plan B. Nobody is going back. We are fully invested. A return to federalism is probably our best hope for continued viability as a nation.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    Gold box for your comment.

  320. @TTSSYF
    In my experience, it isn't just SSI they're collecting. I know of two people who brought their elderly mothers here (from Korea and the Middle East) for Medicare, including cancer treatment. Neither woman paid a dime into the system but is getting very expensive treatment.

    I’m fairly sure you have to be ‘fully insured’ or ‘permanently insured’ to qualify for Medicare, or to be the spouse of someone who is, which requires a certain work history. Medicaid is another matter.

    I’m thinking there’s a granular detail missing from this account.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    Could be. All I know is that they're getting top-flight medical care while never having paid a dime into the system. You think that's fair, even if it's Medicaid?
  321. @Autochthon
    $82.00 Sure; moving house is very affordable. Say! I've seen those specials, too: U-Haul pays the first and last months' rent, the security deposit, the application fee, and the charges from the movers to load and unload the truck. They replace the inevitable lost and damaged belongings which fall victim in any move. They throw in new friends and neighbours who all know and love and support you just exactly the way the ones you knew for years in the old neighbourhood did. A bargain at any price!

    1. That isn’t a special deal. That’s the current base price.

    2. You get the bulk of your security deposit back from your current landlord, unless you trashed his place.

    3. I doubt you’ll be hit with an application fee unless you’re renting from a corporation landlord (who don’t invest much in sketchy neighborhoods). The last corporation landlord we rented from charged us a $35 fee.

    4. The lost and damaged objects in my last move numbered precisely 1. It was a lampshade I can do without.

    5. Your friends don’t disappear from your mundane life unless you move to a different commuter belt. We are discussing intrametropolitan moving.

    6. Again, what % of the people you regularly socialize with are neighbors or even people you can reach on foot?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I username to think you were kind of a jerk; maybe a bit obtuse. Now I realise you just are...how to be poltic?: slow.

    I'm earnest about efforts to be more kind and less cantankerous, and I realize one key to that is to ignore, rather than attempt to engage, anyone identified as significantly less bright or intentionally taunting.

    Have a blessed day.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    2. You get the bulk of your security deposit back from your current landlord, unless you trashed his place.
     
    Your current honest landlord. Our last manager not only didn't return it-- we didn't bother to ask-- she tried to charge us triple the amount. Yet other than some cat clawing, any damage was due not to us but to poor construction (plumbing and ventilation), a previous resident, or neighbors (infestations).

    She also left her husband and twin boys for the son of the property's owner.
  322. @Foreign Expert
    My impression was that infant mortality and life expectancy of slaves were good, comparable to France, the richest country in Europe. When a farmer buys a tractor does he abuse it or does he try to make it last as long as possible?

    This was likely true AFTER 1808, when the price of slaves skyrocketed. In Colonial Times, when the cost of slaves was cheap compared to the financial benefits of working them to death, many slaves were worked to death.

  323. @Art Deco
    I’m not sure I understand how this relates to what I wrote. Are you disputing the three or four half-siblings bit?

    Yes.

    Then maybe you should’ve waited for your Midol to kick in and read the paragraphs that followed. I took the time to write a substantive response to your gibberish.

  324. @Art Deco
    1. That isn't a special deal. That's the current base price.

    2. You get the bulk of your security deposit back from your current landlord, unless you trashed his place.

    3. I doubt you'll be hit with an application fee unless you're renting from a corporation landlord (who don't invest much in sketchy neighborhoods). The last corporation landlord we rented from charged us a $35 fee.

    4. The lost and damaged objects in my last move numbered precisely 1. It was a lampshade I can do without.

    5. Your friends don't disappear from your mundane life unless you move to a different commuter belt. We are discussing intrametropolitan moving.

    6. Again, what % of the people you regularly socialize with are neighbors or even people you can reach on foot?

    I username to think you were kind of a jerk; maybe a bit obtuse. Now I realise you just are…how to be poltic?: slow.

    I’m earnest about efforts to be more kind and less cantankerous, and I realize one key to that is to ignore, rather than attempt to engage, anyone identified as significantly less bright or intentionally taunting.

    Have a blessed day.

  325. @James N. Kennett

    Milton Friedman said you can’t have both [uncontrolled] immigration and a welfare state.
     
    Two generations on from Friedman, things are even worse. You can't have both uncontrolled immigration and a functioning modern economy. If you try, 758 million people from countries that have failed to create a functioning modern economy will attempt to immigrate.

    The fact that they come from failed economies tells us that they are fleeing people like themselves. They prefer not to live among people like themselves, but they do not want us to exercise the same discretion. The kicker is that many of our compatriots do not want us exercise that discretion either. These are the ones who need to think about the Questions.

    These questions and their iterations should be made publicly available. There should be an online contest for this.

  326. @AndrewR
    Sure, bud.

    Don’t let me stop you from choking down blaqpills when you’re not exulting about the benefits of Shariah, bud.

  327. @Cagey Beast
    This does not match my understanding of my own country's history. The War of 1812 was an "all hands on deck" moment for Canada. French, Scots Catholics, Irish, English and Indians all showed up for that. The 1837 rebellions, and their aftermath, created even more political alliances that cut across sectarian and linguistic lines.

    The friction between Irish and French Catholic clergy, the old money gentry versus the bourgeois liberals and the fights over denominational schooling created a Canada with "cross cutting cleavages"*, rather than your imagined land of WASP overlords and ethnic White helots. The results were different from the social structure of New England that you're applying to the whole of the Anglosphere. Let's just leave it at that.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-cutting_cleavage

    That’s the retconned/PCified version. While there’s always been a significant minority of Francophones who invested themselves in the (Anglophone) Canadian national product, the bulk have never really been reconciled to it.

    Source: Am half French-Canadian.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    *national project
    , @Cagey Beast
    While there’s always been a significant minority of Francophones who invested themselves in the (Anglophone) Canadian national product, the bulk have never really been reconciled to it.

    I did not know that! Wild stuff!
  328. @Corvinus
    "Would the indigenous white populations of said countries be willing to accept being that much poorer if they knew that in exchange they could live in communities that they actually recognized and understood?"

    Except the Americas (North and South) did not originally consist of "indigenous white populations". Europeans came here as colonizers. Moreover, today's Americans generally do recognize and understand their communities, so there is no need for this trade-off to be poorer as you are suggesting.

    "Of course, that would mean giving whites a choice in how their country is run"

    American whites do have a choice how their country is run. It's called elections. We just had the mid-terms a month ago.

    "Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst?"

    Our ancestors consisted of white and non-white, European and non-European, and Jew and non-Jew, who ALL spent four hundred years since 1607 building our nation. Of course, along the way, we had one group (Africans) enslaved and another group (native Americans) removed by force from their territory. All in the name of progress, right?

    Furthermore, recall how WASPS were intent on making sure that non-WASPs, most notably the Irish, the Italians, and the Poles, would not enter our shores because of their alien customs and out of fear these groups would outbreed them. WASPs were assuredly hostile because they believed they would lose their grip on power.

    "How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future?"

    As we always have as the American people. Refer to the Progressive Era, by which diverse groups of people worked in concert to solve major political, economic, and social problems.

    "What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength"...

    That would be a false premise on your part.

    "into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?"

    Who is this "enemy"?

    "Do you want to leave for your descendants a future where they live as a despised minority..."

    That would be another false premise on your part.

    "with their continued existence totally at the mercy of a majority who are conditioned from birth to believe that every misfortune or inconvenience they experience is ultimately the work of whites?"

    So, are playing the victim here? Why?

    Our ancestors consisted of white and non-white, European and non-European, and Jew and non-Jew, who ALL spent four hundred years since 1607 building our nation. Of course, along the way, we had one group (Africans) enslaved and another group (native Americans) removed by force from their territory. All in the name of progress, right?

    Furthermore, recall how WASPS were intent on making sure that non-WASPs, most notably the Irish, the Italians, and the Poles, would not enter our shores because of their alien customs and out of fear these groups would outbreed them. WASPs were assuredly hostile because they believed they would lose their grip on power.
    —————————————-
    The WASPS actually did lose their grip on power, are you suggesting we do the same? Is this your aspiration wanting to emulate the group that built things and loses control of it? Is this your goal?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The WASPS actually did lose their grip on power"

    To "inferior" whites.

    "are you suggesting we do the same?"

    Who is this "we"?

    "Is this your aspiration wanting to emulate the group that built things and loses control of it? Is this your goal?"

    My goal is to remain vigilant in informing the fine posters here that white people make their own decisions about race and culture, and need not be referred to as "race traitors" or "cucks". You?
  329. @snorlax
    That's the retconned/PCified version. While there's always been a significant minority of Francophones who invested themselves in the (Anglophone) Canadian national product, the bulk have never really been reconciled to it.

    Source: Am half French-Canadian.

    *national project

  330. @Clyde
    If you are in the mood can you tell the Cuban family story.

    I have a Cuban friend. His family lived in Cuba after the Castro revolution. They thought it didn’t apply to them since they weren’t connected to the previous regime. So they just carried on living as they always had. But it turned out that even if they didn’t take any interest in the new regime, the new regime took an interest in them. One by one, the things they owned, became interesting to, then the property of, people connected to the new regime: first their meager savings, then their car, then their business, then their furniture, then their house, then their land. If they had daughters, that would probably have been next. As it was, they had sons, so the next extraction was forced labor. They finally fled Cuba with a change of clothes. They consider themselves lucky to this day.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/sabrina-rubin-erdelys-malice-in-blunderland/?highlight=cuba#comment-1623803

    Unfortunately, there won’t be a USA for us to flee to with a change of clothes.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Many thanks and you did a good search to find it. Hmmm.... I see how you retrieved it.
  331. @Cagey Beast
    This does not match my understanding of my own country's history. The War of 1812 was an "all hands on deck" moment for Canada. French, Scots Catholics, Irish, English and Indians all showed up for that. The 1837 rebellions, and their aftermath, created even more political alliances that cut across sectarian and linguistic lines.

    The friction between Irish and French Catholic clergy, the old money gentry versus the bourgeois liberals and the fights over denominational schooling created a Canada with "cross cutting cleavages"*, rather than your imagined land of WASP overlords and ethnic White helots. The results were different from the social structure of New England that you're applying to the whole of the Anglosphere. Let's just leave it at that.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-cutting_cleavage

    I’ll add that the 20th-century national mythology about the alleged great Canadian victory in the War of 1812 is false. Pretty much all the fighting on the British side was by the British garrisons and expeditionary forces and their Indian and Spanish co-belligerents; Canadians played virtually no part.

    It was also not a great British and/or Canadian victory but at best a partial defeat, in the sense that the US failed in the aim of conquering all of British North America.

    However, the British were forced to surrender all their forts in the woulda-been Canadian modern-day American Midwest, territory of far greater importance than all of modern-day Canada, the Indians were forced to lay down their arms and accept US sovereignty, never to rise again and the Spanish were forced to cede all claims on and settlements and forts in the Louisiana Territory and Florida.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    My point wasn't about who won the War of 1812, or who did most of the fighting on the British side, it was about the political alliances and loyalties that came out of that war and the other historical events I mentioned.
    , @Steve Sailer
    The southern side of the Great Lakes, with easy access to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, is one of the great prizes in world history.
  332. @Daniel Williams
    I’m not sure I understand how this relates to what I wrote. Are you disputing the three or four half-siblings bit?

    Pew says 2.5. Imagine that I, LaDaniel, live with my moms and my half-brother Shitavious (her child) during the week and see my father’s other children, Kim and Quanice, on the weekends. I have three half-siblings. Assuming that .5 kicks in and moms meets a new man, I’ll have four. Pretty reasonable, right?

    Of course, Kim and Quanice will need to see their other parent(s) at some point ... Who will, presumably, have 2.5 children as well. Sometimes they’ll visit when I am present. So you see how complex a web we can spin. And all these people live a few blocks from each other! I’ll grow up with quasi-sibling connections to lots of people, plus various cousins.

    It’s a form of community we respectable folk have trouble comprehending. To gentrify their neighborhoods means to break up a very intricate set of relationships. It’s a major inconvenience.

    Also, your assertion that when one neighborhood gets more expensive (from people arriving), another becomes less expensive (from people leaving) would only make sense if we weren’t stuffing this country full of Hispanics as quickly as we are.

    Black American birthrate has been below 2 for a while now, though very dysgenic, with college educated black women having much lower fertility compared to college white women.

    Also adding to the family dynamic you describe is a high rate of grandmothers as the primary parent to their grandchildren.

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams

    Black American birthrate has been below 2 for a while now
     
    I see that you are correct. I’d recently read something at Pew which set it at 2.5, but I guess that’s outdated.
  333. @Almost Missouri

    I have a Cuban friend. His family lived in Cuba after the Castro revolution. They thought it didn’t apply to them since they weren’t connected to the previous regime. So they just carried on living as they always had. But it turned out that even if they didn’t take any interest in the new regime, the new regime took an interest in them. One by one, the things they owned, became interesting to, then the property of, people connected to the new regime: first their meager savings, then their car, then their business, then their furniture, then their house, then their land. If they had daughters, that would probably have been next. As it was, they had sons, so the next extraction was forced labor. They finally fled Cuba with a change of clothes. They consider themselves lucky to this day.
     
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/sabrina-rubin-erdelys-malice-in-blunderland/?highlight=cuba#comment-1623803

    Unfortunately, there won't be a USA for us to flee to with a change of clothes.

    Many thanks and you did a good search to find it. Hmmm…. I see how you retrieved it.

  334. @Lot
    Black American birthrate has been below 2 for a while now, though very dysgenic, with college educated black women having much lower fertility compared to college white women.

    Also adding to the family dynamic you describe is a high rate of grandmothers as the primary parent to their grandchildren.

    Black American birthrate has been below 2 for a while now

    I see that you are correct. I’d recently read something at Pew which set it at 2.5, but I guess that’s outdated.

  335. @Stan Adams
    This, to me, is the epitome of exurban ugliness and soullessness:
    https://www.condoreports.com/images/subdivision/1533_kendall_breeze_exterior.jpg

    A friend of mine lives in one of these boxes. It's the worst of both worlds: urban claustrophobia combined with suburban isolation.

    My own place - a one-story late-'70s townhouse - isn't anything to brag about, but it does have high wooden vaulted ceilings and an open floor plan that create an illusion of roominess. I have a small front yard, a small fenced-in back yard, and a strip of grass connecting the two. The area is full of younger couples who are just starting out and older couples who are downsizing from their empty nests.

    (Sadly, I'm not much of an interior decorator. The highlight of the living room is my OfficeMax computer table. My lamps are genuine Kmart originals. The dining-room table was a hand-me-down from my cousin. The only common theme is that everything was either a gift or a clearance item. Unlike most millennials, however, I do own a can opener.)

    My grandparents' house, where I spent my youthful weekends and holidays, was a sprawling ranch-style affair with low ceilings. The best thing about it was that it was on an acre lot with a big swimming pool (and a sizable patio with a built-in barbecue) and two huge, ultra-climbable trees. In retrospect, it was an ideal childhood home.

    Those condos are downright European compared to these.

    Or these. Which are indistinguishable from the storage lockers next door!

    My wife’s cousin recently married a guy who grew up in a traditional small-town house, across the street from the high school. Short commute! His parents left when he did, but they just moved back to town. Not to their old house, but about a mile away, around the corner from the one I just linked to. But why?

  336. @Jack Hanson
    The reality is that large swathes of America will become "No Go" zones - for non whites and the government they serve when/if America tips majority-minority.

    Likely the most inhospitable/rural parts, Appalachia in the East and swathes of desert and prairie in the West, but what comes out of that will be stronger than what was.

    It’s way more likely that large swathes of America will become “No Go” zones for whites…

    • Replies: @anonymous. . .
    Only the parts that are not geographically and aesthetically blessed
    , @Jack Hanson
    Its gonna be a little from column A and a little from column B.
  337. @Corvinus
    "Would the indigenous white populations of said countries be willing to accept being that much poorer if they knew that in exchange they could live in communities that they actually recognized and understood?"

    Except the Americas (North and South) did not originally consist of "indigenous white populations". Europeans came here as colonizers. Moreover, today's Americans generally do recognize and understand their communities, so there is no need for this trade-off to be poorer as you are suggesting.

    "Of course, that would mean giving whites a choice in how their country is run"

    American whites do have a choice how their country is run. It's called elections. We just had the mid-terms a month ago.

    "Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst?"

    Our ancestors consisted of white and non-white, European and non-European, and Jew and non-Jew, who ALL spent four hundred years since 1607 building our nation. Of course, along the way, we had one group (Africans) enslaved and another group (native Americans) removed by force from their territory. All in the name of progress, right?

    Furthermore, recall how WASPS were intent on making sure that non-WASPs, most notably the Irish, the Italians, and the Poles, would not enter our shores because of their alien customs and out of fear these groups would outbreed them. WASPs were assuredly hostile because they believed they would lose their grip on power.

    "How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future?"

    As we always have as the American people. Refer to the Progressive Era, by which diverse groups of people worked in concert to solve major political, economic, and social problems.

    "What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength"...

    That would be a false premise on your part.

    "into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?"

    Who is this "enemy"?

    "Do you want to leave for your descendants a future where they live as a despised minority..."

    That would be another false premise on your part.

    "with their continued existence totally at the mercy of a majority who are conditioned from birth to believe that every misfortune or inconvenience they experience is ultimately the work of whites?"

    So, are playing the victim here? Why?

    Our ancestors consisted of white and non-white, European and non-European, and Jew and non-Jew, who ALL spent four hundred years since 1607 building our nation.

    Of course there were some non-whites in the United States during that period, but unless you’re saying that their contributions were approximately equal to the contributions of white Protestants then your argument isn’t very persuasive.

    There was almost certainly, say, a Sikh or two in this country in 1800, but to point to him and say “Sikhs helped build this country” (when he was outnumbered a million to one by white Protestants) is disingenuous.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Of course there were some non-whites in the United States during that period, but unless you’re saying that their contributions were approximately equal to the contributions of white Protestants then your argument isn’t very persuasive."

    Were the contributions of white non-Protestants approximately equal to that of white Protestants?

    "There was almost certainly, say, a Sikh or two in this country in 1800, but to point to him and say “Sikhs helped build this country” (when he was outnumbered a million to one by white Protestants) is disingenuous."

    As increasing numbers of non-whites entered our nation, indeed they helped to build our nation. You do realize you are making the exact argument that WASPs made regarding non-WASPs, right? To illustrate--"an Italian or two were in our country in 1800, but to point to him and say "Italians helped build this country" (when he was outnumbered a million to one by white Protestants) is disingenuous".

    Praytell, where do you personally rank each ethnic group (European and non-European) as far as their contribution to the development of our nation? What criteria do you employ when justifying that ranking?
  338. The sense of loss is a constant ache.

  339. @TTSSYF
    The nation was not overtly founded on white nationalist principles, because it didn't have to be. It was taken for granted.

    If that were true, it would be inconceivable for a son of a Founding Father to appeal to its founding principles before the Supreme Court and claim that they apply to Africans and everyone else.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    We could tolerate a few anomalies back then. And if it were universally true and overtly aknowledged back then, we wouldn't have to fight a civil war.
    , @bomag
    This sounds like Corvinus's usual trolldom.

    Defense attorney arguments in court don't make for good law or governing philosophy.

    As to this particular case, we extradite people for trial on a regular basis. This looks like more of a political decision against Spain.

  340. 3)Do you want to leave for your descendants a future where they live as a despised minority, with their continued existence totally at the mercy of a majority who are conditioned from birth to believe that every misfortune or inconvenience they experience is ultimately the work of whites?

    False premise. Continued immigration benefits the existing elite, including elite Christian whites. Sure, some of our sons will marry East Asian girls and some of our daughters Jews and Southeast Asians, but we will continue to rule in a “post-racial” future that will be more about caste than race. . Our elite grand-children will even be able to use their 1/4 POC blood to lord it over pathetic “pure” whites. America’s (or Germany or Sweden’s) future will look like Argentina or Mexico, not Zimbabwe.The idea that our elites are naïve or suicidal is what is actually naïve. Our elites stand to gain tremendously from a globalised post-racial world where the rules work in their favor.

  341. @istevefan

    That’s why you had John Quincy Adams, a son of a Founding Father, win a case overwhelmingly at the Supreme Court almost 200 years ago for some random Africans by appealing to the Declaration of Independence.
     
    Didn't those Africans go back to Africa after the Supreme Court ruled in their favor?

    Yes, and various whites have also gone back to Europe before. That’s not the point. The point is that you had a son of a Founding Father and one of the earliest Presidents claiming that the founding principles apply to Africans and everybody.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    I don't see that case like you do. Adams appears to have argued against sending the Africans to another nation for a trial because he felt if the government could do this with Africans, it could do it with Americans. So though he argued on behalf of the Africans, he appears to had the future security of Americans in mind. Additionally since he wasn't arguing that the Africans should be allowed to remain and naturalize, I don't see this as a rejection of America as European nation.
  342. @Mr. Anon
    What the Hell do you mean? I don't care if he cares about me.

    Fischer is an academic. Even the best of academicians don’t really care about anything real, by definition, their strivings in life would not have been to be academicians (with a few exceptions) if they did.

    Grown up Americans should not cite to academicians when they are talking about things they care about.

    We cite to things like Washington’s Farewell Address, Eisenhower’s communications the day before the Normandy landings, the transcripts of the Apollo missions, that sort of thing.

    I did not mean to sound insulting ….

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Grown up Americans should not cite to academicians when they are talking about things they care about.
     
    Your statement, frankly, sounds wrongheaded. Theodor Momsen was an academic. Why wouldn't I cite him if the topic is ancient Rome? Enrico Fermi was an academic. Why wouldn't I cite him if the topic is beta decay? They knew more about those things than I do. Fischer is an expert on the ethnohistory of America; at least he knows more about it than I do.
    , @Autochthon
    What?! By this logic Tolkien did not care about the English language and people, Linus Pauling had no interest in biology, James Hardy did not care about helping people get better or live longer. It's patently goofy logic to say anyone who pursues his career via academia is therefore indifferent or incompetent regarding his profession. Many choose academia from an especial dedication to their work, since it pays much less but offers more freedom and security than the private sector. That's important: it keeps a Tolkien from having to write potboilers about horny teenaged vampires, or Paulings from having to focus on the next statin to be shilled via cheesy commercials exhorting viewers to "talk to your doctor about...."

    Academia has a place, just as national governments do. Don't let the villains who've hijacked and perverted both convince you otherwise.
  343. @Anonymous
    It's way more likely that large swathes of America will become "No Go" zones for whites...

    Only the parts that are not geographically and aesthetically blessed

  344. @anony-mouse
    There are 4 states that are over 90% non-Hispanic White: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population

    Within those states (and others) I'm sure there are places that are all-White.

    Of course Steve, like most Unz.com American writers choses to live in a place with a White % far less than 90%. It's like the constant drumbeat of Unz writers and commenters praising small rural Iowa counties that they would never live in for a week.

    Why do so many Unz.com writers hate Whites?

    Are you autistic or a bot?

  345. @Mr. Anon
    Svigor's been commenting here a long time.

    You seemingly have been here only a day or two, and I already don't care what you say.

    R. Lee Ermey said: “what we have here is a failure to communicate”

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    That was Strother Martin, not R. Lee Ermey.
  346. @Art Deco
    1. That isn't a special deal. That's the current base price.

    2. You get the bulk of your security deposit back from your current landlord, unless you trashed his place.

    3. I doubt you'll be hit with an application fee unless you're renting from a corporation landlord (who don't invest much in sketchy neighborhoods). The last corporation landlord we rented from charged us a $35 fee.

    4. The lost and damaged objects in my last move numbered precisely 1. It was a lampshade I can do without.

    5. Your friends don't disappear from your mundane life unless you move to a different commuter belt. We are discussing intrametropolitan moving.

    6. Again, what % of the people you regularly socialize with are neighbors or even people you can reach on foot?

    2. You get the bulk of your security deposit back from your current landlord, unless you trashed his place.

    Your current honest landlord. Our last manager not only didn’t return it– we didn’t bother to ask– she tried to charge us triple the amount. Yet other than some cat clawing, any damage was due not to us but to poor construction (plumbing and ventilation), a previous resident, or neighbors (infestations).

    She also left her husband and twin boys for the son of the property’s owner.

  347. @Anonymous

    1) The US was founded by whites for the benefit of whites.
    2) If one doesn’t like whites being in charge, leave.
    3) If one doesn’t like our Anglo-American legal heritage, including the Bill of Rights (This applies to you. #104), leave.
    4) If one doesn’t leave and remains unassimilated, and there is a civil war, one may have to flee to avoid being killed in the ensuing donnybrook.
     
    When it breaks bad, there will be white and nonwhite areas and white areas will be dangerous or downright lethal to nonwhites ( as many nonwhite areas will be so for whites). Presumably there will be "nonracially exclusive" areas where mixed race families and liberals will be safe but they will be limited in number and probably based on some other principle like a religion or a odd form of governance. I figure the current CONUS will be four to seven polities. I'm guessing there will be a fundangelical Christian one in the South, NYC and NNJ will still be safe for Jews provided they keep out of certain areas. Some will be targeted for price tag measures as in Covington's "Burger Kings" attacks. Israel will be their safe haven and redoubt, the beards and hats crowd will not be much bothered but mouthy leftists and neocons might be.

    Covington is dead but the PNW might turn out to be something much like he envisioned: big issues will be all the nuclear stuff, Boeing and M$FT in Seattle, and if they go north Hongcouver will be a mess and three-fourths. California south of the proposed Jefferson State area is a lost cause and will probably be its own country, allied neither with the rump US state nor Mexico-the gold chains boys won't permit LA to be Aztlan and will probably buy Baja California from Mexico on a plata o plomo basis.

    I figure the balloon goes up between 2030 and 2065 or thereabouts.

    downright lethal to nonwhites ( as many nonwhite areas will be so for whites)

    Will be?

  348. @snorlax
    That's the retconned/PCified version. While there's always been a significant minority of Francophones who invested themselves in the (Anglophone) Canadian national product, the bulk have never really been reconciled to it.

    Source: Am half French-Canadian.

    While there’s always been a significant minority of Francophones who invested themselves in the (Anglophone) Canadian national product, the bulk have never really been reconciled to it.

    I did not know that! Wild stuff!

  349. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "How does a people so quickly stop caring about its own surival? "

    One way is to convince them to stop having children. It's been working.

    “……convince them to stop having children.” I think whites would like to have children, not so sure any one is trying to convince them otherwise. What has happened is the cost of reproducing has become almost prohibitive with the resultant exorbitant hospital bills. Once born the boy or girl has to be fed, dressed and educated all at costs much higher than in the past. Obviously other factors involved such as the pill and changing roles of women in society. All this notwithstanding, no can deny the truth staring us in the face is the birth rate of Caucasians is below replacement levels.
    BTW, I may be naive but whom do you believe is doing the convincing?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    The cost of rearing children has certainly increased, but so has everything else. As a society we aren't exactly reducing the amount of products we consume. As many or more people these days are buying 50k vehicles than they were buying 5k cars 50 years ago. Something caused us to alter our priorities. Which leads to:

    "BTW, I may be naive but whom do you believe is doing the convincing?"

    In a word: Feminism. The institution that tells women staying at home to raise children is a scheme of the patriarchy. Women who do so are categorized either oppressed or sex traitors. They tell women to use hormonal birth control and to hold off on having children so they may pursue their careers or sexual escapades. Any accidental pregnancy is easily terminated via abortion (54 million abortions post Roe is a pretty successful marketing ploy.) Many women have been convinced that they are uber special and should not settle for anything less in a man than whatever inflated, magical standard they have concocted for themselves. And on and on and on.

    Anecdotally speaking, my wife and I have 2 kids. After the second one was born my wife stopped ovulating/menstruating. She was 34. We briefly considered IVF until we found out the cost of that was about the same as 50 abortions. Paints a picture of what our medical industry's priorities are for us.
  350. @snorlax
    I'll add that the 20th-century national mythology about the alleged great Canadian victory in the War of 1812 is false. Pretty much all the fighting on the British side was by the British garrisons and expeditionary forces and their Indian and Spanish co-belligerents; Canadians played virtually no part.

    It was also not a great British and/or Canadian victory but at best a partial defeat, in the sense that the US failed in the aim of conquering all of British North America.

    However, the British were forced to surrender all their forts in the woulda-been Canadian modern-day American Midwest, territory of far greater importance than all of modern-day Canada, the Indians were forced to lay down their arms and accept US sovereignty, never to rise again and the Spanish were forced to cede all claims on and settlements and forts in the Louisiana Territory and Florida.

    My point wasn’t about who won the War of 1812, or who did most of the fighting on the British side, it was about the political alliances and loyalties that came out of that war and the other historical events I mentioned.

  351. @Art Deco
    the result of welfare dependency that is by now five or six generations deep – inbred, stupid, and violent. They may well be qualitatively different than people who are merely ‘the poor’.

    Again, about 3% of the black population is enrolled in TANF at any one time. About 4% are enrolled in SSI, which requires a disability adjudication. (The comparable figures in the non-black population would be about 1% and 2.5%). I don't think cousin-coupling is particularly common among slum blacks or blacks in general.

    Again, about 3% of the black population is enrolled in TANF at any one time. About 4% are enrolled in SSI, which requires a disability adjudication. (The comparable figures in the non-black population would be about 1% and 2.5%).

    “Again……” Art Deco’s annoying, smug, passive-agressive catch-phrase. As if you are some kind of irrefutable authority.

    Again, a small fraction of the population can cause a lot of problems. Ever hear of the 80/20 rule?

    I don’t think cousin-coupling is particularly common among slum blacks or blacks in general.

    I’m not talking about blacks in general, but about the hard-core inner-city poor blacks. And – as to your baseless contention:

    a.) How would you know?

    b.) How would they?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You said 'in bred'. There are over 40 million blacks in the United States. They're not in-bred, unless you fancy Spain's in-bred with a measly 47 million people.


    a.) How would you know?


    Here's a discussion of the frequency of cousin marriage at 538:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-are-married-to-their-cousins/



    b.) How would they?

    The same avenue by which you know who your cousins are.
  352. @Simply Simon
    "......convince them to stop having children." I think whites would like to have children, not so sure any one is trying to convince them otherwise. What has happened is the cost of reproducing has become almost prohibitive with the resultant exorbitant hospital bills. Once born the boy or girl has to be fed, dressed and educated all at costs much higher than in the past. Obviously other factors involved such as the pill and changing roles of women in society. All this notwithstanding, no can deny the truth staring us in the face is the birth rate of Caucasians is below replacement levels.
    BTW, I may be naive but whom do you believe is doing the convincing?

    The cost of rearing children has certainly increased, but so has everything else. As a society we aren’t exactly reducing the amount of products we consume. As many or more people these days are buying 50k vehicles than they were buying 5k cars 50 years ago. Something caused us to alter our priorities. Which leads to:

    “BTW, I may be naive but whom do you believe is doing the convincing?”

    In a word: Feminism. The institution that tells women staying at home to raise children is a scheme of the patriarchy. Women who do so are categorized either oppressed or sex traitors. They tell women to use hormonal birth control and to hold off on having children so they may pursue their careers or sexual escapades. Any accidental pregnancy is easily terminated via abortion (54 million abortions post Roe is a pretty successful marketing ploy.) Many women have been convinced that they are uber special and should not settle for anything less in a man than whatever inflated, magical standard they have concocted for themselves. And on and on and on.

    Anecdotally speaking, my wife and I have 2 kids. After the second one was born my wife stopped ovulating/menstruating. She was 34. We briefly considered IVF until we found out the cost of that was about the same as 50 abortions. Paints a picture of what our medical industry’s priorities are for us.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The institution that tells women staying at home to raise children is a scheme of the patriarchy."

    There is some truth here.

    "Women who do so are categorized either oppressed or sex traitors."

    Who/Whom?

    "They tell women to use hormonal birth control and to hold off on having children so they may pursue their careers or sexual escapades."

    Which is their liberty. Men engage in similar behavior by entering an occupation, having premarital sex, and waiting to get married/sire offspring. Do you also have a similar outrage?

    "Any accidental pregnancy is easily terminated via abortion (54 million abortions post Roe is a pretty successful marketing ploy.) "

    Now I definitely agree here with what you are saying.

    "Many women have been convinced that they are uber special and should not settle for anything less in a man than whatever inflated, magical standard they have concocted for themselves."

    Some women, yes.
  353. @anonymous. . .
    Fischer is an academic. Even the best of academicians don't really care about anything real, by definition, their strivings in life would not have been to be academicians (with a few exceptions) if they did.

    Grown up Americans should not cite to academicians when they are talking about things they care about.

    We cite to things like Washington's Farewell Address, Eisenhower's communications the day before the Normandy landings, the transcripts of the Apollo missions, that sort of thing.

    I did not mean to sound insulting ....

    Grown up Americans should not cite to academicians when they are talking about things they care about.

    Your statement, frankly, sounds wrongheaded. Theodor Momsen was an academic. Why wouldn’t I cite him if the topic is ancient Rome? Enrico Fermi was an academic. Why wouldn’t I cite him if the topic is beta decay? They knew more about those things than I do. Fischer is an expert on the ethnohistory of America; at least he knows more about it than I do.

  354. @anonymous. . .
    R. Lee Ermey said: "what we have here is a failure to communicate"

    That was Strother Martin, not R. Lee Ermey.

    • Replies: @anonymous. . .
    That is true.
    I first heard the phrase about 20 years before I saw either movie (Full Metal Jacket and Cool Hand Luke) from a drill sergeant at Lackland. I only saw Full Metal Jacket once and never say all of Cool Hand Luke, I am not really much of a fan of movies.
    So I assumed, without checking, that the drill sergeant actor said it.
  355. @snorlax
    I'll add that the 20th-century national mythology about the alleged great Canadian victory in the War of 1812 is false. Pretty much all the fighting on the British side was by the British garrisons and expeditionary forces and their Indian and Spanish co-belligerents; Canadians played virtually no part.

    It was also not a great British and/or Canadian victory but at best a partial defeat, in the sense that the US failed in the aim of conquering all of British North America.

    However, the British were forced to surrender all their forts in the woulda-been Canadian modern-day American Midwest, territory of far greater importance than all of modern-day Canada, the Indians were forced to lay down their arms and accept US sovereignty, never to rise again and the Spanish were forced to cede all claims on and settlements and forts in the Louisiana Territory and Florida.

    The southern side of the Great Lakes, with easy access to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, is one of the great prizes in world history.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Too bad about the incredibly shitty weather, with summer temperatures rising to 104 F and 90% air humidity, and winter temperatures consistently dropping to -22 F.

    Far from being a "prize", the American midwest has one of the most extreme continental weathers on Earth, only surpassed by that of central Asia. The relatively low latitude compared to Europe and the pressure system of the Caribbean makes for extremely hot and humid summers. And the lack of any large body of water to moderate the temperature makes for extremely harsh winters despite the relatively low latitude, more similar to those of the Balkans and western Russia than to those of western Europe. The Europeans that