The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Atlantic's Reviewer Denounces "The Last White Man" as Not Anti-White Enough
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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
 
Hide 69 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. These tweets are complete gibberish to me. You’ve got enough other material, Steve. I don’t see the point of bringing up any more of the stupidity of this book and its promoters. We all know they hate us.

    • Agree: Old Prude
    • Replies: @Richard B
    @Achmed E. Newman


    We all know they hate us.
     
    Maybe he does too.

    After all, not a few sensible people have pointed out that he's not on our side.

    And he isn't. So...

    , @Bardon Kaldlan
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes,gibberish it is. The book both "literalizes and empathizes"something. Stupid drivel.
    And does this homely mullatta have the right to say " po-face"???

  2. “First of all, migration adds; it does not “replace””

    That’s exactly what I keep telling my Arab friends in the West Bank! I think some of those grumps may need some diversity training to learn to better accept my BIPOC farm family.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Pixo

    The "founding stock" of American, aka Anglo-Saxons, felt the same way, about being "replaced" by...hordes of Eastern and Southern Europeans, along with Japanese, Chinese, and Indian (dot, not feather). So, what changed? Magic dirt?

    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigrants-cartoon-nthe-last-yankee-a-lone-yankee-standing-tall-95499585.html

  3. This woman is an African who spent a few years of her childhood and her whole life in my country. Wikipedia says she became a US citizen in 2017.

    She has voluntarily voted with her feet and her choice of language. She has voted for all the benefits of living in a white country.

    Anything anti-whiteness after that is mostly blah, blah blah — and more blah, blah blah. She is a self-delusional fool if she doesn’t realize how ridiculous she is talking the way she does after making sure she has hers — all the good things white life can give to non-white people.

    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should. Look at the oath people take when they become citizens. It focuses on action but not belief.

    A woman who thinks like this should not have been given US citizenship. We should rethink and revise our immigration requirements and Oath.

    https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america

    • Replies: @Anon
    @notsaying


    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should.
     
    Do not ask what they think of the country. Of course they will say that they like it. All the goodies, the land of opportunity, wealth, etc.

    Ask them what they think of its people. Have them make a pledge of loyalty to the American people.

    Not that we should be letting any more aliens in, whatever the case.

    , @AnotherDad
    @notsaying


    She has voluntarily voted with her feet and her choice of language. She has voted for all the benefits of living in a white country.

    Anything anti-whiteness after that is mostly blah, blah blah — and more blah, blah blah. She is a self-delusional fool if she doesn’t realize how ridiculous she is talking the way she does after making sure she has hers — all the good things white life can give to non-white people.

     

    Daddy and birth issues. Daddy went to live in Zambia and knocked up a Zambian girl. The idea that white people have built better nations or that some people like being white is an affront to her story.

    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should. Look at the oath people take when they become citizens. It focuses on action but not belief.
     
    We do not need/want another single solitary immigrant. We're full up. The frontier was closed 130 years ago and our housing prices testify to the stupidity of continuing to jam people in. This has destroyed America's great patrimony for working Americans--cheap land and dear labor.

    That said, if you imagined how one might manage limited immigration for minimal damage. A loyalty oath forswearing any other national/tribal loyalty and swearing allegiance to the nation's people (for us Americans). Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation's people (for us from a founding stock American). Or at least married to and children with the same.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @notsaying

    The CivNat is strong in this one.

    Yes, a loyalty oath to our values will work perfectly in allowing in only those special non-whites that want to be white. I mean, no one would lie just to gain access to, well, riches beyond anything they could achieve at home.

    Now, let's talk about a bridge I have to sell you in Brooklyn.

  4. So she wants to put a gun to my kids’ heads and pull the trigger? Or does she just want them sexually mutilated?

    Not sure where these people think they’re going with this stuff, but I don’t think it will be as easy as their jobs at State U.

    Dealing with American Indian resistance was really hard, and they weren’t even citizens or “civilized.” This hubris just looks to me like the opening aria of a tragic opera that we’ll all have to sit through to the end.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Bill P


    Not sure where these people think they’re going with this stuff, but I don’t think it will be as easy as their jobs at State U.
     
    The end game is vultures picking over a carcass.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Anonymous
    @Bill P


    Not sure where these people think they’re going with this stuff, but I don’t think it will be as easy as their jobs at State U.
     
    They get to inherit the North American landmass, which is arguably the most valuable real estate in the world. The also get free access to White women.

    Dealing with American Indian resistance was really hard, and they weren’t even citizens or “civilized.” This hubris just looks to me like the opening aria of a tragic opera that we’ll all have to sit through to the end.
     
    The White community, in its current state, has nowhere near the advantages the American Indians had. It lacks cohesion, a sense of identity, youth. Pretty bleak.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  5. First of all, migration adds; it does not “replace”

    Mass immigration is genocidal in effect, if not in intent.

  6. Anon[971] • Disclaimer says:
    @notsaying
    This woman is an African who spent a few years of her childhood and her whole life in my country. Wikipedia says she became a US citizen in 2017.

    She has voluntarily voted with her feet and her choice of language. She has voted for all the benefits of living in a white country.

    Anything anti-whiteness after that is mostly blah, blah blah -- and more blah, blah blah. She is a self-delusional fool if she doesn't realize how ridiculous she is talking the way she does after making sure she has hers -- all the good things white life can give to non-white people.

    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should. Look at the oath people take when they become citizens. It focuses on action but not belief.

    A woman who thinks like this should not have been given US citizenship. We should rethink and revise our immigration requirements and Oath.

    https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america

    Replies: @Anon, @AnotherDad, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should.

    Do not ask what they think of the country. Of course they will say that they like it. All the goodies, the land of opportunity, wealth, etc.

    Ask them what they think of its people. Have them make a pledge of loyalty to the American people.

    Not that we should be letting any more aliens in, whatever the case.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
  7. The proverbial visitor from another planet would be mystified by all these people like Serpell. “They hate whites, but they can’t stay away from them – what’s going on?” Whiteness must be like heroin. The addicts know it’s deadly, but they keep coming back for more.

    And Serpell is just one white parent short of being white herself. Lucky escape.

    I can’t find an image of her mother. Did she by any chance dump the kid on the white dad and take off?

  8. To treat “whiteness” as a thing that can be “lost”—in Hamid’s novel, “mourned”!—distorts the fact that it is not a cultural or ethnic monolith but a shifting, exclusionary ideology that, again, requires violence. This is just… history? Maybe art no longer cares about history…

    I don’t know who Art is, but if that’s “history” I understand why he no longer cares about it.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @JimDandy


    a shifting, exclusionary ideology that, again, requires violence.
     
    Granted her rhetoric is garden-variety anti-white hate speech, but she may indeed be correct in stating that violence may be required in order to resist genocide.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    , @bomag
    @JimDandy

    One of the most salient features of today's political discourse is treating Whiteness as a thing.

    Replies: @JimDandy

  9. Namwali Serpell = New Parallelism

  10. @Bill P
    So she wants to put a gun to my kids' heads and pull the trigger? Or does she just want them sexually mutilated?

    Not sure where these people think they're going with this stuff, but I don't think it will be as easy as their jobs at State U.

    Dealing with American Indian resistance was really hard, and they weren't even citizens or "civilized." This hubris just looks to me like the opening aria of a tragic opera that we'll all have to sit through to the end.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Anonymous

    Not sure where these people think they’re going with this stuff, but I don’t think it will be as easy as their jobs at State U.

    The end game is vultures picking over a carcass.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @HammerJack


    The end game is vultures picking over a carcass.
     
    As commented earlier, the endgame is ownership of the most valuable landmass on the planet, the wealthiest economy, and White women.

    Replies: @Richard B

  11. @notsaying
    This woman is an African who spent a few years of her childhood and her whole life in my country. Wikipedia says she became a US citizen in 2017.

    She has voluntarily voted with her feet and her choice of language. She has voted for all the benefits of living in a white country.

    Anything anti-whiteness after that is mostly blah, blah blah -- and more blah, blah blah. She is a self-delusional fool if she doesn't realize how ridiculous she is talking the way she does after making sure she has hers -- all the good things white life can give to non-white people.

    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should. Look at the oath people take when they become citizens. It focuses on action but not belief.

    A woman who thinks like this should not have been given US citizenship. We should rethink and revise our immigration requirements and Oath.

    https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america

    Replies: @Anon, @AnotherDad, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    She has voluntarily voted with her feet and her choice of language. She has voted for all the benefits of living in a white country.

    Anything anti-whiteness after that is mostly blah, blah blah — and more blah, blah blah. She is a self-delusional fool if she doesn’t realize how ridiculous she is talking the way she does after making sure she has hers — all the good things white life can give to non-white people.

    Daddy and birth issues. Daddy went to live in Zambia and knocked up a Zambian girl. The idea that white people have built better nations or that some people like being white is an affront to her story.

    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should. Look at the oath people take when they become citizens. It focuses on action but not belief.

    We do not need/want another single solitary immigrant. We’re full up. The frontier was closed 130 years ago and our housing prices testify to the stupidity of continuing to jam people in. This has destroyed America’s great patrimony for working Americans–cheap land and dear labor.

    That said, if you imagined how one might manage limited immigration for minimal damage. A loyalty oath forswearing any other national/tribal loyalty and swearing allegiance to the nation’s people (for us Americans). Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American). Or at least married to and children with the same.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad

    BTW, you can bet this woman feels quite fortunate/superior being half-white instead of typical Zambian, some and is very attached to it. But you can also bet that she finds those feelings--when they come to awareness--embarrassing and demeaning.

    And someone has to be to blame.

    , @Jack D
    @AnotherDad


    Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American).
     
    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit. Naturalization was permitted from the earliest days. The Constitution imposed a birth test only on the Presidency and on no other office. From earliest days there were foreign born Senators such as Gallatin from Switzerland, Schurz from Germany. There was a whole string of Senators who were born in the Caribbean - Harper from Antigua, Yulee from St. Thomas, Mallory from Trinidad, Benjamin from St. Croix (not to mention Hamilton). And some of these guys were very distinctly not "founding stock American" (cough, Jews).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @SFG, @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

  12. @JimDandy
    To treat "whiteness" as a thing that can be "lost"—in Hamid's novel, "mourned"!—distorts the fact that it is not a cultural or ethnic monolith but a shifting, exclusionary ideology that, again, requires violence. This is just... history? Maybe art no longer cares about history...

    I don't know who Art is, but if that's "history" I understand why he no longer cares about it.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @bomag

    a shifting, exclusionary ideology that, again, requires violence.

    Granted her rhetoric is garden-variety anti-white hate speech, but she may indeed be correct in stating that violence may be required in order to resist genocide.

    • Agree: JimDandy, Charon
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @HammerJack



    a shifting, exclusionary ideology that, again, requires violence.
     
    Granted her rhetoric is garden-variety anti-white hate speech, but she may indeed be correct in stating that violence may be required in order to resist genocide.
     
    Agree.

    And obviously all cultures are exclusionary. Every nation and people exist by virtue of violence. They seized their turf--and usually some of the women already there if any--by force and mustered sufficient force to see off those who would do that to them ... and hence exist and exist there.

    If you don't see invaders off ... you won't be around long.
  13. @HammerJack
    @JimDandy


    a shifting, exclusionary ideology that, again, requires violence.
     
    Granted her rhetoric is garden-variety anti-white hate speech, but she may indeed be correct in stating that violence may be required in order to resist genocide.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    a shifting, exclusionary ideology that, again, requires violence.

    Granted her rhetoric is garden-variety anti-white hate speech, but she may indeed be correct in stating that violence may be required in order to resist genocide.

    Agree.

    And obviously all cultures are exclusionary. Every nation and people exist by virtue of violence. They seized their turf–and usually some of the women already there if any–by force and mustered sufficient force to see off those who would do that to them … and hence exist and exist there.

    If you don’t see invaders off … you won’t be around long.

  14. @AnotherDad
    @notsaying


    She has voluntarily voted with her feet and her choice of language. She has voted for all the benefits of living in a white country.

    Anything anti-whiteness after that is mostly blah, blah blah — and more blah, blah blah. She is a self-delusional fool if she doesn’t realize how ridiculous she is talking the way she does after making sure she has hers — all the good things white life can give to non-white people.

     

    Daddy and birth issues. Daddy went to live in Zambia and knocked up a Zambian girl. The idea that white people have built better nations or that some people like being white is an affront to her story.

    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should. Look at the oath people take when they become citizens. It focuses on action but not belief.
     
    We do not need/want another single solitary immigrant. We're full up. The frontier was closed 130 years ago and our housing prices testify to the stupidity of continuing to jam people in. This has destroyed America's great patrimony for working Americans--cheap land and dear labor.

    That said, if you imagined how one might manage limited immigration for minimal damage. A loyalty oath forswearing any other national/tribal loyalty and swearing allegiance to the nation's people (for us Americans). Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation's people (for us from a founding stock American). Or at least married to and children with the same.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D

    BTW, you can bet this woman feels quite fortunate/superior being half-white instead of typical Zambian, some and is very attached to it. But you can also bet that she finds those feelings–when they come to awareness–embarrassing and demeaning.

    And someone has to be to blame.

  15. Anonymous[547] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P
    So she wants to put a gun to my kids' heads and pull the trigger? Or does she just want them sexually mutilated?

    Not sure where these people think they're going with this stuff, but I don't think it will be as easy as their jobs at State U.

    Dealing with American Indian resistance was really hard, and they weren't even citizens or "civilized." This hubris just looks to me like the opening aria of a tragic opera that we'll all have to sit through to the end.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Anonymous

    Not sure where these people think they’re going with this stuff, but I don’t think it will be as easy as their jobs at State U.

    They get to inherit the North American landmass, which is arguably the most valuable real estate in the world. The also get free access to White women.

    Dealing with American Indian resistance was really hard, and they weren’t even citizens or “civilized.” This hubris just looks to me like the opening aria of a tragic opera that we’ll all have to sit through to the end.

    The White community, in its current state, has nowhere near the advantages the American Indians had. It lacks cohesion, a sense of identity, youth. Pretty bleak.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    The White community, in its current state, has nowhere near the advantages the American Indians had. It lacks cohesion, a sense of identity, youth. Pretty bleak.
     
    I'm Mr. Bleak, but this is way too blackpill.

    The American Indians were a solid three millennial (or more) behind in technology, and utterly lacked cohesion. They were separate tribes. Their lack of cohesion is precisely what allowed whites to gain a foothold in the first place.

    In contrast, white Americans are impressively well armed. And while overall "white" cohesion is not there, in the last six years we saw the generation of a huge amount of "we're sick of your bullshit" cohesion--mostly white, but normies of all sorts--coalescing around Trump. Cohesion we hadn't seen before. (So much so that it scared the bejesus out of ... well the usual suspects, who saw nazis everywhere and "our democracy"--i.e. anti-democratic elite rule--under threat.)

    While not where it needs to be this sort of MAGA cohesion is much, much more solid than the rainbow people's "cohesion" which as Steve has pointed out is entirely a "coalition of the fringes" held together only by hating deplorable flyover country straight white gentiles. "A circular firing squad" is an apt metaphor.

    Let's be honest what they have going for them is pretty much entirely the megaphone and state power. If things had south the rainbows have no real cohesion at all. Blacks and Mexicans? Jews and Muslims? Muzzies and queers? Trannies and lesbos? Nice white ladies and black thugs?

    Things are indeed bleak. They have the megaphone and the crazy is through the roof. But let's not give up hope, this thing ain't over yet.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  16. @HammerJack
    @Bill P


    Not sure where these people think they’re going with this stuff, but I don’t think it will be as easy as their jobs at State U.
     
    The end game is vultures picking over a carcass.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The end game is vultures picking over a carcass.

    As commented earlier, the endgame is ownership of the most valuable landmass on the planet, the wealthiest economy, and White women.

    • Replies: @Richard B
    @Anonymous


    As commented earlier, the endgame is ownership of the most valuable landmass on the planet, the wealthiest economy, and White women.
     
    That very well may be.

    But it's also true that the closer they get to their goal the less valuable the land, the worse the economy, and the more mannish and less appealing the women.

    Besides, they're no good at large-scale, long-term social management.
    Too many impulsive, fast-brain "thinkers."
    So even if they got it all they'd soon lose it.
    In fact, they already are.

  17. Fortunately, the Chinese will take care of such Africans in the future.

  18. They keep telling me that the “Great Replacement” is just a conspiracy theory, while all the while acting like it’s their plan.

  19. @Anonymous
    @Bill P


    Not sure where these people think they’re going with this stuff, but I don’t think it will be as easy as their jobs at State U.
     
    They get to inherit the North American landmass, which is arguably the most valuable real estate in the world. The also get free access to White women.

    Dealing with American Indian resistance was really hard, and they weren’t even citizens or “civilized.” This hubris just looks to me like the opening aria of a tragic opera that we’ll all have to sit through to the end.
     
    The White community, in its current state, has nowhere near the advantages the American Indians had. It lacks cohesion, a sense of identity, youth. Pretty bleak.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    The White community, in its current state, has nowhere near the advantages the American Indians had. It lacks cohesion, a sense of identity, youth. Pretty bleak.

    I’m Mr. Bleak, but this is way too blackpill.

    The American Indians were a solid three millennial (or more) behind in technology, and utterly lacked cohesion. They were separate tribes. Their lack of cohesion is precisely what allowed whites to gain a foothold in the first place.

    In contrast, white Americans are impressively well armed. And while overall “white” cohesion is not there, in the last six years we saw the generation of a huge amount of “we’re sick of your bullshit” cohesion–mostly white, but normies of all sorts–coalescing around Trump. Cohesion we hadn’t seen before. (So much so that it scared the bejesus out of … well the usual suspects, who saw nazis everywhere and “our democracy”–i.e. anti-democratic elite rule–under threat.)

    While not where it needs to be this sort of MAGA cohesion is much, much more solid than the rainbow people’s “cohesion” which as Steve has pointed out is entirely a “coalition of the fringes” held together only by hating deplorable flyover country straight white gentiles. “A circular firing squad” is an apt metaphor.

    Let’s be honest what they have going for them is pretty much entirely the megaphone and state power. If things had south the rainbows have no real cohesion at all. Blacks and Mexicans? Jews and Muslims? Muzzies and queers? Trannies and lesbos? Nice white ladies and black thugs?

    Things are indeed bleak. They have the megaphone and the crazy is through the roof. But let’s not give up hope, this thing ain’t over yet.

    • Thanks: bomag
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    Things are indeed bleak. They have the megaphone and the crazy is through the roof. But let’s not give up hope, this thing ain’t over yet.
     
    You are right. Thank you. I regret sounding such a note of pessimism. It wasn’t an accurate representation of how I feel. I haven’t given up hope. I am not even close to doing so.
  20. I notice that these people would never agree with the death penalty yet proscribe for every fault or crime that could be ascribed to White America the death penalty.

    Indeed they also seem to provincially make no distinction between whites at all. Finland say may have colonised rather than coloniser but they get the rope too.

    It’s almost like ethnocentrism or racism isn’t what they are against but rather when they say ‘racism’ they really mean ‘white ethnocentrism or expression of collective interest’. This is what we really mean by that word because ‘implicit whiteness’ is something which is relentlessly attacked whenever it appears.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Altai


    I notice that these people would never agree with the death penalty yet proscribe for every fault or crime that could be ascribed to White America the death penalty.
     
    Interesting observation.

    Indeed they also seem to provincially make no distinction between whites at all. Finland say may have colonised rather than coloniser but they get the rope too.
     
    You buy into their premises here. Squirming within their imposes framework. Bad move.

    It’s almost like ethnocentrism or racism isn’t what they are against but rather when they say ‘racism’ they really mean ‘white ethnocentrism or expression of collective interest’. This is what we really mean by that word because ‘implicit whiteness’ is something which is relentlessly attacked whenever it appears.
     
    There is strength in White community, identity, continuity. Look at all that Whites have accomplished. They are attempting to get Whites to turn away from the group, or to overlook it, so they can more easily take over.
  21. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    The White community, in its current state, has nowhere near the advantages the American Indians had. It lacks cohesion, a sense of identity, youth. Pretty bleak.
     
    I'm Mr. Bleak, but this is way too blackpill.

    The American Indians were a solid three millennial (or more) behind in technology, and utterly lacked cohesion. They were separate tribes. Their lack of cohesion is precisely what allowed whites to gain a foothold in the first place.

    In contrast, white Americans are impressively well armed. And while overall "white" cohesion is not there, in the last six years we saw the generation of a huge amount of "we're sick of your bullshit" cohesion--mostly white, but normies of all sorts--coalescing around Trump. Cohesion we hadn't seen before. (So much so that it scared the bejesus out of ... well the usual suspects, who saw nazis everywhere and "our democracy"--i.e. anti-democratic elite rule--under threat.)

    While not where it needs to be this sort of MAGA cohesion is much, much more solid than the rainbow people's "cohesion" which as Steve has pointed out is entirely a "coalition of the fringes" held together only by hating deplorable flyover country straight white gentiles. "A circular firing squad" is an apt metaphor.

    Let's be honest what they have going for them is pretty much entirely the megaphone and state power. If things had south the rainbows have no real cohesion at all. Blacks and Mexicans? Jews and Muslims? Muzzies and queers? Trannies and lesbos? Nice white ladies and black thugs?

    Things are indeed bleak. They have the megaphone and the crazy is through the roof. But let's not give up hope, this thing ain't over yet.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Things are indeed bleak. They have the megaphone and the crazy is through the roof. But let’s not give up hope, this thing ain’t over yet.

    You are right. Thank you. I regret sounding such a note of pessimism. It wasn’t an accurate representation of how I feel. I haven’t given up hope. I am not even close to doing so.

  22. OT: It’s always amazing what a small world it is.

    The judge who signed off on the search warrant was Bruce E. Reinhart, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Before assuming his office as a federal judge, Reinhart was an attorney who represented associates of Jeffrey Epstein implicated in his human trafficking conspiracy, namely; Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/judge-who-signed-mar-lago-search-warrant-exposed-associate-jeffrey-epstein

    • Thanks: Charon
    • LOL: bomag
  23. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Altai
    I notice that these people would never agree with the death penalty yet proscribe for every fault or crime that could be ascribed to White America the death penalty.

    Indeed they also seem to provincially make no distinction between whites at all. Finland say may have colonised rather than coloniser but they get the rope too.

    It's almost like ethnocentrism or racism isn't what they are against but rather when they say 'racism' they really mean 'white ethnocentrism or expression of collective interest'. This is what we really mean by that word because 'implicit whiteness' is something which is relentlessly attacked whenever it appears.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I notice that these people would never agree with the death penalty yet proscribe for every fault or crime that could be ascribed to White America the death penalty.

    Interesting observation.

    Indeed they also seem to provincially make no distinction between whites at all. Finland say may have colonised rather than coloniser but they get the rope too.

    You buy into their premises here. Squirming within their imposes framework. Bad move.

    It’s almost like ethnocentrism or racism isn’t what they are against but rather when they say ‘racism’ they really mean ‘white ethnocentrism or expression of collective interest’. This is what we really mean by that word because ‘implicit whiteness’ is something which is relentlessly attacked whenever it appears.

    There is strength in White community, identity, continuity. Look at all that Whites have accomplished. They are attempting to get Whites to turn away from the group, or to overlook it, so they can more easily take over.

  24. First of all, migration adds…

    Well, it adds more of Bangladesh, Pakistan, sub-Saharan Africa etc. into Europe.

    …distorts the fact that it is not a cultural or ethnic monolith but a shifting, exclusionary ideology…

    You have ethnic groups with a certain shared genetic and cultural inheritance perpetuating themselves over generations in particular territories, but these are ‘unnatural ideological constructions’. Whereas labelling things like that ‘whiteness’ and calling them ideological constructions in need of abolition isn’t ideology.

  25. Yawn…..So tired of this already.

  26. Has anybody done an analysis of the marriage direction of “international elite” mixed-breed coloreds (of course not, at least admitted publicly) in the generation subsequent to the founder event, that is, do the offspring of the colored matchup marry white or colored/dark, and how do subsequent generations marry. This is iSteve material.

    In prole America the tendency has been for the colored spawn to marry colored/dark. What is it with these internationals?

    • Replies: @CCG
    @Daniel H

    Coudenhove-Kalergi (half-Austrian, half-Japanese) married three times, each time to a woman from Europe, but produced zero biological offspring.

  27. The situation in South Africa should really give us pause. You would think that, when the situation gets serious enough, people would come to their senses to defend themselves or dissociate from the agressors. However, the SA situation shows us that there is a kind apathetic inertia that can lead people to simply wait for evil to come to them. The people who refuse to recognize the replacement going on aren’t going to wake up when anti-white apartheid comes to town.

    Speaking of anti-white apartheid, how long will it be before the “whiteness does not exist” line turns into “clearly, we can see who is white and who isn’t”.

  28. White people transforming dark?

    I can see plenty of adverts in Britain for Asian jewellers featuring a very beautiful Asian girl with very fair skin enhanced to look paler with lots of makeup

    Fair skin must be a sign of beauty to South Asians

  29. @Achmed E. Newman
    These tweets are complete gibberish to me. You've got enough other material, Steve. I don't see the point of bringing up any more of the stupidity of this book and its promoters. We all know they hate us.

    Replies: @Richard B, @Bardon Kaldlan

    We all know they hate us.

    Maybe he does too.

    After all, not a few sensible people have pointed out that he’s not on our side.

    And he isn’t. So…

  30. @Anonymous
    @HammerJack


    The end game is vultures picking over a carcass.
     
    As commented earlier, the endgame is ownership of the most valuable landmass on the planet, the wealthiest economy, and White women.

    Replies: @Richard B

    As commented earlier, the endgame is ownership of the most valuable landmass on the planet, the wealthiest economy, and White women.

    That very well may be.

    But it’s also true that the closer they get to their goal the less valuable the land, the worse the economy, and the more mannish and less appealing the women.

    Besides, they’re no good at large-scale, long-term social management.
    Too many impulsive, fast-brain “thinkers.”
    So even if they got it all they’d soon lose it.
    In fact, they already are.

  31. Anytime someone tells you the Great Replacement is a far right or White Supremacist conspiracy, just know people such as Namwali are the ones saying it. These people are not honest, and they know this. There is nothing to dispute and argue against, so this is what they retort to. The anti-White death cult dissolves into a madness even amongst themselves because they will be accessed by one another of not hating White people enough. This is what Robin Di Angelo thought of White Liberals. She accused them of being White Saviors, thus inserting a strange superiority. There is nothing good enough, perhaps they will resort to genocide to end whiteness. I wouldn’t be shocked if many of them think this. And yet they call us “hateful” and “bigoted”. The most helpful thing we can do as Pro-Whites is to alert conservatives and certain normie types what these people truly think and create strong White communities while improving ourselves physically, mentally and spiritually. The word racist should be replaced with pathological, genocidal anti-White hater to describe people like her.

    • Thanks: John Milton's Ghost
  32. Someone is big mad she can’t find any white guys to date!

  33. It seems almost de rigeur for immigrants from former colonies who come through our better universities to come out the other side as resentful pedants whose entire identity and interests are centered around their status in opposition to their host society.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Arclight

    This has been going on for a long time and in other countries as well. Typically you have someone with modest roots. They attend university where the are exposed to the rich whose lifestyle was heretofore unimagined by them (not to mention Leftist ideology). People who they know personally, not just figures on TV, who speak matter of factly about their ski holidays in Switzerland and summer homes on the Riviera or Nantucket, etc. The striver then realizes that even though he/she is (at least in his own estimation) much better/smarter/more hard working than Muffie, he is never going to attain her wealth. Indeed the best that may be waiting for him is some job as a cubicle drone where he is going to live not much better than his parents. In 3rd world countries, there may be no job at all. Same thing in the modern West if you have chosen some ill advised major that is not in demand. This leads to a lot of anger at the system. Leftism provides a framework and an outlet for this anger.

  34. @JimDandy
    To treat "whiteness" as a thing that can be "lost"—in Hamid's novel, "mourned"!—distorts the fact that it is not a cultural or ethnic monolith but a shifting, exclusionary ideology that, again, requires violence. This is just... history? Maybe art no longer cares about history...

    I don't know who Art is, but if that's "history" I understand why he no longer cares about it.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @bomag

    One of the most salient features of today’s political discourse is treating Whiteness as a thing.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @bomag

    And the biggest villains are those who are still guilty of "defending whiteness." A typical headline--this one from perhaps our leading medical journal:


    Lancet
    Despair doesn't kill, defending whiteness does
    Rhea W Boyd

  35. @notsaying
    This woman is an African who spent a few years of her childhood and her whole life in my country. Wikipedia says she became a US citizen in 2017.

    She has voluntarily voted with her feet and her choice of language. She has voted for all the benefits of living in a white country.

    Anything anti-whiteness after that is mostly blah, blah blah -- and more blah, blah blah. She is a self-delusional fool if she doesn't realize how ridiculous she is talking the way she does after making sure she has hers -- all the good things white life can give to non-white people.

    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should. Look at the oath people take when they become citizens. It focuses on action but not belief.

    A woman who thinks like this should not have been given US citizenship. We should rethink and revise our immigration requirements and Oath.

    https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america

    Replies: @Anon, @AnotherDad, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The CivNat is strong in this one.

    Yes, a loyalty oath to our values will work perfectly in allowing in only those special non-whites that want to be white. I mean, no one would lie just to gain access to, well, riches beyond anything they could achieve at home.

    Now, let’s talk about a bridge I have to sell you in Brooklyn.

  36. In any movement where status is gained by zeal for the cause, there is a sort of competition as to who can gain the most status by making the most radical statements. We see this going on in Russia now where formerly “moderate” figures like Medvedev go on TV every night and threaten to nuke London and Washington.

    If you don’t get on the bandwagon, you will be left behind as irrelevant to the cause. And you end up with a sort of verbal arms race or spiral as each status seeker tries to top the other by making even more radical statements in an effort to make his or her competitors look wish-washy and insufficiently zealous. You see the same thing on TV in the US as the left wing hosts become ever lefter and the right wing hosts become ever righter. Serpell falls within this paradigm.

    The problem with these kind of statements is that they have a way of turning out to be NOT empty threats. The less savvy followers tend to buy these statements at face value and not as mere posturing and sometimes they end up acting on the rhetoric, which has a way of gaining a life of its own. The status seeker is in no position to say, “I was just bullshitting and didn’t really mean what I was saying.”

  37. @Arclight
    It seems almost de rigeur for immigrants from former colonies who come through our better universities to come out the other side as resentful pedants whose entire identity and interests are centered around their status in opposition to their host society.

    Replies: @Jack D

    This has been going on for a long time and in other countries as well. Typically you have someone with modest roots. They attend university where the are exposed to the rich whose lifestyle was heretofore unimagined by them (not to mention Leftist ideology). People who they know personally, not just figures on TV, who speak matter of factly about their ski holidays in Switzerland and summer homes on the Riviera or Nantucket, etc. The striver then realizes that even though he/she is (at least in his own estimation) much better/smarter/more hard working than Muffie, he is never going to attain her wealth. Indeed the best that may be waiting for him is some job as a cubicle drone where he is going to live not much better than his parents. In 3rd world countries, there may be no job at all. Same thing in the modern West if you have chosen some ill advised major that is not in demand. This leads to a lot of anger at the system. Leftism provides a framework and an outlet for this anger.

  38. @AnotherDad
    @notsaying


    She has voluntarily voted with her feet and her choice of language. She has voted for all the benefits of living in a white country.

    Anything anti-whiteness after that is mostly blah, blah blah — and more blah, blah blah. She is a self-delusional fool if she doesn’t realize how ridiculous she is talking the way she does after making sure she has hers — all the good things white life can give to non-white people.

     

    Daddy and birth issues. Daddy went to live in Zambia and knocked up a Zambian girl. The idea that white people have built better nations or that some people like being white is an affront to her story.

    There is at least one exception I will make to that, though. Do we ask people before giving them a green card what they think of our country and its people? If not, we should. Look at the oath people take when they become citizens. It focuses on action but not belief.
     
    We do not need/want another single solitary immigrant. We're full up. The frontier was closed 130 years ago and our housing prices testify to the stupidity of continuing to jam people in. This has destroyed America's great patrimony for working Americans--cheap land and dear labor.

    That said, if you imagined how one might manage limited immigration for minimal damage. A loyalty oath forswearing any other national/tribal loyalty and swearing allegiance to the nation's people (for us Americans). Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation's people (for us from a founding stock American). Or at least married to and children with the same.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D

    Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American).

    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit. Naturalization was permitted from the earliest days. The Constitution imposed a birth test only on the Presidency and on no other office. From earliest days there were foreign born Senators such as Gallatin from Switzerland, Schurz from Germany. There was a whole string of Senators who were born in the Caribbean – Harper from Antigua, Yulee from St. Thomas, Mallory from Trinidad, Benjamin from St. Croix (not to mention Hamilton). And some of these guys were very distinctly not “founding stock American” (cough, Jews).

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Jack D


    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit. Naturalization was permitted from the earliest days.
     
    Yeah, to people from the same places from which the citizens of the country originated from, as those were the only people emigrating here. If Zambians, Afghanis, and Guatemalans had been coming here in 1795, I think the Founding Fathers would have shut off the spigot.

    There is nothing wrong with being a nativist.

    But thanks for joining in the chorus of people who presume to lecture us on what "America means".
    , @SFG
    @Jack D

    Yea, but in any other natiom throughout history you were expected to assimilate to the country you were coming into. This whole ‘keep your culture so you identify as nonwhite’ (and vote Democrat) is the real poison.

    Kill affirmative action, and do your best to let 25 percent Indian Jaime think he’s white. As anyone familiar with Latin America can tell you, he wants to be anyway. And close the borders.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Well, that was then. The culture being what it is, it would be prudent to require that one have been a palpable resident of the country (and lawfully present therein for 'a that) for the majority of one's natural life 'ere one can be a candidate for naturalization. Resident aliens who serve in the military might be deemed the equivalent of palpable residents without regard to where they are posted. Also, it ought be required that one renounce allegiance to all other countries and that this be put in writing, attested, and copies mailed to the consulate of any country on whose citizenship you might have a claim. In addition, people who perform certain acts should be deemed to have constructively renounced their citizenship, but in front of a magistrate, and deported. It would also be prudent to deem persons born in the United States or its abiding possessions to inherit on their birth the status of their mother, unless they be of legitimate birth and their father has a higher status, in which case they inherit the status of their father. The one qualification would be that the children of permanent residents inherit the status of 'denizen' and the children of 'denizens' inherit citizenship. The rights and obligations of permanent residents and denizens would be very similar with just one difference: a denizen could not be stripped of his right of domicile. It would abide unless he explicitly renounced it.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit.
     
    Uh-oh. Looks like I pressed the Jack's "Jew"--"what's good for the Jews"--button without even saying "Jew" or even "minoritarian".

    First off, of course, I didn't imply this was the standard. I suggested that, while we did not need any more immigrants ...

    That said, if you imagined how one might manage limited immigration for minimal damage. A loyalty oath forswearing any other national/tribal loyalty and swearing allegiance to the nation’s people (for us Americans). Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American). Or at least married to and children with the same.
     
    The idea is people--people who are going to vote and determine the policies of the nation--have to sever old ties and bind themselves to the nation they are claiming to be part of. Pretty clear and reasonable program. Only to people who avid resist ever just being part of the nation they live in--e.g. Jews--is this "problematic". To normal people it is a--maybe spergy--"how do you make it work" policy.

    ~

    And no the Founding Fathers would not have "thrown up" on my "nativist bullshit". Jack, you have attempted--many times--to repurpose the Founding Fathers into minoritarian right-thinkers. That's simply not who they were.

    The Founding Fathers were aware of issues of loyalty, the perils of diversity and all the rest. My proposal would have generated discussion, some positive, some negative.

    But the main thing is the Founding Fathers were operating in a specific time, and simply did not see the threat, what was to come.

    Specifically with regard to immigrants the people they imagined coming were going to be mostly from the British--and a small smattering of Western Euro--nations and colonies that the existing inhabitants came from. So pretty trivial integration was expected.

    As I have noted, these immediate "immigrants" were not even like the "Great Wave" immigrants, much less the immigrants of today. They were basically settlers following in the wake--and often furthering--the conquest of America by their own people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit.
     
    A final one--and general point:

    How exactly is my "nativist bullshit"--national tribalism--less worthy than your Jewish bullshit--Jewish tribalism?

    Tribalism and tribalism. The salient difference is that my "nativist" tribalism--people living with members of their same community according to their common norms--is the normal healthy state of 95%+ of humanity, while Jewish tribalism--this insistence on middle manning inside of other people's commnities/nations but not being part of them, loyal to them--is a tiny parasitic morph, that does not stand on its own.

    Furthermore, my normal nationalist tribalism respects the rights of all peoples to associate--form community, include or not--freely. (Chinese don't want me around ... that's fine. Does not bug me.) While your Jewish tribalism asserts the right of one people--Jews--to intrude upon other people's communities.

    ~~~

    Jack, you are obviously a smart guy. But you seem wholly disinclined to ever question your priors, or at least your Jewish priors. Nope, Jews are just entitled to middle man here there and everywhere.

    And to the extent Jews continually seem to have "issues" with other people ... oh that must be that old "virus of anti-Semitism" again. Couldn't possibly be that that sort of interaction--middle manning upon, but not being part of the host community--is an annoying one for the host population and generally leads to bad feelings.

    The nature of human beings, their rights, the nature of community, the normal behavior of human communities ... let's not think about any of that.

  39. “Po faced”? Pretty Brit to my ears.Though I guess her paternal aide is gatjering from hwr grandmother’s obit.

  40. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad


    Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American).
     
    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit. Naturalization was permitted from the earliest days. The Constitution imposed a birth test only on the Presidency and on no other office. From earliest days there were foreign born Senators such as Gallatin from Switzerland, Schurz from Germany. There was a whole string of Senators who were born in the Caribbean - Harper from Antigua, Yulee from St. Thomas, Mallory from Trinidad, Benjamin from St. Croix (not to mention Hamilton). And some of these guys were very distinctly not "founding stock American" (cough, Jews).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @SFG, @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit. Naturalization was permitted from the earliest days.

    Yeah, to people from the same places from which the citizens of the country originated from, as those were the only people emigrating here. If Zambians, Afghanis, and Guatemalans had been coming here in 1795, I think the Founding Fathers would have shut off the spigot.

    There is nothing wrong with being a nativist.

    But thanks for joining in the chorus of people who presume to lecture us on what “America means”.

  41. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad


    Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American).
     
    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit. Naturalization was permitted from the earliest days. The Constitution imposed a birth test only on the Presidency and on no other office. From earliest days there were foreign born Senators such as Gallatin from Switzerland, Schurz from Germany. There was a whole string of Senators who were born in the Caribbean - Harper from Antigua, Yulee from St. Thomas, Mallory from Trinidad, Benjamin from St. Croix (not to mention Hamilton). And some of these guys were very distinctly not "founding stock American" (cough, Jews).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @SFG, @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

    Yea, but in any other natiom throughout history you were expected to assimilate to the country you were coming into. This whole ‘keep your culture so you identify as nonwhite’ (and vote Democrat) is the real poison.

    Kill affirmative action, and do your best to let 25 percent Indian Jaime think he’s white. As anyone familiar with Latin America can tell you, he wants to be anyway. And close the borders.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @SFG

    That's a totally different thing than telling naturalized citizens that they can't vote. Theoretically, naturalized citizens are supposed to swear allegiance to the USA. That was the deal - you forswear all foreign allegiance and you can be American instead. Both sides have to hold up their end of the bargain. Not some impossible test of racial purity.

    You are absolutely right about Latin America - all over Chile and Argentina there are guys with very clear partial Native American ancestry but they will swear up and down that they are not Indians. They go to church and wear shoes and speak Spanish, so how could they be Indians? It's completely the opposite of the US where people with 1% (or 0%) native ancestry pretend to be Indians - there you deny it as much as possible.

  42. To treat “whiteness” as a thing that can be “lost”—in Hamid’s novel, “mourned”!—distorts the fact that it is not a cultural or ethnic monolith but a shifting, exclusionary ideology that, again, requires violence.

    ‘Whiteness’ is responsible for so much evil, yet doesn’t really exist. It’s like a ghost that can pass thru walls, yet become solid when needed to perform mischief.

  43. Anonymous[192] • Disclaimer says:

    This person sounds like a medieval soothsayer: “shifting, exclusionary ideology”—huh?

    If you asked her to explain her life’s work fighting “exclusion” she’d just babble piously in the Ibram Henry Rogers style about her self-righteous unified field theory for taking your equity. Collegiate-academical jive talk has proven inferior to the real thing in both amusement and information value.

  44. Note, she was able to publish her work because philanthropic patrons are propping up The Atlantic, once a satisfactory publication. IIRC, this is one of Laurene Jobs’ contributions to the commweal.

    • Agree: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Art Deco

    The curse of Big Tech widows and divorcées. There's nothing deadlier than a "philanthropist".

  45. @SFG
    @Jack D

    Yea, but in any other natiom throughout history you were expected to assimilate to the country you were coming into. This whole ‘keep your culture so you identify as nonwhite’ (and vote Democrat) is the real poison.

    Kill affirmative action, and do your best to let 25 percent Indian Jaime think he’s white. As anyone familiar with Latin America can tell you, he wants to be anyway. And close the borders.

    Replies: @Jack D

    That’s a totally different thing than telling naturalized citizens that they can’t vote. Theoretically, naturalized citizens are supposed to swear allegiance to the USA. That was the deal – you forswear all foreign allegiance and you can be American instead. Both sides have to hold up their end of the bargain. Not some impossible test of racial purity.

    You are absolutely right about Latin America – all over Chile and Argentina there are guys with very clear partial Native American ancestry but they will swear up and down that they are not Indians. They go to church and wear shoes and speak Spanish, so how could they be Indians? It’s completely the opposite of the US where people with 1% (or 0%) native ancestry pretend to be Indians – there you deny it as much as possible.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  46. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad


    Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American).
     
    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit. Naturalization was permitted from the earliest days. The Constitution imposed a birth test only on the Presidency and on no other office. From earliest days there were foreign born Senators such as Gallatin from Switzerland, Schurz from Germany. There was a whole string of Senators who were born in the Caribbean - Harper from Antigua, Yulee from St. Thomas, Mallory from Trinidad, Benjamin from St. Croix (not to mention Hamilton). And some of these guys were very distinctly not "founding stock American" (cough, Jews).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @SFG, @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

    Well, that was then. The culture being what it is, it would be prudent to require that one have been a palpable resident of the country (and lawfully present therein for ‘a that) for the majority of one’s natural life ‘ere one can be a candidate for naturalization. Resident aliens who serve in the military might be deemed the equivalent of palpable residents without regard to where they are posted. Also, it ought be required that one renounce allegiance to all other countries and that this be put in writing, attested, and copies mailed to the consulate of any country on whose citizenship you might have a claim. In addition, people who perform certain acts should be deemed to have constructively renounced their citizenship, but in front of a magistrate, and deported. It would also be prudent to deem persons born in the United States or its abiding possessions to inherit on their birth the status of their mother, unless they be of legitimate birth and their father has a higher status, in which case they inherit the status of their father. The one qualification would be that the children of permanent residents inherit the status of ‘denizen’ and the children of ‘denizens’ inherit citizenship. The rights and obligations of permanent residents and denizens would be very similar with just one difference: a denizen could not be stripped of his right of domicile. It would abide unless he explicitly renounced it.

  47. @Pixo
    “First of all, migration adds; it does not "replace"”

    That’s exactly what I keep telling my Arab friends in the West Bank! I think some of those grumps may need some diversity training to learn to better accept my BIPOC farm family.

    https://www.jta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/tova1.jpg

    Replies: @Corvinus

    The “founding stock” of American, aka Anglo-Saxons, felt the same way, about being “replaced” by…hordes of Eastern and Southern Europeans, along with Japanese, Chinese, and Indian (dot, not feather). So, what changed? Magic dirt?

    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigrants-cartoon-nthe-last-yankee-a-lone-yankee-standing-tall-95499585.html

  48. @Art Deco
    Note, she was able to publish her work because philanthropic patrons are propping up The Atlantic, once a satisfactory publication. IIRC, this is one of Laurene Jobs' contributions to the commweal.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    The curse of Big Tech widows and divorcées. There’s nothing deadlier than a “philanthropist”.

  49. First of all, migration adds; it does not “replace”; this is not a zero sum game.

    To no one’s surprise, she doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of percentages. Or cause and effect.

    Times like this I wish my fourth Twitter account hadn’t been permanently suspended along with the rest (tip: don’t go hard after ex-CIA and ex-MIC psychopaths), because it would be fun, if pointless, to throw some shade her way.

  50. • Replies: @duncsbaby
    @Jim Don Bob

    I guess she got it half-white.

  51. Liberals are really losing it.

    They dominate the mainstream and yet are determined to denigrate White people and eventually eliminate them as an identity.

    Speaks volumes really.

    If you really believed in racial equality then why would you be so obsessed with White people? Especially given that Whites will soon be a minority?

    Liberals don’t realize how much time they spend trying to compensate and protect their lies. If they believed in equality then they wouldn’t waste their time writing about White people. They would just sit back and wait for Zimbabwe to develop their own aero-space industry and make a mockery of “ignorant” doofus Whites. For some reason such Whites like Steve still seem to think evolution applies to human groups as it does individuals. A subscription to the Atlantic should straighten him out. He is clearly an advanced level racialmalist and can’t seem to be reasoned through standard NYTimes Emitt Till articles.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @John Johnson


    Liberals are really losing it...

    Liberals don’t realize how much time they spend trying to compensate and protect their lies.
     
    We are the liberals. God only knows what they are.
  52. @bomag
    @JimDandy

    One of the most salient features of today's political discourse is treating Whiteness as a thing.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    And the biggest villains are those who are still guilty of “defending whiteness.” A typical headline–this one from perhaps our leading medical journal:

    Lancet
    Despair doesn’t kill, defending whiteness does
    Rhea W Boyd

  53. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad


    Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American).
     
    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit. Naturalization was permitted from the earliest days. The Constitution imposed a birth test only on the Presidency and on no other office. From earliest days there were foreign born Senators such as Gallatin from Switzerland, Schurz from Germany. There was a whole string of Senators who were born in the Caribbean - Harper from Antigua, Yulee from St. Thomas, Mallory from Trinidad, Benjamin from St. Croix (not to mention Hamilton). And some of these guys were very distinctly not "founding stock American" (cough, Jews).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @SFG, @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit.

    Uh-oh. Looks like I pressed the Jack’s “Jew”–“what’s good for the Jews”–button without even saying “Jew” or even “minoritarian”.

    First off, of course, I didn’t imply this was the standard. I suggested that, while we did not need any more immigrants …

    That said, if you imagined how one might manage limited immigration for minimal damage. A loyalty oath forswearing any other national/tribal loyalty and swearing allegiance to the nation’s people (for us Americans). Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American). Or at least married to and children with the same.

    The idea is people–people who are going to vote and determine the policies of the nation–have to sever old ties and bind themselves to the nation they are claiming to be part of. Pretty clear and reasonable program. Only to people who avid resist ever just being part of the nation they live in–e.g. Jews–is this “problematic”. To normal people it is a–maybe spergy–“how do you make it work” policy.

    ~

    And no the Founding Fathers would not have “thrown up” on my “nativist bullshit”. Jack, you have attempted–many times–to repurpose the Founding Fathers into minoritarian right-thinkers. That’s simply not who they were.

    The Founding Fathers were aware of issues of loyalty, the perils of diversity and all the rest. My proposal would have generated discussion, some positive, some negative.

    But the main thing is the Founding Fathers were operating in a specific time, and simply did not see the threat, what was to come.

    Specifically with regard to immigrants the people they imagined coming were going to be mostly from the British–and a small smattering of Western Euro–nations and colonies that the existing inhabitants came from. So pretty trivial integration was expected.

    As I have noted, these immediate “immigrants” were not even like the “Great Wave” immigrants, much less the immigrants of today. They were basically settlers following in the wake–and often furthering–the conquest of America by their own people.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad

    A further note:

    The Founding Father's did not get everything right.

    I'm super impressed by the Founding. Most people of a republican and rational bent are. But they were nonetheless men of the time. They--most obviously--did not have any great solution for slavery, which was imbedded sufficiently economically in the South. They generally foresaw what wise men of that time could foresee, but missed other things.

    For instance, they missed an explicit statement of Freedom of Association. Something like "Every citizen is naturally free in his personal and business affairs to associate or not associate with others as he chooses."

    This is not because The Founders would have approved of the late 20th century minoritarian attack upon people's basic rights. I can say with complete confidence that The Founders would be horrified by what has happened.

    They had witnessed or were aware of religious wars/diktat, abuse of freedom of speech and press, trials without juries, seizure of property, taxation abuse, quartering troops abuse and the need for citizens to have arms and resist abuse. So all that is in the Constitution.

    But they simply did not conceive of the massive expansion of state power and a expanasive, bureaucratized super-state capable and motivated to peer into every nook and cranny of people's lives and dictating "proper" compliant behavior. Since the King had never done it--had no interest in it--the Founders simply did not conceive of this minoritarian tyranny and did not explicitly protect us from it.

    Does not mean they would not be horrified. Much less that they would not protect against it if they could have seen into the future and realized what was to come. So to with immigration.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Rob McX

    , @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    You are reinventing the wheel. We already have this. This is the beginning of the citizenship oath:


    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
    allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom
    or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

    …that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of
    America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...

     

    Generally speaking, you are also required to be able to speak English.


    All we need to do is enforce the laws we have now and take them seriously. The people who have captured the Permanent Government only enforce the laws that they like.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  54. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit.
     
    Uh-oh. Looks like I pressed the Jack's "Jew"--"what's good for the Jews"--button without even saying "Jew" or even "minoritarian".

    First off, of course, I didn't imply this was the standard. I suggested that, while we did not need any more immigrants ...

    That said, if you imagined how one might manage limited immigration for minimal damage. A loyalty oath forswearing any other national/tribal loyalty and swearing allegiance to the nation’s people (for us Americans). Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American). Or at least married to and children with the same.
     
    The idea is people--people who are going to vote and determine the policies of the nation--have to sever old ties and bind themselves to the nation they are claiming to be part of. Pretty clear and reasonable program. Only to people who avid resist ever just being part of the nation they live in--e.g. Jews--is this "problematic". To normal people it is a--maybe spergy--"how do you make it work" policy.

    ~

    And no the Founding Fathers would not have "thrown up" on my "nativist bullshit". Jack, you have attempted--many times--to repurpose the Founding Fathers into minoritarian right-thinkers. That's simply not who they were.

    The Founding Fathers were aware of issues of loyalty, the perils of diversity and all the rest. My proposal would have generated discussion, some positive, some negative.

    But the main thing is the Founding Fathers were operating in a specific time, and simply did not see the threat, what was to come.

    Specifically with regard to immigrants the people they imagined coming were going to be mostly from the British--and a small smattering of Western Euro--nations and colonies that the existing inhabitants came from. So pretty trivial integration was expected.

    As I have noted, these immediate "immigrants" were not even like the "Great Wave" immigrants, much less the immigrants of today. They were basically settlers following in the wake--and often furthering--the conquest of America by their own people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D

    A further note:

    The Founding Father’s did not get everything right.

    I’m super impressed by the Founding. Most people of a republican and rational bent are. But they were nonetheless men of the time. They–most obviously–did not have any great solution for slavery, which was imbedded sufficiently economically in the South. They generally foresaw what wise men of that time could foresee, but missed other things.

    For instance, they missed an explicit statement of Freedom of Association. Something like “Every citizen is naturally free in his personal and business affairs to associate or not associate with others as he chooses.”

    This is not because The Founders would have approved of the late 20th century minoritarian attack upon people’s basic rights. I can say with complete confidence that The Founders would be horrified by what has happened.

    They had witnessed or were aware of religious wars/diktat, abuse of freedom of speech and press, trials without juries, seizure of property, taxation abuse, quartering troops abuse and the need for citizens to have arms and resist abuse. So all that is in the Constitution.

    But they simply did not conceive of the massive expansion of state power and a expanasive, bureaucratized super-state capable and motivated to peer into every nook and cranny of people’s lives and dictating “proper” compliant behavior. Since the King had never done it–had no interest in it–the Founders simply did not conceive of this minoritarian tyranny and did not explicitly protect us from it.

    Does not mean they would not be horrified. Much less that they would not protect against it if they could have seen into the future and realized what was to come. So to with immigration.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @AnotherDad


    But they simply did not conceive of the massive expansion of state power and a expanasive, bureaucratized super-state capable and motivated to peer into every nook and cranny of people’s lives and dictating “proper” compliant behavior.
     
    I bet to differ, slightly. The Founder Fathers didn't know exactly what type of massive expansion could happen, not having a time machine, but they knew all kinds of stuff that they couldn't imagine yet would be bound to happen without restraints. Amendment X was for all the wild cards. It's been trashed long ago, and by a lot of otherwise Conservative, well-meaning people at that.
    , @Rob McX
    @AnotherDad


    They generally foresaw what wise men of that time could foresee, but missed other things.
     
    They missed a lot of things. For instance, they didn't foresee that the country's rulers would end up not just adding new and troublesome minorities to the population, but replacing white Americans entirely.

    And who knows how blind today's political thinkers may be to possible future dangers? I don't think anyone twenty years ago could have predicted the tranny craze and the poisoning and mutilation of children with the approval of the state.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @anonymous

  55. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad


    Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American).
     
    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit. Naturalization was permitted from the earliest days. The Constitution imposed a birth test only on the Presidency and on no other office. From earliest days there were foreign born Senators such as Gallatin from Switzerland, Schurz from Germany. There was a whole string of Senators who were born in the Caribbean - Harper from Antigua, Yulee from St. Thomas, Mallory from Trinidad, Benjamin from St. Croix (not to mention Hamilton). And some of these guys were very distinctly not "founding stock American" (cough, Jews).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @SFG, @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit.

    A final one–and general point:

    How exactly is my “nativist bullshit”–national tribalism–less worthy than your Jewish bullshit–Jewish tribalism?

    Tribalism and tribalism. The salient difference is that my “nativist” tribalism–people living with members of their same community according to their common norms–is the normal healthy state of 95%+ of humanity, while Jewish tribalism–this insistence on middle manning inside of other people’s commnities/nations but not being part of them, loyal to them–is a tiny parasitic morph, that does not stand on its own.

    Furthermore, my normal nationalist tribalism respects the rights of all peoples to associate–form community, include or not–freely. (Chinese don’t want me around … that’s fine. Does not bug me.) While your Jewish tribalism asserts the right of one people–Jews–to intrude upon other people’s communities.

    ~~~

    Jack, you are obviously a smart guy. But you seem wholly disinclined to ever question your priors, or at least your Jewish priors. Nope, Jews are just entitled to middle man here there and everywhere.

    And to the extent Jews continually seem to have “issues” with other people … oh that must be that old “virus of anti-Semitism” again. Couldn’t possibly be that that sort of interaction–middle manning upon, but not being part of the host community–is an annoying one for the host population and generally leads to bad feelings.

    The nature of human beings, their rights, the nature of community, the normal behavior of human communities … let’s not think about any of that.

  56. In an ideal world, there’d be a nation for everyone, and upon becoming an adult, you’d match to the most suitable nation and commit to its ideals in order to become a citizen.

    The fact is that any generation will produce children that do not fit in with their host nation, and in the modern world this means that they agitate for change, which just causes conflict.

    In that ideal world, the nations would broadly be divided along racial lines, because the races are different. But not entirely, because there is overlap. I bet far fewer people would care about race, because the minorities in the nations would actually be well-matched to the majority, unlike modern Western nations.

    I realize that there are real-world barriers to the above (barriers to moving, economic differences, etc). But it’s an interesting model, I think.

  57. @John Johnson
    Liberals are really losing it.

    They dominate the mainstream and yet are determined to denigrate White people and eventually eliminate them as an identity.

    Speaks volumes really.

    If you really believed in racial equality then why would you be so obsessed with White people? Especially given that Whites will soon be a minority?

    Liberals don't realize how much time they spend trying to compensate and protect their lies. If they believed in equality then they wouldn't waste their time writing about White people. They would just sit back and wait for Zimbabwe to develop their own aero-space industry and make a mockery of "ignorant" doofus Whites. For some reason such Whites like Steve still seem to think evolution applies to human groups as it does individuals. A subscription to the Atlantic should straighten him out. He is clearly an advanced level racialmalist and can't seem to be reasoned through standard NYTimes Emitt Till articles.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Liberals are really losing it…

    Liberals don’t realize how much time they spend trying to compensate and protect their lies.

    We are the liberals. God only knows what they are.

  58. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Really? You have got to be kidding. This was never the standard in America. The Founding Fathers would have thrown up on your nativist bullshit.
     
    Uh-oh. Looks like I pressed the Jack's "Jew"--"what's good for the Jews"--button without even saying "Jew" or even "minoritarian".

    First off, of course, I didn't imply this was the standard. I suggested that, while we did not need any more immigrants ...

    That said, if you imagined how one might manage limited immigration for minimal damage. A loyalty oath forswearing any other national/tribal loyalty and swearing allegiance to the nation’s people (for us Americans). Immigrants and their descendants can not vote until they are descended from one of the nation’s people (for us from a founding stock American). Or at least married to and children with the same.
     
    The idea is people--people who are going to vote and determine the policies of the nation--have to sever old ties and bind themselves to the nation they are claiming to be part of. Pretty clear and reasonable program. Only to people who avid resist ever just being part of the nation they live in--e.g. Jews--is this "problematic". To normal people it is a--maybe spergy--"how do you make it work" policy.

    ~

    And no the Founding Fathers would not have "thrown up" on my "nativist bullshit". Jack, you have attempted--many times--to repurpose the Founding Fathers into minoritarian right-thinkers. That's simply not who they were.

    The Founding Fathers were aware of issues of loyalty, the perils of diversity and all the rest. My proposal would have generated discussion, some positive, some negative.

    But the main thing is the Founding Fathers were operating in a specific time, and simply did not see the threat, what was to come.

    Specifically with regard to immigrants the people they imagined coming were going to be mostly from the British--and a small smattering of Western Euro--nations and colonies that the existing inhabitants came from. So pretty trivial integration was expected.

    As I have noted, these immediate "immigrants" were not even like the "Great Wave" immigrants, much less the immigrants of today. They were basically settlers following in the wake--and often furthering--the conquest of America by their own people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D

    You are reinventing the wheel. We already have this. This is the beginning of the citizenship oath:

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
    allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom
    or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

    …that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of
    America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; …

    Generally speaking, you are also required to be able to speak English.

    All we need to do is enforce the laws we have now and take them seriously. The people who have captured the Permanent Government only enforce the laws that they like.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
    allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty
     
    How do you explain dual US-Israeli citizenship then?

    Replies: @Jack D

  59. @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad

    A further note:

    The Founding Father's did not get everything right.

    I'm super impressed by the Founding. Most people of a republican and rational bent are. But they were nonetheless men of the time. They--most obviously--did not have any great solution for slavery, which was imbedded sufficiently economically in the South. They generally foresaw what wise men of that time could foresee, but missed other things.

    For instance, they missed an explicit statement of Freedom of Association. Something like "Every citizen is naturally free in his personal and business affairs to associate or not associate with others as he chooses."

    This is not because The Founders would have approved of the late 20th century minoritarian attack upon people's basic rights. I can say with complete confidence that The Founders would be horrified by what has happened.

    They had witnessed or were aware of religious wars/diktat, abuse of freedom of speech and press, trials without juries, seizure of property, taxation abuse, quartering troops abuse and the need for citizens to have arms and resist abuse. So all that is in the Constitution.

    But they simply did not conceive of the massive expansion of state power and a expanasive, bureaucratized super-state capable and motivated to peer into every nook and cranny of people's lives and dictating "proper" compliant behavior. Since the King had never done it--had no interest in it--the Founders simply did not conceive of this minoritarian tyranny and did not explicitly protect us from it.

    Does not mean they would not be horrified. Much less that they would not protect against it if they could have seen into the future and realized what was to come. So to with immigration.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Rob McX

    But they simply did not conceive of the massive expansion of state power and a expanasive, bureaucratized super-state capable and motivated to peer into every nook and cranny of people’s lives and dictating “proper” compliant behavior.

    I bet to differ, slightly. The Founder Fathers didn’t know exactly what type of massive expansion could happen, not having a time machine, but they knew all kinds of stuff that they couldn’t imagine yet would be bound to happen without restraints. Amendment X was for all the wild cards. It’s been trashed long ago, and by a lot of otherwise Conservative, well-meaning people at that.

  60. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    You are reinventing the wheel. We already have this. This is the beginning of the citizenship oath:


    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
    allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom
    or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

    …that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of
    America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...

     

    Generally speaking, you are also required to be able to speak English.


    All we need to do is enforce the laws we have now and take them seriously. The people who have captured the Permanent Government only enforce the laws that they like.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
    allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty

    How do you explain dual US-Israeli citizenship then?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonymous


    How do you explain dual US-Israeli citizenship then?
     
    Is there a reason you mention Israel in particular here, as distinct from say dual US- Irish citizenship or dual US-Italian citizenship?

    The best summary of the U.S. government’s position on dual citizenship lies in the Supreme Court's opinion in Kawakita v. United States, which explains that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.”

    Another way of saying this is that "citizenship" is not the same thing as "allegiance". It says that you are renouncing allegiance, not citizenship.

    Dual citizenship is a double edged sword - Kawakita was an American citizen of Japanese extraction who ended up in Japan during WWII and brutally abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work in the factory where he was employed. After the war, he was tried for treason against the US. Since he never renounced his American citizenship, the Court said that he could be guilty of treason against the United States.
  61. @Daniel H
    Has anybody done an analysis of the marriage direction of "international elite" mixed-breed coloreds (of course not, at least admitted publicly) in the generation subsequent to the founder event, that is, do the offspring of the colored matchup marry white or colored/dark, and how do subsequent generations marry. This is iSteve material.

    In prole America the tendency has been for the colored spawn to marry colored/dark. What is it with these internationals?

    Replies: @CCG

    Coudenhove-Kalergi (half-Austrian, half-Japanese) married three times, each time to a woman from Europe, but produced zero biological offspring.

  62. @Jim Don Bob
    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58c35d883a0411cbb3a7828b/1649900872445-K4NKV4IY85D6S2VYFYKO/Namwali_Serpell_3152373.jpeg

    Replies: @duncsbaby

    I guess she got it half-white.

  63. @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
    allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty
     
    How do you explain dual US-Israeli citizenship then?

    Replies: @Jack D

    How do you explain dual US-Israeli citizenship then?

    Is there a reason you mention Israel in particular here, as distinct from say dual US- Irish citizenship or dual US-Italian citizenship?

    The best summary of the U.S. government’s position on dual citizenship lies in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kawakita v. United States, which explains that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.”

    Another way of saying this is that “citizenship” is not the same thing as “allegiance”. It says that you are renouncing allegiance, not citizenship.

    Dual citizenship is a double edged sword – Kawakita was an American citizen of Japanese extraction who ended up in Japan during WWII and brutally abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work in the factory where he was employed. After the war, he was tried for treason against the US. Since he never renounced his American citizenship, the Court said that he could be guilty of treason against the United States.

  64. @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad

    A further note:

    The Founding Father's did not get everything right.

    I'm super impressed by the Founding. Most people of a republican and rational bent are. But they were nonetheless men of the time. They--most obviously--did not have any great solution for slavery, which was imbedded sufficiently economically in the South. They generally foresaw what wise men of that time could foresee, but missed other things.

    For instance, they missed an explicit statement of Freedom of Association. Something like "Every citizen is naturally free in his personal and business affairs to associate or not associate with others as he chooses."

    This is not because The Founders would have approved of the late 20th century minoritarian attack upon people's basic rights. I can say with complete confidence that The Founders would be horrified by what has happened.

    They had witnessed or were aware of religious wars/diktat, abuse of freedom of speech and press, trials without juries, seizure of property, taxation abuse, quartering troops abuse and the need for citizens to have arms and resist abuse. So all that is in the Constitution.

    But they simply did not conceive of the massive expansion of state power and a expanasive, bureaucratized super-state capable and motivated to peer into every nook and cranny of people's lives and dictating "proper" compliant behavior. Since the King had never done it--had no interest in it--the Founders simply did not conceive of this minoritarian tyranny and did not explicitly protect us from it.

    Does not mean they would not be horrified. Much less that they would not protect against it if they could have seen into the future and realized what was to come. So to with immigration.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Rob McX

    They generally foresaw what wise men of that time could foresee, but missed other things.

    They missed a lot of things. For instance, they didn’t foresee that the country’s rulers would end up not just adding new and troublesome minorities to the population, but replacing white Americans entirely.

    And who knows how blind today’s political thinkers may be to possible future dangers? I don’t think anyone twenty years ago could have predicted the tranny craze and the poisoning and mutilation of children with the approval of the state.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Rob McX

    My only conclusion is that founders drafting a constitution should first ask themselves: "What's the stupidest, craziest thing people could possibly do in the future? What if they take leave of their senses entirely, how would they act?" Then they should draft laws that ensure they can't do so.

    , @anonymous
    @Rob McX


    And who knows how blind today’s political thinkers may be to possible future dangers? I don’t think anyone twenty years ago could have predicted the tranny craze and the poisoning and mutilation of children with the approval of the state.
     
    How long has circumcision been legal?

    Replies: @Rob McX

  65. @Rob McX
    @AnotherDad


    They generally foresaw what wise men of that time could foresee, but missed other things.
     
    They missed a lot of things. For instance, they didn't foresee that the country's rulers would end up not just adding new and troublesome minorities to the population, but replacing white Americans entirely.

    And who knows how blind today's political thinkers may be to possible future dangers? I don't think anyone twenty years ago could have predicted the tranny craze and the poisoning and mutilation of children with the approval of the state.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @anonymous

    My only conclusion is that founders drafting a constitution should first ask themselves: “What’s the stupidest, craziest thing people could possibly do in the future? What if they take leave of their senses entirely, how would they act?” Then they should draft laws that ensure they can’t do so.

  66. A jewish woman gave this anti-white book a glowing review in the zionist political magazine The Spectator.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-post-racial-world-the-last-white-man-by-mohsin-hamid-reviewed

    Every single time.

  67. @Rob McX
    @AnotherDad


    They generally foresaw what wise men of that time could foresee, but missed other things.
     
    They missed a lot of things. For instance, they didn't foresee that the country's rulers would end up not just adding new and troublesome minorities to the population, but replacing white Americans entirely.

    And who knows how blind today's political thinkers may be to possible future dangers? I don't think anyone twenty years ago could have predicted the tranny craze and the poisoning and mutilation of children with the approval of the state.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @anonymous

    And who knows how blind today’s political thinkers may be to possible future dangers? I don’t think anyone twenty years ago could have predicted the tranny craze and the poisoning and mutilation of children with the approval of the state.

    How long has circumcision been legal?

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @anonymous

    Too long, probably, but it's a far cry from pretending you can flip from M to F or vice versa with the use of chemicals or a scalpel.

  68. @anonymous
    @Rob McX


    And who knows how blind today’s political thinkers may be to possible future dangers? I don’t think anyone twenty years ago could have predicted the tranny craze and the poisoning and mutilation of children with the approval of the state.
     
    How long has circumcision been legal?

    Replies: @Rob McX

    Too long, probably, but it’s a far cry from pretending you can flip from M to F or vice versa with the use of chemicals or a scalpel.

  69. @Achmed E. Newman
    These tweets are complete gibberish to me. You've got enough other material, Steve. I don't see the point of bringing up any more of the stupidity of this book and its promoters. We all know they hate us.

    Replies: @Richard B, @Bardon Kaldlan

    Yes,gibberish it is. The book both “literalizes and empathizes”something. Stupid drivel.
    And does this homely mullatta have the right to say ” po-face”???

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS