The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Tucker Denounces Great Replacement
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

I like how Joe Biden is always saying stuff that Trump would have been keelhauled for saying — like Jews control the media — but then catching himself at the last moment and adding: … but that’s a GOOD thing!

 
Hide 217 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Wow! Now they will get him for sure.

    • Replies: @Richard B
    @Currahee


    Wow! Now they will get him for sure.
     
    Nah! They need him around. They can't kill their whipping boy.

    And even if they did (and maybe they will) they'd still have to replace him.

    But seriously, people have been predicting TC's end like clockwork, but, like clockwork, he keeps coming back. And I think about that.

    Who knows? Maybe they cosign his paychecks.

  2. It’s a myth, except when they’re bragging about it.

    Seriously, the way the left simultaneously denies what they’re doing with immigration while then turning around and high-fiving each other over it — sometimes within the very same article! — has to be the most insulting, infuriating thing in contemporary political discourse.

    • LOL: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Mr. Blank


    Seriously, the way the left simultaneously denies what they’re doing with immigration while then turning around and high-fiving each other over it — sometimes within the very same article! — has to be the most insulting, infuriating thing in contemporary political discourse.
     
    And you seem incapable of mounting any kind of rhetorical defense to it. Just point and sputter.
    , @John Regan
    @Mr. Blank

    It's not unique to that issue by any means. Steve highlights another prominent case in his commentary here for example.

    The pattern should be familiar to everyone here by now. They get to brag about it but if anyone notices and complains it's racism/antisemitism/homophobia/[insert here] and you're an evil person who deserves only hatred and contempt. Or in the best case maybe a crazy person who believes in conspiracy theories and deserves just the contempt.

    Also noticing the double standards counts as the same thing.

    Apart from sheer sadism the real point of the lying on multiple levels rather than just one straight party line is to make you uncertain and confused and in the end demoralized. Ideally (from their POV) you will come to doubt your own sanity and apathetically acquiesce in the abuse you're suffering from the obviously Smarter and Better people who are obviously really just doing everything for your own good.

    When it's just one psychopath that does this to a victim it's called gaslighting. We need a new word for the same phenomenon on a societal scale.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Gaslighting

    , @Sick of Orcs
    @Mr. Blank


    It’s a myth, except when they’re bragging about it.
     
    This is what is meant by, "They always go too far." Though the historical count is much higher, the meme is 109/110.
  3. • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1441119470357913602

    Well, that's different from your run of the mill Conservative.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @International Jew, @follyofwar

    , @Anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Someone made a humorous remark somewhere that Mossad must have something on AOC. I'm beginning to think there must be something to that. She actually changed her vote from no to present, despite the fact that her non-no vote wasn't necessary at all to pass the funding.

    Someone forced AOC to grovel.

    My gut suspicion is that most of her campaign funds are coming from liberal Jews who threatened to cut her off, and she folded. Either that, or her biggest campaign donor actually is Mossad.

    Has anybody looked into the identies of her biggest donors?

    Replies: @El Dato, @anonymous, @bigdicknick, @Prester John

    , @Charon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Israel: vye vould vee ever vant to be the 51st state? Vye haff two senators venn vee can haff 100?

  4. That settles it. I think we’ve found our next president.

    • Agree: Abe, USA1943, TWS
    • Replies: @bigdicknick
    @JohnnyWalker123

    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.

    Replies: @Richard B, @Anon

    , @HammerJack
    @JohnnyWalker123


    I think we’ve found our next president.
     
    You may think you've found your next candidate, but Tucker has made it clear that he doesn't want his life ruined. Mind you, he's head and shoulders above any politico out there, and IMHO he's due for a change (no advertising, for example) but he saw what they did to Trump, and Trump had vastly greater resources at his disposal than Tucker will ever have. Instead, the GOPe will nominate some weak neocon-retread like DeSantis, and continue its headlong slide into irrelevance.

    I hope I'm wrong. Tucker could win.

    Replies: @anon, @SafeNow, @IHTG, @Spisarevski

    , @Mike Tre
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I see TC more as an advisor, but a very effective one.

    , @anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    remember. jews don't conspire. the ADL is just a few guys on 4chan who've never met irl.

    , @J1234
    @JohnnyWalker123


    That settles it. I think we’ve found our next president.
     
    In response to your comment I was going to post the ad for the "Tucker for Pres. '24" t-shirt I bought recently, but I can't find it. It's lost in a sea of other ads for "Tucker for Pres." shirts. Apparently it's a very popular idea.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=tucker+for+president+shirt&sxsrf=AOaemvKOjyg1lrkT3yxMC71vxreebZnxIA:1632458507892&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIquTr5ZbzAhURX80KHbc1C-IQ1TV6BQgBEI8B&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1


    I wonder how many "Don Lemon for Pres." shirts are out there?

    , @Prester John
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I have been predicting Tucker's dismissal from Team Fox for awhile now but have been wrong in terms of exactly when the hammer would drop. Nevertheless, I continue to maintain that eventually he will go the way of O'Reilly. The Bolsheviks who comprise the oligarchy which runs this country can stand having their nose rubbed in their own dogshit for only so long before they reach for the eject button (possibly in the form of some kind of ersatz "scandal"). I suspect that the podcast that Tucker has set up was done in anticipation of the eventuality that he will be ejected from the toaster.

  5. Good for Tucker to speak fairly directly.

    But i think we’re now well past the point where even such neutral, straight up challenges to replacement–even if successful–will be sufficient.

    I don’t believe there’s any winning unless minoritarianism is taken on directly. The idea that “minorities” somehow have some sort of divine “right of access” to white gentiles and the pleasant nations they produce.

    That’s the root of it: White gentiles–through their genetic endowments, cultural traditions, invention and hard work–have created some very nice nations–peaceful and prosperous. Minoritarianism asserts that that is somehow “oppressive” and “illegitimate” and some sort of “theft”. That whatever white gentiles create must be shared–minorities must be allowed to glom on.

    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler “minorities”. Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad


    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler “minorities”. Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.
     
    If Tucker really wants to do some serious political work, he could do a lot by simply saying "Separate nations"--and making the critical point:

    The establishment's immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.

    They have the right to commit suicide. They do not have the right to make us commit suicide. That is genocide.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Sick of Orcs, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous

    , @JR Ewing
    @AnotherDad

    When I was younger, I had a friend who had a STEREO! and a TELEPHONE! in his own bedroom. I was very envious and resolved to get my own in my own bedroom someday. Which, eventually, I did.

    I should have just invited myself over to his house and demanded that I get to sleep in his bedroom forever instead.

    What a sucker I was, thinking I had to work to improve my lot in life.


  6. The U.S. and the U.K. are making exactly the same mistake. Offering the best benefits and lighting up the beacon, which I’ve just remembered is grail-shaped.

    • Agree: HammerJack
    • Thanks: Travis
    • LOL: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Charon

    There was a similar issue with the lower classes of Chicago running off to Milwaukee and Beloit and even Madison because of better benefits and cheaper housing.

    A few days ago I was talking to a young middle class black guy from Milwaukee. He said his father always told him to avoid certain neighborhoods, including the neighborhood where his father grew up and his uncles and cousins still live.

  7. But i think we’re now well past the point where even such neutral, straight up challenges to replacement–even if successful–will be sufficient.

    No, not sufficient. But necessary to get the “cattle” to see the knife on their way to the slaughterhouse, if there is still any hope.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
  8. It’s cool how Tucker is pushing the envelope, now that he doesn’t have any advertisers left. A few decades ago this kind of “real talk” might have made a difference. Better late than never, I suppose.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-racial-wreckening-sees-murders-up-by-almost-5000/#comment-4918650

    • Agree: Kronos
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    @HammerJack


    It’s cool how Tucker is pushing the envelope, now that he doesn’t have any advertisers left. A few decades ago this kind of “real talk” might have made a difference. Better late than never, I suppose.
     
    I hope that Tucker does get canceled. He will be more powerful, influential and wealthier if he went out on his own.

    Replies: @Sir Launcelot Canning

    , @Corvinus
    @HammerJack

    Actually, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.

    I imagine your ancestors come to the States and probably experienced a similar sentiment of “why are you here”.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  9. The Horde sees the kindness of Western societies as weakness, but the aren’t mistaking it for weakness. They are 100% correct. In my opinion, this is due to the feminization of our society, the ‘refugees welcome’ mentality.

    Few on here have much time for Israel, but they understand Machiavelli’s principle that for their own survival, it is better to be feared than loved. They responded decisively to an influx of troublesome Africans, and they no longer have that problem. The Africans remaining in Israel are noticeably diffident.

    Or if you prefer, Western countries should learn from the Romans answer to the troublesome Jewish zealots who rebelled against the Empire: Oderint dum metuant.

    This replacement process is not inevitable, but it will not end until we realize it’s okay to turn away people who simply want everything you have, and in fact necessary for the survival of our descendants.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    It is not feminization but masculinization. Feminine = being afraid of others, trying to keep them out at all costs, despite the fact that they aren't even altering the demographics of your society; it's your women not reproducing that did that.


    15,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Etruscan Film Star, @Alden, @Ben tillman

  10. You have to admire the man’s courage in risking a high-profile media job worth several million a year to highlight a political cause most of his peers won’t even acknowledge deserves serious attention.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Pincher Martin

    Can't Mossad the Assad!

    Can't cuck the Tuck!

  11. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    The Horde sees the kindness of Western societies as weakness, but the aren't mistaking it for weakness. They are 100% correct. In my opinion, this is due to the feminization of our society, the 'refugees welcome' mentality.

    Few on here have much time for Israel, but they understand Machiavelli's principle that for their own survival, it is better to be feared than loved. They responded decisively to an influx of troublesome Africans, and they no longer have that problem. The Africans remaining in Israel are noticeably diffident.

    Or if you prefer, Western countries should learn from the Romans answer to the troublesome Jewish zealots who rebelled against the Empire: Oderint dum metuant.

    This replacement process is not inevitable, but it will not end until we realize it's okay to turn away people who simply want everything you have, and in fact necessary for the survival of our descendants.

    Replies: @Anon

    It is not feminization but masculinization. Feminine = being afraid of others, trying to keep them out at all costs, despite the fact that they aren’t even altering the demographics of your society; it’s your women not reproducing that did that.

    15,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon


    It is not feminization but masculinization. Feminine = being afraid of others, trying to keep them out at all costs, despite the fact that they aren’t even altering the demographics of your society; it’s your women not reproducing that did that.

     

    Men ratified Prohibition, after listening to the wrong women. But the first few years of women's suffrage gave us serious immigration control. So some good came of it.

    Unfortunately that backfired when desperate-yet-still-cheap employers vacuumed up Dixie for warm bodies. Bye, bye Detroit...
    , @Etruscan Film Star
    @Anon


    5,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

     

    Anonymous dead bulb,

    Great [xxxtreme sarcasm]. Another birth-factory visionary raises his voice. Let's see, another +100 million white children would raise the U.S. population to 425 million or so. India has a head start on us, but we can overtake. A billion and a half, here we come!

    Don't bother keeping undesirables from immigrating. Deporting, what's that? Who needs borders? Just outbreed the Africans and Muslims. Rah rah rah! Making babies isn't about families, it's our duty!

    If you prevail, I hope the additional + 100 million settle in your neighborhood.

    Replies: @Alden, @Anon, @ATBOTL

    , @Alden
    @Anon

    Another ignorant moron MAN OF UNZ who doesn’t know it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby. My husband and his 2 brothers have 10 children 17 grand children and 1 great grandchild so far. Instead of incessant bitching and whining like middle school girls the MEN OF UNZ should;

    1 read the basic fact about human reproduction it takes both a man and a woman

    2 find a woman marry her and have some White children.

    Unless you are so hideous and ugly creepy and weird no woman will even speak with you and are so poor you can’t afford even one child let alone 2-5.

    Reading the I hate women, babies are conceived by women alone no sperm necessary comments by the weirdo bizarro obsessed with other people’s fertility obsessed MEN OF UNZ. I believe the Steve blog attracts men with the diagnosis of FOP or fertility obsessed psychosis. A real mental illness.

    I’m probably the only person in this blog who has 4 children and 8 grandchildren. While the majority of the commenters are 60 year old virgin men severely afflicted with incurable fertility obsessed psychosis.

    Replies: @Veteran Aryan

    , @Ben tillman
    @Anon

    The masculine response would be to kil or, at least, repel the invaders.

    Replies: @Anon

  12. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:

    Bottom Line: Dems voted in a sick, elderly, old school political hack, who’s only real political utility in his entire career was as assassination insurance for our first Mulatto President.

    This makes every insane scenario he vaguely authors make perfect sense.

    The Dems problem is Joe Biden actually IS what democrats irrationally feared Trump would be, and so currently they don’t know whether they should shit or paint a house.

    That fact just makes me laugh and laugh.

    • LOL: PiltdownMan, Escher
  13. Your host Ron Unz has extolled the virtues of mass immigration over and over. One of the many problems with his research. and opinion which likely stems from his experience trying to make Calipornia non bilingual is that immigration is not Mexican anymore. Look at the latest dust up… I believe that the forces of globohomo want to use the whipping the Haitians as their immigration George Floyd moment… they sent that little shit Sharpton to speechify…
    You are right Sailer… the waves are going to be from all over and Katie bar the door once the African immigration begins. When you start deporting Africans back what do you think the likes of BLM are going to be doing?
    Like the financial system teetering on ruin due to the money printing working overtime, how much immigration does it take to ruin a country for good?
    We are going to find out on both scores.

  14. It is interesting that nobody on the Republican side that I know of has set out to prove this is going on by the numbers. Are they afraid their voters will feel discouraged about the party’s future — which of course they should be?

    You could show Congressional districts that have gone from red to purple, purple to blue or are in the process of doing so are states with increasing numbers of naturalized immigrants and their American born children and grandchildren.

    The places that are still red have fewer naturalized immigrants and their American born children and grandchildren.

    Are there any exceptions to this? I cannot think of any offhand.

    Combine with the shifting immigration policies of the Democratic Party against enforcement and for giving illegal immigrants benefit after benefit and not deporting them and what is going on is pretty obvious.

    It is disturbing to me though how few people call out the Democratic Party officials and supporters who deny the obvious facts in this case. I personally don’t be like baloney coming from anywhere. I like to see it called out for what it is, even on my own side on issues.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    @notsaying

    The GOP has no future.

    Replies: @Jimbo

    , @Anon
    @notsaying

    A shocking number of Republican voters remain almost entirely unaware that this is happening. No one ever tells them. What Tucker is doing is pretty remarkable.

    Over the past several years, I've had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they're making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @AnotherDad, @KenH

    , @Ian Smith
    @notsaying

    Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They have spent all their political capital on wars for Israel, making it harder for poor black women to get abortions, and tax cuts.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

  15. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1441151837793439749

    That settles it. I think we've found our next president.

    Replies: @bigdicknick, @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @anon, @J1234, @Prester John

    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.

    • Replies: @Richard B
    @bigdicknick


    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.
     
    The point isn't that they can't do anything to stop your talking points.

    The point is that you can't do anything to stop them from replacing you.

    Once they stop kvetching long enough to figure that out they'll stop complaining about your talking points and simply continue replacing you.

    But, hey, you'll still have your talking points.

    Replies: @Charon

    , @Anon
    @bigdicknick


    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.
     
    The phrase “Great Replacement” is better than nothing, but it is fundamentally unserious. One shouldn’t refer to the conquest of one’s ancestral homeland, and to the threat of extraction, with such a casual, value-neutral term. The neutrality of “the Great Replacement” undermines the claims of wrongdoing in the mouths of those who use it.

    Try “the Silent Holocaust” or something of that nature instead.

    Replies: @Chester

  16. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1441151837793439749

    That settles it. I think we've found our next president.

    Replies: @bigdicknick, @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @anon, @J1234, @Prester John

    I think we’ve found our next president.

    You may think you’ve found your next candidate, but Tucker has made it clear that he doesn’t want his life ruined. Mind you, he’s head and shoulders above any politico out there, and IMHO he’s due for a change (no advertising, for example) but he saw what they did to Trump, and Trump had vastly greater resources at his disposal than Tucker will ever have. Instead, the GOPe will nominate some weak neocon-retread like DeSantis, and continue its headlong slide into irrelevance.

    I hope I’m wrong. Tucker could win.

    • Replies: @anon
    @HammerJack

    Tucker has too many odd verbal tics to win I think. Style beats substance.

    His weird mock voices and fake laughs come across as really, hate to say it, the male version of the Kamala/Hillary cackle that many think disqualified them.

    Trump too had some weird verbal tics, but to use the overused 2021 go-to analytical frame, Trump's tics tended to be more alpha while Tucker's seem more beta.

    Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax

    , @SafeNow
    @HammerJack

    Tucker’s monologue is superbly written and delivered. Unfortunately, when it is time for him to extemporize with guests, to think of the pertinent follow up question, etc., it appears that he is not that adroit. Ted Cruz is the smartest Republican. When he was at Princeton and then Harvard Law school, he was basically the best debater in the country, and he’s still got it. It’s too bad about that image with the luggage cart and looking disheveled at the airport, which cemented his nerd image. DeSantis will be the one to go up against Newsom.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @vinteuil, @HammerJack, @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    , @IHTG
    @HammerJack


    weak neocon-retread like DeSantis
     
    Explain.
    , @Spisarevski
    @HammerJack


    Trump had vastly greater resources at his disposal than Tucker will ever have
     
    Not in the cognitive department, that's for sure.

    Nor did Trump have moles in the NYT and the NSA. Instead his own administration was the leakiest ship in history, while Tucker not only has loyal people working for him, but has friends in important places, too.

    Tucker is more intelligent, will be much more competent, and understands the game better than Trump so he will be a better player.
    Of course that doesn't mean that they won't destroy him, it just means that it doesn't necessarily have to go the same way it did for Trump.
  17. @Pincher Martin
    You have to admire the man's courage in risking a high-profile media job worth several million a year to highlight a political cause most of his peers won't even acknowledge deserves serious attention.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    Can’t Mossad the Assad!

    Can’t cuck the Tuck!

  18. @notsaying
    It is interesting that nobody on the Republican side that I know of has set out to prove this is going on by the numbers. Are they afraid their voters will feel discouraged about the party's future -- which of course they should be?

    You could show Congressional districts that have gone from red to purple, purple to blue or are in the process of doing so are states with increasing numbers of naturalized immigrants and their American born children and grandchildren.

    The places that are still red have fewer naturalized immigrants and their American born children and grandchildren.

    Are there any exceptions to this? I cannot think of any offhand.

    Combine with the shifting immigration policies of the Democratic Party against enforcement and for giving illegal immigrants benefit after benefit and not deporting them and what is going on is pretty obvious.

    It is disturbing to me though how few people call out the Democratic Party officials and supporters who deny the obvious facts in this case. I personally don't be like baloney coming from anywhere. I like to see it called out for what it is, even on my own side on issues.

    Replies: @Robert Dolan, @Anon, @Ian Smith

    The GOP has no future.

    • Replies: @Jimbo
    @Robert Dolan

    No, America has no future.

  19. Anon[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @notsaying
    It is interesting that nobody on the Republican side that I know of has set out to prove this is going on by the numbers. Are they afraid their voters will feel discouraged about the party's future -- which of course they should be?

    You could show Congressional districts that have gone from red to purple, purple to blue or are in the process of doing so are states with increasing numbers of naturalized immigrants and their American born children and grandchildren.

    The places that are still red have fewer naturalized immigrants and their American born children and grandchildren.

    Are there any exceptions to this? I cannot think of any offhand.

    Combine with the shifting immigration policies of the Democratic Party against enforcement and for giving illegal immigrants benefit after benefit and not deporting them and what is going on is pretty obvious.

    It is disturbing to me though how few people call out the Democratic Party officials and supporters who deny the obvious facts in this case. I personally don't be like baloney coming from anywhere. I like to see it called out for what it is, even on my own side on issues.

    Replies: @Robert Dolan, @Anon, @Ian Smith

    A shocking number of Republican voters remain almost entirely unaware that this is happening. No one ever tells them. What Tucker is doing is pretty remarkable.

    Over the past several years, I’ve had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they’re making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @Anon


    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.
     
    Few people ever learn through thinking (unfortunately). Most people have to learn in the school of hard knocks. When these tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs, lost their homes, and find themselves on rock bottom of a society that used to be theirs, they will wake up from the nonsense in their heads. Then their hearts will really be in the right place - they will know and hate their enemies.
    , @AnotherDad
    @Anon



    Over the past several years, I’ve had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they’re making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.
     
    Even on Steve's HBD oriented blog, there are a bunch of commenters who refuse to see that immigration is issue #1.--essentially the only issue that really matters right now, the issue that utterly dominates the shape of "the future".

    They're all hopped up on affirmative action or money printing or Israel or the wars or ... whatever.

    Stuff that may be interesting or is annoying, but which is tractable or fixable. But the effects of immigration are not "fixable" ... and after a while there is simply no "fixing". You have a different country with a different people and culture--your nation has been killed off. Their genocide successful.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @lavoisier

    , @KenH
    @Anon


    And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.
     
    I'm still shocked at the educated and intelligent people I come across who can't make simply connections between mass immigration and America becoming a one party Democrat tyranny and shithole nation.
  20. You can bet these “refugees” will be settled mostly in swing states.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Spud Boy


    You can bet these “refugees” will be settled mostly in swing states.

     

    It wouldn't take too many to make Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas swing states. And beyond. Little, local things like requiring resettlement agencies to cover incurrent costs for a decade or more would help-- or at least help in broadcasting who's really paying for all this.

    Oh, look... a squirrel:


    Are the Taliban descendants of Israel?


    Israelis and Taliban Separated at Birth?
    Israel finances study about Pashtuns looking for links to Israeli tribes.

    Replies: @Alden

  21. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1441151837793439749

    That settles it. I think we've found our next president.

    Replies: @bigdicknick, @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @anon, @J1234, @Prester John

    I see TC more as an advisor, but a very effective one.

  22. @Robert Dolan
    @notsaying

    The GOP has no future.

    Replies: @Jimbo

    No, America has no future.

    • Agree: houston 1992
    • Troll: Corvinus
  23. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1441151837793439749

    That settles it. I think we've found our next president.

    Replies: @bigdicknick, @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @anon, @J1234, @Prester John

    remember. jews don’t conspire. the ADL is just a few guys on 4chan who’ve never met irl.

  24. anon[212] • Disclaimer says:
    @HammerJack
    @JohnnyWalker123


    I think we’ve found our next president.
     
    You may think you've found your next candidate, but Tucker has made it clear that he doesn't want his life ruined. Mind you, he's head and shoulders above any politico out there, and IMHO he's due for a change (no advertising, for example) but he saw what they did to Trump, and Trump had vastly greater resources at his disposal than Tucker will ever have. Instead, the GOPe will nominate some weak neocon-retread like DeSantis, and continue its headlong slide into irrelevance.

    I hope I'm wrong. Tucker could win.

    Replies: @anon, @SafeNow, @IHTG, @Spisarevski

    Tucker has too many odd verbal tics to win I think. Style beats substance.

    His weird mock voices and fake laughs come across as really, hate to say it, the male version of the Kamala/Hillary cackle that many think disqualified them.

    Trump too had some weird verbal tics, but to use the overused 2021 go-to analytical frame, Trump’s tics tended to be more alpha while Tucker’s seem more beta.

    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    @anon

    If I could get any message to Tucker, it would be to knock it off with the fake mocking voices and forced laughter. It’s just not effective rhetorically and undermines the seriousness of his message.

  25. @Anon
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    It is not feminization but masculinization. Feminine = being afraid of others, trying to keep them out at all costs, despite the fact that they aren't even altering the demographics of your society; it's your women not reproducing that did that.


    15,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Etruscan Film Star, @Alden, @Ben tillman

    It is not feminization but masculinization. Feminine = being afraid of others, trying to keep them out at all costs, despite the fact that they aren’t even altering the demographics of your society; it’s your women not reproducing that did that.

    Men ratified Prohibition, after listening to the wrong women. But the first few years of women’s suffrage gave us serious immigration control. So some good came of it.

    Unfortunately that backfired when desperate-yet-still-cheap employers vacuumed up Dixie for warm bodies. Bye, bye Detroit…

  26. • Agree: notsaying, El Dato
  27. @bigdicknick
    @JohnnyWalker123

    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.

    Replies: @Richard B, @Anon

    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.

    The point isn’t that they can’t do anything to stop your talking points.

    The point is that you can’t do anything to stop them from replacing you.

    Once they stop kvetching long enough to figure that out they’ll stop complaining about your talking points and simply continue replacing you.

    But, hey, you’ll still have your talking points.

    • Replies: @Charon
    @Richard B

    Exactly right, and even this is essentially rehashing old news. It's like the infamous War on Whites. People are still arguing if it's real or not, when in actual fact it's already over. Just mopping-up operations now.

    Replies: @Richard B

  28. @Spud Boy
    You can bet these "refugees" will be settled mostly in swing states.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    You can bet these “refugees” will be settled mostly in swing states.

    It wouldn’t take too many to make Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas swing states. And beyond. Little, local things like requiring resettlement agencies to cover incurrent costs for a decade or more would help– or at least help in broadcasting who’s really paying for all this.

    Oh, look… a squirrel:

    Are the Taliban descendants of Israel?

    Israelis and Taliban Separated at Birth?
    Israel finances study about Pashtuns looking for links to Israeli tribes.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Reg Cæsar

    That ancient Israelites in strange places comes up in Jewish publications occasionally. A few years before we invaded Afghanistan the Jewish publications were writing about discovering evidence of ancient Jews in Afghanistan.


    That happened after ADL AJC Israel wrung every last dollar from America to rescue Ethiopian alleged Jews. Next up for the fundraisers was remnants of ancient Afghanistan Jews. But the American invasion made that myth useless for fundraising for Israel.

    So the Jewish fundraisers started searching for Hispanic jews forced to become Catholics by the supreme devil Queen Isabella of Spain 500 years ago. In the American Southwest especially in New Mexico. They did make an effort. “ oh yeah gr grandma didn’t have any Madonna pictures “ Some Hispanics did submit DNA samples. Still didn’t find any.

    Lately they’re looking for ancient Jew descendants along the old central Asian trade routes. Which includes Pashtuns.

    Read Jewish publications. They’re always discovering new pages in the Anne Frank Diary written by popular author Meyer Levin. Who was never paid for his work by her con man father Otto Frank. Latest new pages reveal that Anne had a boyfriend.

  29. Thanks to Tucker for going that far, but he stops short. Every time I have heard him, he characterizes it as a VOTING replacement. He says they will vote the Dem line. He never calls it a CULTURE replacement. Sure, they will vote the Dem line on voting day. But the migrants are changing the culture the other 364 days a year. Tucker ignores the other 364 days. He defines the migrants as voting reinforcements. In contrast, Pat Buchanan says that he prefers the old culture, and in fact, it is better. Please correct me if I am wrong; if Tucker has gone the additional distance and I missed it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @SafeNow

    Yeah, but he DID, Safenow, in this very clip. I thought to myself watching this just now, "yeah, he didn't go on about the voting numbers this time!" Just watch from 2 minutes in (right after Tucker shows the same Biden clip Steve has here) through 02:45.

    "This is the language of eugenics. It's horrifying."

    You may as well watch the whole under-5-minute video.

    It's not like Tucker's been wrong about the voting numbers point, but he gave the overarching reason this time. It's not that it hasn't been obvious to us her for a decade or two, but Tucker is "evolving" fast though. It's amazing to me that someone at the network didn't pull the plug. They'd rather have dead air.

    , @anonymous
    @SafeNow


    Thanks to Tucker for going that far, but he stops short. Every time I have heard him, he characterizes it as a VOTING replacement. He says they will vote the Dem line. He never calls it a CULTURE replacement.
     
    You both avoid the main issue and driving force. It is a RACIAL replacement.

    Replies: @SafeNow

    , @Inselaffen
    @SafeNow

    It's funny where people draw the line on 'stopping short' - when I hear people complaining about 'but the infrastructure/schools/housing/traffic' that's one layer of 'pussy', just a mere displacement for what people deep down feel uncomfortable about but probably feel uncomfortable even thinking about it explicitly - but I also consider 'but muh culture' just the next level of pussy ('our' culture was very different 100, 200, 300 years ago but it wasn't alien - and it does need to change from what it is today, for sure)- why not address the real issue and call out the racial replacement.

    Another term for racial replacement, of course, is genocide.

    As for Tucker, there are limits to what you can - and should say, when trying to appeal to a wide audience of 'normies' on TV, I think he's doing a fine job.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  30. White Americans have already been replaced. While America appears to be 58% white, according to the 2020 census, most of these whites are over the age of 45. The number of white births has collapsed since 1990.

    the number of whites under the age of 40 has shrunk dramatically over the past 30 years. Falling 28%, a loss of 33 million young whites since 1990.

    Year – whites under 40
    1990 – 120 million
    2020 – 87 million

    the collapse would have been worse without the 9 million White immigrants who came to America over the last 30 years. By 2030 the number of Whites under the age of 40 will fall to 75 million as the number of non-whites under 40 reaches 90 million. at this point we have too few fertile white remaining to sustain the White population . The white fertility rate would need to double to 3.0 to maintain a white population of 190 million. Yet the white fertility rate is still declining as the death spiral has begun…

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Travis

    Yes. The future has already been born. Whites need to move to Red areas and vote them Redder and begin the process of building their Oranias.

    , @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Travis

    Agree, the replacement has been completed. Whites are a minority of Americans under the age of 19. The death spiral began 9 years ago. Over the last decade we had 4 million more white deaths than births.

    The number of white deaths is increasing as boomers start turning 80 and white births continue falling. The White Population of the US will decline by 9 million over the next decade as we allow 10 million non-whites to migrate into America. We are in phase 3 of the replacement, as more whites die each year than are born.

    Replies: @Flip, @Ben tillman

  31. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1441113782667792388

    https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1441113383638474752

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Anon, @Charon

    Well, that’s different from your run of the mill Conservative.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Joe Stalin

    Refreshing.

    , @International Jew
    @Joe Stalin

    Iron Dome isn't for protecting Jews, it's for the protection of Arabs — Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Without Iron Dome, Israel would respond to incoming rockets in a cheaper and more effective way — artillery fire at the rockets' launch locations.

    I support Israel, but I'm with AOC on the Iron Dome issue (just not for the same reasons).

    Replies: @Charon, @bigdicknick, @ATBOTL, @Getaclue

    , @follyofwar
    @Joe Stalin

    How much longer will it be before Neocon Newsmax fires Cortes?

  32. The question is how does anyone do anything else. He’s financially secure. What point is there to a high-profile media job other than to tell the truth as you see it. What’s remarkable is that none of the rest of them seem to recognize the inanity of the path they’re on.

  33. An unrelenting stream of grace.

  34. @HammerJack
    @JohnnyWalker123


    I think we’ve found our next president.
     
    You may think you've found your next candidate, but Tucker has made it clear that he doesn't want his life ruined. Mind you, he's head and shoulders above any politico out there, and IMHO he's due for a change (no advertising, for example) but he saw what they did to Trump, and Trump had vastly greater resources at his disposal than Tucker will ever have. Instead, the GOPe will nominate some weak neocon-retread like DeSantis, and continue its headlong slide into irrelevance.

    I hope I'm wrong. Tucker could win.

    Replies: @anon, @SafeNow, @IHTG, @Spisarevski

    Tucker’s monologue is superbly written and delivered. Unfortunately, when it is time for him to extemporize with guests, to think of the pertinent follow up question, etc., it appears that he is not that adroit. Ted Cruz is the smartest Republican. When he was at Princeton and then Harvard Law school, he was basically the best debater in the country, and he’s still got it. It’s too bad about that image with the luggage cart and looking disheveled at the airport, which cemented his nerd image. DeSantis will be the one to go up against Newsom.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @SafeNow

    Cruz has what is sometimes a great advantage and sometimes a great disadvantage: he is willing to throw away what he claims are her principles with the shift of the winds.

    Cruz’ main goal is power for Cruz.

    One could say that pretty much defines his 99 colleagues and every president in living memory.

    Cruz is just more blatant about it.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    , @vinteuil
    @SafeNow


    Tucker’s monologue is superbly written and delivered. Unfortunately, when it is time for him to extemporize with guests, to think of the pertinent follow up question, etc., it appears that he is not that adroit.
     
    Yeah, he's hopeless when it comes to sparring. And the constant fake, forced giggling is so painful.

    That said, he's going places that even Ann Coulter avoids.
    , @HammerJack
    @SafeNow

    Tucker is especially glib--verbally agile, even--when you compare him with the last few occupants of the White House. I'm sure he has weaknesses as a candidate, but that's not one of them. Lack of political infrastructure, that's another matter. Trump lacked that too, but he had billions of dollars.

    , @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
    @SafeNow

    I agree about Cruz. He's intelligent to the core. Maybe too intelligent to be in today's political scene.

  35. @Joe Stalin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1441119470357913602

    Well, that's different from your run of the mill Conservative.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @International Jew, @follyofwar

    Refreshing.

  36. Anon[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1441113782667792388

    https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1441113383638474752

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Anon, @Charon

    Someone made a humorous remark somewhere that Mossad must have something on AOC. I’m beginning to think there must be something to that. She actually changed her vote from no to present, despite the fact that her non-no vote wasn’t necessary at all to pass the funding.

    Someone forced AOC to grovel.

    My gut suspicion is that most of her campaign funds are coming from liberal Jews who threatened to cut her off, and she folded. Either that, or her biggest campaign donor actually is Mossad.

    Has anybody looked into the identies of her biggest donors?

    • Agree: El Dato, JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Anon

    "We demand obeisance from our puppets"

    (Puppets cry)

    , @anonymous
    @Anon


    Someone made a humorous remark somewhere that Mossad must have something on AOC.
     
    Ocasio-Cortes says she has Jewish ancestry.
    , @bigdicknick
    @Anon

    as governor lepage pointed out, the democrat party is funded by jews. they ALL get their money from jews. It's an open secret that anyone can verify. that's why their platform only makes sense when interpreted through jewish racial interests.

    , @Prester John
    @Anon

    I suspect that the Mossad probably has a dossier on EVERYBODY in The Swamp--from the very top (meaning Guess Who) to the very bottom (which runs deep); otherwise, why are we supporting a country whom we should be treating just like any other country--friends if they agree with us, foes if they don't.

  37. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1441151837793439749

    That settles it. I think we've found our next president.

    Replies: @bigdicknick, @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @anon, @J1234, @Prester John

    That settles it. I think we’ve found our next president.

    In response to your comment I was going to post the ad for the “Tucker for Pres. ’24” t-shirt I bought recently, but I can’t find it. It’s lost in a sea of other ads for “Tucker for Pres.” shirts. Apparently it’s a very popular idea.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=tucker+for+president+shirt&sxsrf=AOaemvKOjyg1lrkT3yxMC71vxreebZnxIA:1632458507892&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIquTr5ZbzAhURX80KHbc1C-IQ1TV6BQgBEI8B&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1

    I wonder how many “Don Lemon for Pres.” shirts are out there?

  38. @Anon
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    It is not feminization but masculinization. Feminine = being afraid of others, trying to keep them out at all costs, despite the fact that they aren't even altering the demographics of your society; it's your women not reproducing that did that.


    15,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Etruscan Film Star, @Alden, @Ben tillman

    5,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

    Anonymous dead bulb,

    Great [xxxtreme sarcasm]. Another birth-factory visionary raises his voice. Let’s see, another +100 million white children would raise the U.S. population to 425 million or so. India has a head start on us, but we can overtake. A billion and a half, here we come!

    Don’t bother keeping undesirables from immigrating. Deporting, what’s that? Who needs borders? Just outbreed the Africans and Muslims. Rah rah rah! Making babies isn’t about families, it’s our duty!

    If you prevail, I hope the additional + 100 million settle in your neighborhood.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Etruscan Film Star

    @Anon doesn’t have any children and never will have a child because he’s incapable of doing the deed that conceives a baby. He is a victim of a severe and incurable mental illness. Fertility Obsessed Psychosis or FOP. Cause seems to be severe lack of testosterone causing psychotic impotence.

    , @Anon
    @Etruscan Film Star

    The United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. Much like Africa, the continent.

    We'd have to raise our population to about a billion just to reach population densities comparable to Western Europe - the homeland of most White American ancestors. Likewise, Africa will need multiple billions to reach that level. Most central and southern African countries have a population density comparable to the US state of Colorado. There is much room to expand in.

    This means you are not only a low-t wimp, but a low-IQ, low-t wimp.
    How does it feel to be the worst of both worlds? Those immigrants were not less desirable than people such as yourself.

    Replies: @Etruscan Film Star

    , @ATBOTL
    @Etruscan Film Star

    People who say that the problem is not immigration, it's white people not having enough children are anti-white shills trying to distract people from fighting immigration. It's a tired old tactic that works on boomers.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  39. So, it’s just totally too much to talk about UN Resolution 260?

    Sections B, C, and E are directed at White people specifically.

  40. @Anon
    @notsaying

    A shocking number of Republican voters remain almost entirely unaware that this is happening. No one ever tells them. What Tucker is doing is pretty remarkable.

    Over the past several years, I've had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they're making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @AnotherDad, @KenH

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.

    Few people ever learn through thinking (unfortunately). Most people have to learn in the school of hard knocks. When these tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs, lost their homes, and find themselves on rock bottom of a society that used to be theirs, they will wake up from the nonsense in their heads. Then their hearts will really be in the right place – they will know and hate their enemies.

  41. @AnotherDad
    Good for Tucker to speak fairly directly.

    But i think we're now well past the point where even such neutral, straight up challenges to replacement--even if successful--will be sufficient.

    I don't believe there's any winning unless minoritarianism is taken on directly. The idea that "minorities" somehow have some sort of divine "right of access" to white gentiles and the pleasant nations they produce.

    That's the root of it: White gentiles--through their genetic endowments, cultural traditions, invention and hard work--have created some very nice nations--peaceful and prosperous. Minoritarianism asserts that that is somehow "oppressive" and "illegitimate" and some sort of "theft". That whatever white gentiles create must be shared--minorities must be allowed to glom on.

    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler "minorities". Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @JR Ewing

    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler “minorities”. Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.

    If Tucker really wants to do some serious political work, he could do a lot by simply saying “Separate nations”–and making the critical point:

    The establishment’s immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.

    They have the right to commit suicide. They do not have the right to make us commit suicide. That is genocide.

    • Agree: Sick of Orcs
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @AnotherDad

    Separate from them? How about beat them?

    This is our country. The entire country. Not just part of it.

    The moment you start discussing secession, you've already admitted defeat.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @AnotherDad

    , @Sick of Orcs
    @AnotherDad

    We need Secession if only to protect Red States both from internal locusts migrating from blue s-holes as well as alien invaders.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Corvinus

    , @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    If Tucker really wants to do some serious political work, he could do a lot by simply saying “Separate nations”–
     
    We need to have a singular focus on ending immigration. I am concerned that in the arena of politics and persuasion, pie-in-the-sky talk of secession and “separate nations” detracts from that focus and splinters potential coalitions.

    The rest of your comment contains some good rhetoric for simply opposing immigration…


    and making the critical point:

    The establishment’s immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation.

    They have the right to commit suicide. They do not have the right to make us commit suicide. That is genocide.
     

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @AnotherDad

    Congratulations. Your comment inspired Corvinus to open a Socratic dialogue with himself:


    45. Pincher Martin says:
    September 24, 2021 at 7:03 am GMT • 11.3 hours ago ↑
    @AnotherDad


    54. RichardTaylor says:
    September 24, 2021 at 9:37 am GMT • 8.7 hours ago ↑
    @Pincher Martin


    88. Pincher Martin says:
    September 24, 2021 at 6:03 pm GMT • 16 minutes ago • 100 Words ↑
    @RichardTaylor

     

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Pincher Martin

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @AnotherDad

    It's not like Tucker's unaware of these issues. He's not reporting on the Great Replacement because he just realized "hey, there's this replacement thing happening! Who knew? That's big news!"

    Based on things he's said recently and his disarmed casual humor in previous interviews with now-cancelled people like Gavin McInnes, I'd say he's likely not a white nationalist but is aware of racial issues and sympathetic to a dissident perspective on them.

    He's got to introduce things into the public mind and wider discourse when they can be accepted. I'm sure he's trying to manage this all the time. If he just came out against minoritarianism outright without building up sympathy in the listening audience, he would simply get canned immediately. He is walking a fine line as it is.

    There are, I suspect, a lot of people like my parents who are pretty willing to dissent from popular opinion but grew up during the Civil Rights era and still balk over racial issues. Even though my father has always referred to rap and reggae as "third world music", if you explicitly talk about realities like the US being an historically white nation with a non-contributory black minority rather than a race-blind melting pot, he engages CrimeStop.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous, @ATBOTL

  42. @Anon
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    It is not feminization but masculinization. Feminine = being afraid of others, trying to keep them out at all costs, despite the fact that they aren't even altering the demographics of your society; it's your women not reproducing that did that.


    15,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Etruscan Film Star, @Alden, @Ben tillman

    Another ignorant moron MAN OF UNZ who doesn’t know it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby. My husband and his 2 brothers have 10 children 17 grand children and 1 great grandchild so far. Instead of incessant bitching and whining like middle school girls the MEN OF UNZ should;

    1 read the basic fact about human reproduction it takes both a man and a woman

    2 find a woman marry her and have some White children.

    Unless you are so hideous and ugly creepy and weird no woman will even speak with you and are so poor you can’t afford even one child let alone 2-5.

    Reading the I hate women, babies are conceived by women alone no sperm necessary comments by the weirdo bizarro obsessed with other people’s fertility obsessed MEN OF UNZ. I believe the Steve blog attracts men with the diagnosis of FOP or fertility obsessed psychosis. A real mental illness.

    I’m probably the only person in this blog who has 4 children and 8 grandchildren. While the majority of the commenters are 60 year old virgin men severely afflicted with incurable fertility obsessed psychosis.

    • Replies: @Veteran Aryan
    @Alden


    I believe the Steve blog attracts men with the diagnosis of FOP or fertility obsessed psychosis. A real mental illness.
     
    I looked it up on Bing and the top return was "Fertility and pregnancy in women with psychotic disorders." It didn't actually list bloviating about Men Of Unz as a symptom, but then again I didn't read that far.

    Replies: @Alden

  43. @Etruscan Film Star
    @Anon


    5,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

     

    Anonymous dead bulb,

    Great [xxxtreme sarcasm]. Another birth-factory visionary raises his voice. Let's see, another +100 million white children would raise the U.S. population to 425 million or so. India has a head start on us, but we can overtake. A billion and a half, here we come!

    Don't bother keeping undesirables from immigrating. Deporting, what's that? Who needs borders? Just outbreed the Africans and Muslims. Rah rah rah! Making babies isn't about families, it's our duty!

    If you prevail, I hope the additional + 100 million settle in your neighborhood.

    Replies: @Alden, @Anon, @ATBOTL

    doesn’t have any children and never will have a child because he’s incapable of doing the deed that conceives a baby. He is a victim of a severe and incurable mental illness. Fertility Obsessed Psychosis or FOP. Cause seems to be severe lack of testosterone causing psychotic impotence.

  44. @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad


    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler “minorities”. Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.
     
    If Tucker really wants to do some serious political work, he could do a lot by simply saying "Separate nations"--and making the critical point:

    The establishment's immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.

    They have the right to commit suicide. They do not have the right to make us commit suicide. That is genocide.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Sick of Orcs, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous

    Separate from them? How about beat them?

    This is our country. The entire country. Not just part of it.

    The moment you start discussing secession, you’ve already admitted defeat.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin

    Before any "solution" is proposed, don't we first have to get our people to be on their own side?

    Then all kinds of possibilities open up.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    , @AnotherDad
    @Pincher Martin


    This is our country. The entire country. Not just part of it.
     
    Viscerally, i'm with you. But how do you get there?

    See my "critical point" above:

    The establishment’s immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.
     
    Being willing to speak about "separation" rather than just "we disagree" is making the point that what they are doing is *intolerable*. It's "wake TFU assholes"--"liberty or death" rhetoric.

    If we're going to win, then we need--need quickly--to get people understanding that the current situation--and drift--is unacceptable. Not "we disagree with it it". Not "wrong". Not "our candidate will run against you on it." But unacceptable.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  45. @Reg Cæsar
    @Spud Boy


    You can bet these “refugees” will be settled mostly in swing states.

     

    It wouldn't take too many to make Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas swing states. And beyond. Little, local things like requiring resettlement agencies to cover incurrent costs for a decade or more would help-- or at least help in broadcasting who's really paying for all this.

    Oh, look... a squirrel:


    Are the Taliban descendants of Israel?


    Israelis and Taliban Separated at Birth?
    Israel finances study about Pashtuns looking for links to Israeli tribes.

    Replies: @Alden

    That ancient Israelites in strange places comes up in Jewish publications occasionally. A few years before we invaded Afghanistan the Jewish publications were writing about discovering evidence of ancient Jews in Afghanistan.

    That happened after ADL AJC Israel wrung every last dollar from America to rescue Ethiopian alleged Jews. Next up for the fundraisers was remnants of ancient Afghanistan Jews. But the American invasion made that myth useless for fundraising for Israel.

    So the Jewish fundraisers started searching for Hispanic jews forced to become Catholics by the supreme devil Queen Isabella of Spain 500 years ago. In the American Southwest especially in New Mexico. They did make an effort. “ oh yeah gr grandma didn’t have any Madonna pictures “ Some Hispanics did submit DNA samples. Still didn’t find any.

    Lately they’re looking for ancient Jew descendants along the old central Asian trade routes. Which includes Pashtuns.

    Read Jewish publications. They’re always discovering new pages in the Anne Frank Diary written by popular author Meyer Levin. Who was never paid for his work by her con man father Otto Frank. Latest new pages reveal that Anne had a boyfriend.

  46. To this day sanctioned conservative media won’t give up on Biden’s “If you don’t vote for me you ain’t black” retort. When the God Emperor runs in the next primary he’ll undoubtedly remind us again and again. So will DeSantis.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    @anonymous

    Focusing on endless gibs for blacks instead of repeatedly bashing joe over the head with his POS son partly caused Trump to lose the election.

  47. @SafeNow
    Thanks to Tucker for going that far, but he stops short. Every time I have heard him, he characterizes it as a VOTING replacement. He says they will vote the Dem line. He never calls it a CULTURE replacement. Sure, they will vote the Dem line on voting day. But the migrants are changing the culture the other 364 days a year. Tucker ignores the other 364 days. He defines the migrants as voting reinforcements. In contrast, Pat Buchanan says that he prefers the old culture, and in fact, it is better. Please correct me if I am wrong; if Tucker has gone the additional distance and I missed it.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anonymous, @Inselaffen

    Yeah, but he DID, Safenow, in this very clip. I thought to myself watching this just now, “yeah, he didn’t go on about the voting numbers this time!” Just watch from 2 minutes in (right after Tucker shows the same Biden clip Steve has here) through 02:45.

    “This is the language of eugenics. It’s horrifying.”

    You may as well watch the whole under-5-minute video.

    It’s not like Tucker’s been wrong about the voting numbers point, but he gave the overarching reason this time. It’s not that it hasn’t been obvious to us her for a decade or two, but Tucker is “evolving” fast though. It’s amazing to me that someone at the network didn’t pull the plug. They’d rather have dead air.

  48. @HammerJack
    It's cool how Tucker is pushing the envelope, now that he doesn't have any advertisers left. A few decades ago this kind of "real talk" might have made a difference. Better late than never, I suppose.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-racial-wreckening-sees-murders-up-by-almost-5000/#comment-4918650

    Replies: @Daniel H, @Corvinus

    It’s cool how Tucker is pushing the envelope, now that he doesn’t have any advertisers left. A few decades ago this kind of “real talk” might have made a difference. Better late than never, I suppose.

    I hope that Tucker does get canceled. He will be more powerful, influential and wealthier if he went out on his own.

    • Replies: @Sir Launcelot Canning
    @Daniel H


    I hope that Tucker does get canceled.
     
    Absolutely not. That would make the ADL something like 20,000 - 0. That would only add to their aura of invincibility.

    I'm convinced that the powerful ADL is the nexus of all of the dismantling of traditional America. We need to find the chink in their very thick armor. They're like the Death Star and we are Han Solo and Princess Leia.

    I watched that segment of Tucker and was delighted with what he said. I emailed his show to say so.
    He also made this very good point: If something is not true, then why are they censoring it so hard? If it's not true the let it fall on its face and implode. Since they are censoring white replacement with such drastic measures that it would make the Stasi proud, then there must be something to it.
  49. @Anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Someone made a humorous remark somewhere that Mossad must have something on AOC. I'm beginning to think there must be something to that. She actually changed her vote from no to present, despite the fact that her non-no vote wasn't necessary at all to pass the funding.

    Someone forced AOC to grovel.

    My gut suspicion is that most of her campaign funds are coming from liberal Jews who threatened to cut her off, and she folded. Either that, or her biggest campaign donor actually is Mossad.

    Has anybody looked into the identies of her biggest donors?

    Replies: @El Dato, @anonymous, @bigdicknick, @Prester John

    “We demand obeisance from our puppets”

    (Puppets cry)

  50. @HammerJack
    @JohnnyWalker123


    I think we’ve found our next president.
     
    You may think you've found your next candidate, but Tucker has made it clear that he doesn't want his life ruined. Mind you, he's head and shoulders above any politico out there, and IMHO he's due for a change (no advertising, for example) but he saw what they did to Trump, and Trump had vastly greater resources at his disposal than Tucker will ever have. Instead, the GOPe will nominate some weak neocon-retread like DeSantis, and continue its headlong slide into irrelevance.

    I hope I'm wrong. Tucker could win.

    Replies: @anon, @SafeNow, @IHTG, @Spisarevski

    weak neocon-retread like DeSantis

    Explain.

  51. @Joe Stalin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1441119470357913602

    Well, that's different from your run of the mill Conservative.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @International Jew, @follyofwar

    Iron Dome isn’t for protecting Jews, it’s for the protection of Arabs — Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Without Iron Dome, Israel would respond to incoming rockets in a cheaper and more effective way — artillery fire at the rockets’ launch locations.

    I support Israel, but I’m with AOC on the Iron Dome issue (just not for the same reasons).

    • Disagree: El Dato
    • Replies: @Charon
    @International Jew


    Iron Dome isn’t for protecting Jews, it’s for the protection of Arabs
     
    Yes, that very talking point is on the AIPAC website. All of Israel's military exists to protect Arabs, right? To protect them from the pulverizing they'd get if we used our fists! Also: "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you!" Tell us another one.

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @bigdicknick
    @International Jew

    our weapons are for your benefit, goyim.

    , @ATBOTL
    @International Jew

    This is the new Hasbara line:

    "Give Jews in Israel a billion dollars NOW, goy, or Jews will slaughter Arabs and it will be your fault, goy."

    Extortion, threats of mass murder, blackmail and gas-lighting.

    I have seen this line a dozen times today in both Jewish media and comments sections. This is a very revealing moment for the Jewish psyche. The violent, hate filled, psychopathic reactions to being made to wait a few days to get a billion dollars more from goy victims who have already been taken for billions is shocking and sickening to most people

    I can't wait to see the next round of opinion polls on Israel.

    , @Getaclue
    @International Jew

    Those Zionist just really, really taking care of the best interests of the Palestinians...now in up in Pluto where you live -- how is the weather today?

  52. Anon[717] • Disclaimer says:
    @Etruscan Film Star
    @Anon


    5,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

     

    Anonymous dead bulb,

    Great [xxxtreme sarcasm]. Another birth-factory visionary raises his voice. Let's see, another +100 million white children would raise the U.S. population to 425 million or so. India has a head start on us, but we can overtake. A billion and a half, here we come!

    Don't bother keeping undesirables from immigrating. Deporting, what's that? Who needs borders? Just outbreed the Africans and Muslims. Rah rah rah! Making babies isn't about families, it's our duty!

    If you prevail, I hope the additional + 100 million settle in your neighborhood.

    Replies: @Alden, @Anon, @ATBOTL

    The United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. Much like Africa, the continent.

    We’d have to raise our population to about a billion just to reach population densities comparable to Western Europe – the homeland of most White American ancestors. Likewise, Africa will need multiple billions to reach that level. Most central and southern African countries have a population density comparable to the US state of Colorado. There is much room to expand in.

    This means you are not only a low-t wimp, but a low-IQ, low-t wimp.
    How does it feel to be the worst of both worlds? Those immigrants were not less desirable than people such as yourself.

    • Replies: @Etruscan Film Star
    @Anon


    The United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. Much like Africa, the continent.
     
    I will ignore your schoolyard invective at the end of your comment, and instead explain something to you.

    In claiming that "the United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet," you rely on a common fallacy promoted by excess-breeding cheerleaders. You assume that population growth will simply occupy the space that isn't currently full up. Sorry, bub, it doesn't work that way.

    The wide-open spaces you imagine are just waiting to be occupied by an endless supply of more people are not "empty." They currently serve important functions, such as farming, supplying water, power transmission, and resource extraction. And a lot of land is basically uninhabitable — mountains, swamps, deserts. You can't calculate a meaningful population density just by comparing the number of people with the number of square miles in the country.

    Besides, additional people don't just spread out evenly or opt for being pioneers in the Mojave Desert. They congregate in cities and other areas where density is already high.

    So if you look out of an airplane window and see all the sparsely inhabited land and proclaim, "See that, we can support another billion people!" ... try thinking instead.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Anon

  53. @Pincher Martin
    @AnotherDad

    Separate from them? How about beat them?

    This is our country. The entire country. Not just part of it.

    The moment you start discussing secession, you've already admitted defeat.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @AnotherDad

    Before any “solution” is proposed, don’t we first have to get our people to be on their own side?

    Then all kinds of possibilities open up.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor

    Some of "our people" are never going to be on "our side."

    So don't wait for impossible conditions before you take meaningful action that might lead to victory.

    You know why progressives win so often? You know why they march from one political victory to the next? Because they don't wait for all "their people" to be on "their side."

    "Secession" is just another word for retreat. It means you're daydreaming of setting up some white republic in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc., which will fail anyway for the same reason we're losing in the U.S. now.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  54. @anonymous
    To this day sanctioned conservative media won't give up on Biden's "If you don't vote for me you ain't black" retort. When the God Emperor runs in the next primary he'll undoubtedly remind us again and again. So will DeSantis.

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

    Focusing on endless gibs for blacks instead of repeatedly bashing joe over the head with his POS son partly caused Trump to lose the election.

  55. @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad


    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler “minorities”. Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.
     
    If Tucker really wants to do some serious political work, he could do a lot by simply saying "Separate nations"--and making the critical point:

    The establishment's immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.

    They have the right to commit suicide. They do not have the right to make us commit suicide. That is genocide.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Sick of Orcs, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous

    We need Secession if only to protect Red States both from internal locusts migrating from blue s-holes as well as alien invaders.

    • Replies: @Abolish_public_education
    @Sick of Orcs

    The percentage of native-born, Red staters who are tax leeches is a high and unacceptable number. As I saw in my ex- (RINO) home state, newcomers from Blues don't make much difference. The key is to deport tax leeches -- of any stripe -- back to whatever s*hole countries their forbears fled from.

    Of course, if we degauss the welfare magnet, e.g. A_p_e, many of those leeches will self-deport.

    , @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    Lol, secession. Only talk on your end here. And now is never the right time. It’s always on the horizon. I’ve heard this same tired argument for 50 years. Do something about it. The Orcs have crashed the gate and are everywhere!

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

  56. Anonymous[288] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Blank
    It's a myth, except when they're bragging about it.

    Seriously, the way the left simultaneously denies what they're doing with immigration while then turning around and high-fiving each other over it — sometimes within the very same article! — has to be the most insulting, infuriating thing in contemporary political discourse.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @John Regan, @Sick of Orcs

    Seriously, the way the left simultaneously denies what they’re doing with immigration while then turning around and high-fiving each other over it — sometimes within the very same article! — has to be the most insulting, infuriating thing in contemporary political discourse.

    And you seem incapable of mounting any kind of rhetorical defense to it. Just point and sputter.

  57. @International Jew
    @Joe Stalin

    Iron Dome isn't for protecting Jews, it's for the protection of Arabs — Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Without Iron Dome, Israel would respond to incoming rockets in a cheaper and more effective way — artillery fire at the rockets' launch locations.

    I support Israel, but I'm with AOC on the Iron Dome issue (just not for the same reasons).

    Replies: @Charon, @bigdicknick, @ATBOTL, @Getaclue

    Iron Dome isn’t for protecting Jews, it’s for the protection of Arabs

    Yes, that very talking point is on the AIPAC website. All of Israel’s military exists to protect Arabs, right? To protect them from the pulverizing they’d get if we used our fists! Also: “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you!” Tell us another one.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Charon

    You're letting your imagination carry you away.

    Replies: @ATBOTL

  58. Anon[166] • Disclaimer says:
    @bigdicknick
    @JohnnyWalker123

    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.

    Replies: @Richard B, @Anon

    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.

    The phrase “Great Replacement” is better than nothing, but it is fundamentally unserious. One shouldn’t refer to the conquest of one’s ancestral homeland, and to the threat of extraction, with such a casual, value-neutral term. The neutrality of “the Great Replacement” undermines the claims of wrongdoing in the mouths of those who use it.

    Try “the Silent Holocaust” or something of that nature instead.

    • Replies: @Chester
    @Anon

    Ethnic cleansing

  59. @Richard B
    @bigdicknick


    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.
     
    The point isn't that they can't do anything to stop your talking points.

    The point is that you can't do anything to stop them from replacing you.

    Once they stop kvetching long enough to figure that out they'll stop complaining about your talking points and simply continue replacing you.

    But, hey, you'll still have your talking points.

    Replies: @Charon

    Exactly right, and even this is essentially rehashing old news. It’s like the infamous War on Whites. People are still arguing if it’s real or not, when in actual fact it’s already over. Just mopping-up operations now.

    • Replies: @Richard B
    @Charon

    True. And since it's so obvious, one has to wonder why the Left continues to flip out on cue every time someone mentions the unmentionable. They are starting to celebrate it more now. But they also continue to flip out. They really are crazy.

  60. anonymous[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @SafeNow
    Thanks to Tucker for going that far, but he stops short. Every time I have heard him, he characterizes it as a VOTING replacement. He says they will vote the Dem line. He never calls it a CULTURE replacement. Sure, they will vote the Dem line on voting day. But the migrants are changing the culture the other 364 days a year. Tucker ignores the other 364 days. He defines the migrants as voting reinforcements. In contrast, Pat Buchanan says that he prefers the old culture, and in fact, it is better. Please correct me if I am wrong; if Tucker has gone the additional distance and I missed it.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anonymous, @Inselaffen

    Thanks to Tucker for going that far, but he stops short. Every time I have heard him, he characterizes it as a VOTING replacement. He says they will vote the Dem line. He never calls it a CULTURE replacement.

    You both avoid the main issue and driving force. It is a RACIAL replacement.

    • Replies: @SafeNow
    @anonymous

    “It is RACIAL replacement.”

    True. But I wrestle with one hypocrisy I have. My Chinese-American doc listens to all of my questions with incredible patience and decency and smarts. And then there’s the Chinese-American young vet tech who meticulously and conscientiously wrote down everything I was saying about my dog’s history. I realize she replaced a traditional American young woman who would have had that job, but when my dog’s life is on the line, my dog is what I care about. My guess is that most people here would be happy about these racial replacements.

  61. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1441113782667792388

    https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1441113383638474752

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Anon, @Charon

    Israel: vye vould vee ever vant to be the 51st state? Vye haff two senators venn vee can haff 100?

  62. @Anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Someone made a humorous remark somewhere that Mossad must have something on AOC. I'm beginning to think there must be something to that. She actually changed her vote from no to present, despite the fact that her non-no vote wasn't necessary at all to pass the funding.

    Someone forced AOC to grovel.

    My gut suspicion is that most of her campaign funds are coming from liberal Jews who threatened to cut her off, and she folded. Either that, or her biggest campaign donor actually is Mossad.

    Has anybody looked into the identies of her biggest donors?

    Replies: @El Dato, @anonymous, @bigdicknick, @Prester John

    Someone made a humorous remark somewhere that Mossad must have something on AOC.

    Ocasio-Cortes says she has Jewish ancestry.

  63. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad


    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler “minorities”. Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.
     
    If Tucker really wants to do some serious political work, he could do a lot by simply saying "Separate nations"--and making the critical point:

    The establishment's immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.

    They have the right to commit suicide. They do not have the right to make us commit suicide. That is genocide.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Sick of Orcs, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous

    If Tucker really wants to do some serious political work, he could do a lot by simply saying “Separate nations”–

    We need to have a singular focus on ending immigration. I am concerned that in the arena of politics and persuasion, pie-in-the-sky talk of secession and “separate nations” detracts from that focus and splinters potential coalitions.

    The rest of your comment contains some good rhetoric for simply opposing immigration…

    and making the critical point:

    The establishment’s immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation.

    They have the right to commit suicide. They do not have the right to make us commit suicide. That is genocide.

  64. @Anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Someone made a humorous remark somewhere that Mossad must have something on AOC. I'm beginning to think there must be something to that. She actually changed her vote from no to present, despite the fact that her non-no vote wasn't necessary at all to pass the funding.

    Someone forced AOC to grovel.

    My gut suspicion is that most of her campaign funds are coming from liberal Jews who threatened to cut her off, and she folded. Either that, or her biggest campaign donor actually is Mossad.

    Has anybody looked into the identies of her biggest donors?

    Replies: @El Dato, @anonymous, @bigdicknick, @Prester John

    as governor lepage pointed out, the democrat party is funded by jews. they ALL get their money from jews. It’s an open secret that anyone can verify. that’s why their platform only makes sense when interpreted through jewish racial interests.

  65. @International Jew
    @Joe Stalin

    Iron Dome isn't for protecting Jews, it's for the protection of Arabs — Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Without Iron Dome, Israel would respond to incoming rockets in a cheaper and more effective way — artillery fire at the rockets' launch locations.

    I support Israel, but I'm with AOC on the Iron Dome issue (just not for the same reasons).

    Replies: @Charon, @bigdicknick, @ATBOTL, @Getaclue

    our weapons are for your benefit, goyim.

  66. Has anyone else noticed the difference between Joe Biden in 2015 and Joe Biden today?

  67. Well, since we all know Israel is our greatest ally, and diversity is our greatest strength, the only sensible thing to do is send our annual tribute (or in this case, the bonus to the annual) to Israel in the form of diversity. Give them 1 Billion dollars, they spend it once, and its gone forever. Send them one million Haitian refugee entrepreneurs, and they can reap the benefits of diversity for generations.

  68. @Mr. Blank
    It's a myth, except when they're bragging about it.

    Seriously, the way the left simultaneously denies what they're doing with immigration while then turning around and high-fiving each other over it — sometimes within the very same article! — has to be the most insulting, infuriating thing in contemporary political discourse.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @John Regan, @Sick of Orcs

    It’s not unique to that issue by any means. Steve highlights another prominent case in his commentary here for example.

    The pattern should be familiar to everyone here by now. They get to brag about it but if anyone notices and complains it’s racism/antisemitism/homophobia/[insert here] and you’re an evil person who deserves only hatred and contempt. Or in the best case maybe a crazy person who believes in conspiracy theories and deserves just the contempt.

    Also noticing the double standards counts as the same thing.

    Apart from sheer sadism the real point of the lying on multiple levels rather than just one straight party line is to make you uncertain and confused and in the end demoralized. Ideally (from their POV) you will come to doubt your own sanity and apathetically acquiesce in the abuse you’re suffering from the obviously Smarter and Better people who are obviously really just doing everything for your own good.

    When it’s just one psychopath that does this to a victim it’s called gaslighting. We need a new word for the same phenomenon on a societal scale.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Gaslighting

  69. @Travis
    White Americans have already been replaced. While America appears to be 58% white, according to the 2020 census, most of these whites are over the age of 45. The number of white births has collapsed since 1990.
    https://twitter.com/JDKnox4/status/1441228083390861323?s=20

    the number of whites under the age of 40 has shrunk dramatically over the past 30 years. Falling 28%, a loss of 33 million young whites since 1990.

    Year - whites under 40
    1990 - 120 million
    2020 - 87 million

    the collapse would have been worse without the 9 million White immigrants who came to America over the last 30 years. By 2030 the number of Whites under the age of 40 will fall to 75 million as the number of non-whites under 40 reaches 90 million. at this point we have too few fertile white remaining to sustain the White population . The white fertility rate would need to double to 3.0 to maintain a white population of 190 million. Yet the white fertility rate is still declining as the death spiral has begun...

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Yes. The future has already been born. Whites need to move to Red areas and vote them Redder and begin the process of building their Oranias.

  70. Anon[373] • Disclaimer says:

    Take note. Everyone is misunderstanding what’s going on here.

    Without perhaps even consciously recognizing it, I believe the Jewish pundits, talking heads, Politicians and their allies are simply just using chutzpah to get what they want. It doesn’t compute to the western mind that someone could simultaneously denounce something as a conspiracy theory, and simultaneously advocate for it publicly. It seems so counter to our sense of what the human psyche will allow.

    People are shocked at the brazenness of Democrats and their allies to at once denounce the great replacement as a unhinged right wing conspiracy theory while simultaneously celebrating and advocating for it. Under normal circumstances this would seem to defy logic, however we simply need to recognize that what we are seeing is an ethnic rhetorical tool that seems to have not yet sunk in to the collective consciousness.

    This tool is Chutzpah, which is one of the Jewish people’s most significant contributions to the world. It very loosely means gall or nerve, but really has no direct translation. As Steve has said many times, when the public doesn’t have a mental framework for something, they tend to not recognize the pattern.

    As Steve and the other Unz authors have pointed out, the fight for open borders has been led by Jewish groups since the 1960s. Whether they truly want to exterminate the white race or just want to feel like one ethnic group among many, the Jewish push for immigration has the effect of reducing the gentile share of the population.

    If we doesn’t realize that the Jewish people, who have us the concept of chutzpah, have it in spades, then we won’t realize that that’s just what’s happening.

  71. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:

    Let see how we handle the immigration in Hungary- from Orban’s speech at “Demographic Summit: West ‘Unwilling to Sustain Itself” 2021.09.23.:
    “We’re spending 5 percent of Hungarian GDP on families. We haven’t progressed as far as we would have liked, but we’re around half way there. Without Hungary’s novel family policies, some 120,000 fewer children would have been born over the past ten years, the number of marriages had almost doubled since 2010 and the number of abortions had dropped by 41 percent”.
    “Not everybody thinks that it is at all necessary to think about shaping demographic trends. We’re here though because instead of enduring the demographic trends, we want to shape them. While certain civilizations are able to reproduce, the West is simply unwilling to sustain itself. Some don’t see this as a problem, while others would use migration as a solution. This would be tantamount to adopting a global plan to resettle a new working class, and such a plan would ignore the cultural aspect of migration.”
    “Migration is a matter of identity here. A European country can only function if its members have largely the same views on the basic questions. Nations in Europe that lack that common ground are bound to disintegrate”.
    “With concern neo-Marxist woke movements rapidly gaining popularity in the West, with attempts to sidetrack the development of children in kindergarten, as children were being used as pride activists and to promote gender change. The situation was very different in central Europe, where the nature of Marxist ideas is well understood because people had to live with them for forty years. We’re vaccinated against wokeism and our history is protecting us against the cultural left, the same way as vaccines give protection against the coronavirus”

  72. “Why would Joe Biden do this to his own country?”

    Why would Angela Merkel invite a million person invasion to Europe in 2015?

    Why would Justin Trudeau invite the world to move to Canada in 2016?

    These people are plugged into the globalist death cult of erasing White countries from history.

    • Agree: El Dato
  73. He’s still using ambiguous language and not making any positive pro-white statements. He’s really still two steps removed from real white nationalism. He needs to be clear he is talking about “white” European Americans specifically and he needs to not just criticize their replacement, but state a positive preference for a white majority. If he takes those two steps, he can fairly be considered a white nationalist.

    “I want America to be a majority white country” is what we need to hear to say that Tucker is our guy. Let’s not fall for the dog whistling trick again. They are trying to redefine “Great Replacement” as just being about economic migration and “cultural change” and not being really about race or preserving a white majority. It’s the old “it’s not race, it’s culture(and now economics)” argument from boomers twenty years ago. We have seen this so many times before. They always increase their dog whistling after a big loss as a new election approaches. Remember how tough talking GOP Congressmen and Con. Inc. media were in 2008-2010 on immigration and then they tried amnesty again after they got a majority back. Tucker is doing the same thing here.

    They want white voters to turn up for the midterms to give some more tax cuts to billionaires that they can’t get from the Democrat House. Deny them and focus on building the pro-white community.

  74. After all these years

    You can see her crying “DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH”

    • Replies: @Prester John
    @El Dato

    Leb' wohl, Mutti! Und hau ab!

  75. @notsaying
    It is interesting that nobody on the Republican side that I know of has set out to prove this is going on by the numbers. Are they afraid their voters will feel discouraged about the party's future -- which of course they should be?

    You could show Congressional districts that have gone from red to purple, purple to blue or are in the process of doing so are states with increasing numbers of naturalized immigrants and their American born children and grandchildren.

    The places that are still red have fewer naturalized immigrants and their American born children and grandchildren.

    Are there any exceptions to this? I cannot think of any offhand.

    Combine with the shifting immigration policies of the Democratic Party against enforcement and for giving illegal immigrants benefit after benefit and not deporting them and what is going on is pretty obvious.

    It is disturbing to me though how few people call out the Democratic Party officials and supporters who deny the obvious facts in this case. I personally don't be like baloney coming from anywhere. I like to see it called out for what it is, even on my own side on issues.

    Replies: @Robert Dolan, @Anon, @Ian Smith

    Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They have spent all their political capital on wars for Israel, making it harder for poor black women to get abortions, and tax cuts.

    • Agree: notsaying
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Ian Smith

    And those are among the top reasons why I still vote for the Democratic Party, which I hate. The only thing worse than the execrable Democratic Parry is the GOP.

    Add to that — the complete obedience of the GOP to the Saudis. Oh, the Saudis want us to destroy the planet so they can sell more oil? The Saudis and Israelis want us to invade Iraq? The Saudis want to spread conspiracy theories about climate scientists? What Republican can object?

    Add to that— I lived in NYC for many years and knew people who had done business with Trump. Everyone knew he was a con man and probably in bed with the Mafia. Even Ann Coulter finally figured that one out.

    I’ll tell you what. A friend of mine lamented that there is no longer a patriotic party of the working people. Start putting out some pro-worker patriots and I will start voting for the GOP.

    The GOP would sweep both houses and the White House if they did that. But their corporate masters would object, so it ain’t gonna happen, I am extremely sad to say.

    Replies: @cityview

  76. @Travis
    White Americans have already been replaced. While America appears to be 58% white, according to the 2020 census, most of these whites are over the age of 45. The number of white births has collapsed since 1990.
    https://twitter.com/JDKnox4/status/1441228083390861323?s=20

    the number of whites under the age of 40 has shrunk dramatically over the past 30 years. Falling 28%, a loss of 33 million young whites since 1990.

    Year - whites under 40
    1990 - 120 million
    2020 - 87 million

    the collapse would have been worse without the 9 million White immigrants who came to America over the last 30 years. By 2030 the number of Whites under the age of 40 will fall to 75 million as the number of non-whites under 40 reaches 90 million. at this point we have too few fertile white remaining to sustain the White population . The white fertility rate would need to double to 3.0 to maintain a white population of 190 million. Yet the white fertility rate is still declining as the death spiral has begun...

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Agree, the replacement has been completed. Whites are a minority of Americans under the age of 19. The death spiral began 9 years ago. Over the last decade we had 4 million more white deaths than births.

    The number of white deaths is increasing as boomers start turning 80 and white births continue falling. The White Population of the US will decline by 9 million over the next decade as we allow 10 million non-whites to migrate into America. We are in phase 3 of the replacement, as more whites die each year than are born.

    • Agree: 3g4me
    • Replies: @Flip
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    I think Balkanization needs to be the strategy by concentrating our numbers on a regional basis and trying to reduce the power of the central government.

    , @Ben tillman
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Still, we are much better off than we expected to be at this point. Fifteen years ago, the granting of citizenship to 22 million illegals seemed like a fait accompli to be formalized, certainly, within the next ten years. Miraculously, so far, we have staved this off. Also miraculously, we elected an outsider to the Presidency.

    Our side has greatly exceeded expectations over the past 15-20 years. We have bought more time than we thought we could. Let’s use it.

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

  77. @International Jew
    @Joe Stalin

    Iron Dome isn't for protecting Jews, it's for the protection of Arabs — Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Without Iron Dome, Israel would respond to incoming rockets in a cheaper and more effective way — artillery fire at the rockets' launch locations.

    I support Israel, but I'm with AOC on the Iron Dome issue (just not for the same reasons).

    Replies: @Charon, @bigdicknick, @ATBOTL, @Getaclue

    This is the new Hasbara line:

    “Give Jews in Israel a billion dollars NOW, goy, or Jews will slaughter Arabs and it will be your fault, goy.”

    Extortion, threats of mass murder, blackmail and gas-lighting.

    I have seen this line a dozen times today in both Jewish media and comments sections. This is a very revealing moment for the Jewish psyche. The violent, hate filled, psychopathic reactions to being made to wait a few days to get a billion dollars more from goy victims who have already been taken for billions is shocking and sickening to most people

    I can’t wait to see the next round of opinion polls on Israel.

    • Agree: Not Raul
  78. @Joe Stalin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1441119470357913602

    Well, that's different from your run of the mill Conservative.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @International Jew, @follyofwar

    How much longer will it be before Neocon Newsmax fires Cortes?

  79. @Etruscan Film Star
    @Anon


    5,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

     

    Anonymous dead bulb,

    Great [xxxtreme sarcasm]. Another birth-factory visionary raises his voice. Let's see, another +100 million white children would raise the U.S. population to 425 million or so. India has a head start on us, but we can overtake. A billion and a half, here we come!

    Don't bother keeping undesirables from immigrating. Deporting, what's that? Who needs borders? Just outbreed the Africans and Muslims. Rah rah rah! Making babies isn't about families, it's our duty!

    If you prevail, I hope the additional + 100 million settle in your neighborhood.

    Replies: @Alden, @Anon, @ATBOTL

    People who say that the problem is not immigration, it’s white people not having enough children are anti-white shills trying to distract people from fighting immigration. It’s a tired old tactic that works on boomers.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @ATBOTL


    People who say that the problem is not immigration, it’s white people not having enough children are anti-white shills trying to distract people from fighting immigration.
     
    A century ago white people were doing both. As with reducing bastardy rates, it takes less of one and more of the other.

    Replies: @ATBOTL

  80. @Charon
    https://i.ibb.co/JmXHkHJ/Capture-2021-09-23-19-22-17-2.png

    The U.S. and the U.K. are making exactly the same mistake. Offering the best benefits and lighting up the beacon, which I've just remembered is grail-shaped.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    There was a similar issue with the lower classes of Chicago running off to Milwaukee and Beloit and even Madison because of better benefits and cheaper housing.

    A few days ago I was talking to a young middle class black guy from Milwaukee. He said his father always told him to avoid certain neighborhoods, including the neighborhood where his father grew up and his uncles and cousins still live.

  81. The open intent of the Democratic Party is to import nonwhite LEGAL IMMIGRANTS…so that nonwhite LEGAL immigrants and their US Born nonwhite geneline can enthusiastically vote the Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority into a violently persecuted white racial minority within the borders of America…

    The Democratic Party wants us fucking dead….

    Young Native Born White Working Class Males have to compete for the scarce Living and Breeding Space of America with young Chinese Males imported LEGALLY from China…and young Hindu Males imported LEGALLY from India…..And Donald Trump is on board with this policy….

  82. @SafeNow
    @HammerJack

    Tucker’s monologue is superbly written and delivered. Unfortunately, when it is time for him to extemporize with guests, to think of the pertinent follow up question, etc., it appears that he is not that adroit. Ted Cruz is the smartest Republican. When he was at Princeton and then Harvard Law school, he was basically the best debater in the country, and he’s still got it. It’s too bad about that image with the luggage cart and looking disheveled at the airport, which cemented his nerd image. DeSantis will be the one to go up against Newsom.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @vinteuil, @HammerJack, @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    Cruz has what is sometimes a great advantage and sometimes a great disadvantage: he is willing to throw away what he claims are her principles with the shift of the winds.

    Cruz’ main goal is power for Cruz.

    One could say that pretty much defines his 99 colleagues and every president in living memory.

    Cruz is just more blatant about it.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Paleo Liberal

    I meant his not her.

    I don’t want to misgender Cruz.

  83. @Paleo Liberal
    @SafeNow

    Cruz has what is sometimes a great advantage and sometimes a great disadvantage: he is willing to throw away what he claims are her principles with the shift of the winds.

    Cruz’ main goal is power for Cruz.

    One could say that pretty much defines his 99 colleagues and every president in living memory.

    Cruz is just more blatant about it.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    I meant his not her.

    I don’t want to misgender Cruz.

  84. The USA should charge some \$30,000 for an immigration green card. Then fine all illegals \$60,000, and garner their wages (and the bank accounts of those who hire the illegals).

    There is no real nation without borders. The Dem insistence on having more illegal aliens in America hurts Blacks the most – but Blacks keep voting for Dems anyway.

    Yet I’m living in Slovakia (as an immigrant with Slovak wife), so it’s nice to have the freedom to emigrate.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    @Tom Grey


    The USA should charge some $30,000 for an immigration green card. Then fine all illegals $60,000, and garner their wages (and the bank accounts of those who hire the illegals).
     
    Those are both good ideas.

    I also like the idea of having fewer visas available for corporations to sponsor people, and allowing states to sponsor people instead (like how Provinces in Canada can sponsor people).

    H1-Bs lower wages, in part because visa-holders can’t shop around for a better paying job.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Tom Grey


    The USA should charge some $30,000 for an immigration green card. Then fine all illegals $60,000, and garner their wages (and the bank accounts of those who hire the illegals).
     
    A good start is to require those who employ non-citizens to provide them with "Cadillac" health insurance policies, so the taxpayer isn't ever on the hook. This can be done by the states, and even their subdivisions, so no need to wait for change in Washington. It would also help with the schools, an issue which cannot be addressed directly. But if those children aren't even in the state because employers can't afford their parents, problem solved!

    (Yes, high-wage immigrants are often a problem, too, but that stream will need other remedies.)

    Yet I’m living in Slovakia (as an immigrant with Slovak wife), so it’s nice to have the freedom to emigrate.
     
    Slovaks are to Czechs what West Virginians are to Virginians.

    A century ago the Klan would recruit Slovaks in Andy Pafko's home county. The Catholic "aliens" in those parts were Irish, German, and French Canadian. The local Slovaks were conveniently Protestant, so were viewed as more American.

    (The lead recruiter was billed as a "former Catholic priest". He was likely as much a fraud as the rest of the 1920s' Klan.)

    I hope you get to visit Čičmany and Zalipie. I wish I could.
  85. @International Jew
    @Joe Stalin

    Iron Dome isn't for protecting Jews, it's for the protection of Arabs — Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Without Iron Dome, Israel would respond to incoming rockets in a cheaper and more effective way — artillery fire at the rockets' launch locations.

    I support Israel, but I'm with AOC on the Iron Dome issue (just not for the same reasons).

    Replies: @Charon, @bigdicknick, @ATBOTL, @Getaclue

    Those Zionist just really, really taking care of the best interests of the Palestinians…now in up in Pluto where you live — how is the weather today?

    • Agree: Not Raul
  86. @Daniel H
    @HammerJack


    It’s cool how Tucker is pushing the envelope, now that he doesn’t have any advertisers left. A few decades ago this kind of “real talk” might have made a difference. Better late than never, I suppose.
     
    I hope that Tucker does get canceled. He will be more powerful, influential and wealthier if he went out on his own.

    Replies: @Sir Launcelot Canning

    I hope that Tucker does get canceled.

    Absolutely not. That would make the ADL something like 20,000 – 0. That would only add to their aura of invincibility.

    I’m convinced that the powerful ADL is the nexus of all of the dismantling of traditional America. We need to find the chink in their very thick armor. They’re like the Death Star and we are Han Solo and Princess Leia.

    I watched that segment of Tucker and was delighted with what he said. I emailed his show to say so.
    He also made this very good point: If something is not true, then why are they censoring it so hard? If it’s not true the let it fall on its face and implode. Since they are censoring white replacement with such drastic measures that it would make the Stasi proud, then there must be something to it.

  87. @Tom Grey
    The USA should charge some $30,000 for an immigration green card. Then fine all illegals $60,000, and garner their wages (and the bank accounts of those who hire the illegals).

    There is no real nation without borders. The Dem insistence on having more illegal aliens in America hurts Blacks the most - but Blacks keep voting for Dems anyway.

    Yet I'm living in Slovakia (as an immigrant with Slovak wife), so it's nice to have the freedom to emigrate.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Reg Cæsar

    The USA should charge some \$30,000 for an immigration green card. Then fine all illegals \$60,000, and garner their wages (and the bank accounts of those who hire the illegals).

    Those are both good ideas.

    I also like the idea of having fewer visas available for corporations to sponsor people, and allowing states to sponsor people instead (like how Provinces in Canada can sponsor people).

    H1-Bs lower wages, in part because visa-holders can’t shop around for a better paying job.

  88. @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin

    Before any "solution" is proposed, don't we first have to get our people to be on their own side?

    Then all kinds of possibilities open up.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Some of “our people” are never going to be on “our side.”

    So don’t wait for impossible conditions before you take meaningful action that might lead to victory.

    You know why progressives win so often? You know why they march from one political victory to the next? Because they don’t wait for all “their people” to be on “their side.”

    “Secession” is just another word for retreat. It means you’re daydreaming of setting up some white republic in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc., which will fail anyway for the same reason we’re losing in the U.S. now.

    • Agree: RichardTaylor
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Pincher Martin

    I’m against secession. It becomes a time wasting fantasy were people imagine themselves off in the woods somewhere. But whatever political action is necessary, progressives do engage in propaganda to convince large numbers of people.

    That’s what school indoctrination is all about, of course. But it’s unclear what you mean by “meaningful action“.

    For 60 years guys on our side have done Showboat things that get attention but absolutely fail. Because they don’t understand how to move a society. and usually they just help the other side.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  89. @Anon
    @notsaying

    A shocking number of Republican voters remain almost entirely unaware that this is happening. No one ever tells them. What Tucker is doing is pretty remarkable.

    Over the past several years, I've had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they're making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @AnotherDad, @KenH

    Over the past several years, I’ve had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they’re making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.

    Even on Steve’s HBD oriented blog, there are a bunch of commenters who refuse to see that immigration is issue #1.–essentially the only issue that really matters right now, the issue that utterly dominates the shape of “the future”.

    They’re all hopped up on affirmative action or money printing or Israel or the wars or … whatever.

    Stuff that may be interesting or is annoying, but which is tractable or fixable. But the effects of immigration are not “fixable” … and after a while there is simply no “fixing”. You have a different country with a different people and culture–your nation has been killed off. Their genocide successful.

    • Agree: notsaying
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    They’re all hopped up on affirmative action or money printing or Israel or the wars or … whatever.
     
    Or “mask mandates”!

    Sad, ridiculous prioritizations. Even vaccine mandates and lockdowns are of utter insignificance compared to the immigration threat.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    @AnotherDad

    In a sense you are right but in another sense, everything is moving too fast and all these issues are inter-related. The military NDAA and mask mandates and vaccine passports are all related to compliance and free thinking, without which you can't make headway with the public on immigration. Likewise, in order to see the true impact of immigration, people need to reject the narratives about US history that they learned in public school and university, which are related to CRT, academic Communism, and the JQ.

    It used to be possible to introduce immigration as an economic or nationalist issue, but now you can't even do that because doctrinaire socialist perspectives have been replaced with radical anti-rational ones.

    The one really big distraction I see is Israel. I've even modified my own pro-Israel views somewhat, but even so, that's not our concern. Do the Palestinians have a right to at least some of that land? The correct answer from us is not yes or no, but who cares?

    , @lavoisier
    @AnotherDad


    They’re all hopped up on affirmative action or money printing or Israel or the wars or … whatever.
     
    I agree that massive Third World immigration to the West is the central issue that we face. But please do not ignore the disproportionate role played by the people of Israel in the immigration disaster we have experienced and continue to experience.

    Whether brain dead white liberals are sufficient to have caused our immigration disaster is certainly a reasonable question to ask.

    But the disproportionate role of Jewish people in this disaster should not be minimized. Their pushing for massive non-white immigration into the West may well be the most important factor responsible for the immigration disasters experienced by once stable European derived nations.

    The immigration disaster did not happen by accident. It was planned and it is a form of genocide.

  90. @Pincher Martin
    @AnotherDad

    Separate from them? How about beat them?

    This is our country. The entire country. Not just part of it.

    The moment you start discussing secession, you've already admitted defeat.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @AnotherDad

    This is our country. The entire country. Not just part of it.

    Viscerally, i’m with you. But how do you get there?

    See my “critical point” above:

    The establishment’s immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.

    Being willing to speak about “separation” rather than just “we disagree” is making the point that what they are doing is *intolerable*. It’s “wake TFU assholes”–“liberty or death” rhetoric.

    If we’re going to win, then we need–need quickly–to get people understanding that the current situation–and drift–is unacceptable. Not “we disagree with it it”. Not “wrong”. Not “our candidate will run against you on it.” But unacceptable.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @AnotherDad


    Viscerally, i’m with you. But how do you get there?
     
    I can think of several ways to get there, but secession ain't among them.

    Being willing to speak about “separation” rather than just “we disagree” is making the point that what they are doing is *intolerable*. It’s “wake TFU assholes”–“liberty or death” rhetoric.
     
    I agree with you. But why would we cede valuable land to make that point?

    The first step, which Trump began but never completed, is to get the GOP to become our political party and to represent our agenda.

    At the same time we need to welcome those Democrats who side with us and to turn out those Republicans who do not. Again, Trump started this step, but never really finished it.

    Talk of secession doesn't help to do any of this.

    Second, we need a new intellectual class. Every successful political movement needs a group of intellectuals to inform, provide ideas, and keep the movement on the right policy tracks. Our current GOP establishment class of intellectuals is antagonistic toward our aims and seeks to undermine us at every opportunity.

    That means we need to start supporting people like Steve and others who are doing God's work, but who were marginalized by the establishment intellectuals who controlled the party over the last several decades.

    Talk of secession doesn't help with any of this.

    Third, we need to support media which actively promotes our agenda rather than just tolerates our presence.

    Until we go far in completing these three steps, we won't have an accurate sense of our political strength.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor

  91. More Asians means more mass shootings. The Kroger shooter yesterday was an Asian (thus media quiet) and a disgruntled employee, which makes sense, because right now you’re either not working or you’re working double shifts to cover for the people not working.
    https://fox17.com/news/local/reports-collierville-kroger-shooter-was-disgruntled-employee-tennessee-crime-alert

  92. @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad


    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler “minorities”. Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.
     
    If Tucker really wants to do some serious political work, he could do a lot by simply saying "Separate nations"--and making the critical point:

    The establishment's immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.

    They have the right to commit suicide. They do not have the right to make us commit suicide. That is genocide.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Sick of Orcs, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous

    Congratulations. Your comment inspired Corvinus to open a Socratic dialogue with himself:

    45. Pincher Martin says:
    September 24, 2021 at 7:03 am GMT • 11.3 hours ago ↑

    54. RichardTaylor says:
    September 24, 2021 at 9:37 am GMT • 8.7 hours ago ↑

    88. Pincher Martin says:
    September 24, 2021 at 6:03 pm GMT • 16 minutes ago • 100 Words ↑

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @Reg Cæsar


    Your comment inspired Corvinus to open a Socratic dialogue with himself...
     
    So you think Pincher Martin & Richard Taylor are sock puppets for Corvinus?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Pincher Martin
    @Reg Cæsar

    Looks like I have my own personal stalker. Instead of weapons, he comes with useless grammar advice and a word count.

  93. @ATBOTL
    @Etruscan Film Star

    People who say that the problem is not immigration, it's white people not having enough children are anti-white shills trying to distract people from fighting immigration. It's a tired old tactic that works on boomers.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    People who say that the problem is not immigration, it’s white people not having enough children are anti-white shills trying to distract people from fighting immigration.

    A century ago white people were doing both. As with reducing bastardy rates, it takes less of one and more of the other.

    • Replies: @ATBOTL
    @Reg Cæsar

    We don't necessary need an ever growing population. Our population can fluctuate over time and we will be fine without immigration.

  94. @Sick of Orcs
    @AnotherDad

    We need Secession if only to protect Red States both from internal locusts migrating from blue s-holes as well as alien invaders.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Corvinus

    The percentage of native-born, Red staters who are tax leeches is a high and unacceptable number. As I saw in my ex- (RINO) home state, newcomers from Blues don’t make much difference. The key is to deport tax leeches — of any stripe — back to whatever s*hole countries their forbears fled from.

    Of course, if we degauss the welfare magnet, e.g. A_p_e, many of those leeches will self-deport.

  95. @Reg Cæsar
    @AnotherDad

    Congratulations. Your comment inspired Corvinus to open a Socratic dialogue with himself:


    45. Pincher Martin says:
    September 24, 2021 at 7:03 am GMT • 11.3 hours ago ↑
    @AnotherDad


    54. RichardTaylor says:
    September 24, 2021 at 9:37 am GMT • 8.7 hours ago ↑
    @Pincher Martin


    88. Pincher Martin says:
    September 24, 2021 at 6:03 pm GMT • 16 minutes ago • 100 Words ↑
    @RichardTaylor

     

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Pincher Martin

    Your comment inspired Corvinus to open a Socratic dialogue with himself…

    So you think Pincher Martin & Richard Taylor are sock puppets for Corvinus?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @vinteuil

    He's a clueless dullard. He tried to correct my grammar the other day, and when I snapped at him for being a fusspot, he began stalking me - even gratuitously mentioning my moniker in posts and discussions in which I was not taking part.

    The name "Corvinus" seems slightly familiar, but I don't have any specific idea who he's talking about. I've been posting at this site, desultorily, for more than a decade.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @vinteuil


    So you think Pincher Martin & Richard Taylor are sock puppets for Corvinus?
     
    Or all three are puppets for Morris Dees and Richard Cohen. They need to keep busy in their retirement.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  96. @AnotherDad
    @Anon



    Over the past several years, I’ve had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they’re making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.
     
    Even on Steve's HBD oriented blog, there are a bunch of commenters who refuse to see that immigration is issue #1.--essentially the only issue that really matters right now, the issue that utterly dominates the shape of "the future".

    They're all hopped up on affirmative action or money printing or Israel or the wars or ... whatever.

    Stuff that may be interesting or is annoying, but which is tractable or fixable. But the effects of immigration are not "fixable" ... and after a while there is simply no "fixing". You have a different country with a different people and culture--your nation has been killed off. Their genocide successful.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @lavoisier

    They’re all hopped up on affirmative action or money printing or Israel or the wars or … whatever.

    Or “mask mandates”!

    Sad, ridiculous prioritizations. Even vaccine mandates and lockdowns are of utter insignificance compared to the immigration threat.

  97. @Reg Cæsar
    @AnotherDad

    Congratulations. Your comment inspired Corvinus to open a Socratic dialogue with himself:


    45. Pincher Martin says:
    September 24, 2021 at 7:03 am GMT • 11.3 hours ago ↑
    @AnotherDad


    54. RichardTaylor says:
    September 24, 2021 at 9:37 am GMT • 8.7 hours ago ↑
    @Pincher Martin


    88. Pincher Martin says:
    September 24, 2021 at 6:03 pm GMT • 16 minutes ago • 100 Words ↑
    @RichardTaylor

     

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Pincher Martin

    Looks like I have my own personal stalker. Instead of weapons, he comes with useless grammar advice and a word count.

  98. The use of the phrase GREAT REPLACEMENT, to describe the demographic effects of nation-killing mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration, isn’t strong enough.

    To get people’s attention and interest, you have to use WHITE GENOCIDE.

    Tweet from 2015:

    • Agree: Ben tillman
  99. @AnotherDad
    Good for Tucker to speak fairly directly.

    But i think we're now well past the point where even such neutral, straight up challenges to replacement--even if successful--will be sufficient.

    I don't believe there's any winning unless minoritarianism is taken on directly. The idea that "minorities" somehow have some sort of divine "right of access" to white gentiles and the pleasant nations they produce.

    That's the root of it: White gentiles--through their genetic endowments, cultural traditions, invention and hard work--have created some very nice nations--peaceful and prosperous. Minoritarianism asserts that that is somehow "oppressive" and "illegitimate" and some sort of "theft". That whatever white gentiles create must be shared--minorities must be allowed to glom on.

    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler "minorities". Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @JR Ewing

    When I was younger, I had a friend who had a STEREO! and a TELEPHONE! in his own bedroom. I was very envious and resolved to get my own in my own bedroom someday. Which, eventually, I did.

    I should have just invited myself over to his house and demanded that I get to sleep in his bedroom forever instead.

    What a sucker I was, thinking I had to work to improve my lot in life.

  100. @Tom Grey
    The USA should charge some $30,000 for an immigration green card. Then fine all illegals $60,000, and garner their wages (and the bank accounts of those who hire the illegals).

    There is no real nation without borders. The Dem insistence on having more illegal aliens in America hurts Blacks the most - but Blacks keep voting for Dems anyway.

    Yet I'm living in Slovakia (as an immigrant with Slovak wife), so it's nice to have the freedom to emigrate.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Reg Cæsar

    The USA should charge some \$30,000 for an immigration green card. Then fine all illegals \$60,000, and garner their wages (and the bank accounts of those who hire the illegals).

    A good start is to require those who employ non-citizens to provide them with “Cadillac” health insurance policies, so the taxpayer isn’t ever on the hook. This can be done by the states, and even their subdivisions, so no need to wait for change in Washington. It would also help with the schools, an issue which cannot be addressed directly. But if those children aren’t even in the state because employers can’t afford their parents, problem solved!

    (Yes, high-wage immigrants are often a problem, too, but that stream will need other remedies.)

    Yet I’m living in Slovakia (as an immigrant with Slovak wife), so it’s nice to have the freedom to emigrate.

    Slovaks are to Czechs what West Virginians are to Virginians.

    A century ago the Klan would recruit Slovaks in Andy Pafko‘s home county. The Catholic “aliens” in those parts were Irish, German, and French Canadian. The local Slovaks were conveniently Protestant, so were viewed as more American.

    (The lead recruiter was billed as a “former Catholic priest”. He was likely as much a fraud as the rest of the 1920s’ Klan.)

    I hope you get to visit Čičmany and Zalipie. I wish I could.

  101. @Ian Smith
    @notsaying

    Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They have spent all their political capital on wars for Israel, making it harder for poor black women to get abortions, and tax cuts.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    And those are among the top reasons why I still vote for the Democratic Party, which I hate. The only thing worse than the execrable Democratic Parry is the GOP.

    Add to that — the complete obedience of the GOP to the Saudis. Oh, the Saudis want us to destroy the planet so they can sell more oil? The Saudis and Israelis want us to invade Iraq? The Saudis want to spread conspiracy theories about climate scientists? What Republican can object?

    Add to that— I lived in NYC for many years and knew people who had done business with Trump. Everyone knew he was a con man and probably in bed with the Mafia. Even Ann Coulter finally figured that one out.

    I’ll tell you what. A friend of mine lamented that there is no longer a patriotic party of the working people. Start putting out some pro-worker patriots and I will start voting for the GOP.

    The GOP would sweep both houses and the White House if they did that. But their corporate masters would object, so it ain’t gonna happen, I am extremely sad to say.

    • Replies: @cityview
    @Paleo Liberal

    Oh, I agree with you--I too would welcome a patriotic pro-worker party, but I would want it to have its own name. I don't think either the Republicans or the Democrats in their current form would ever want it, and I wouldn't want them.

    Like many people in Democratic one-party areas that don't have open primaries, I maintain a Democratic voter registration, because if you only vote independent or some other third-party choice, the decisions are all made before they ever get to you. But I haven't voted for any Democrats in quite a few years, with the exception of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. I am very unhappy with the choices presented to me; and, since I am not affluent, feel that it doesn't matter much anyway.

  102. @AnotherDad
    @Pincher Martin


    This is our country. The entire country. Not just part of it.
     
    Viscerally, i'm with you. But how do you get there?

    See my "critical point" above:

    The establishment’s immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.
     
    Being willing to speak about "separation" rather than just "we disagree" is making the point that what they are doing is *intolerable*. It's "wake TFU assholes"--"liberty or death" rhetoric.

    If we're going to win, then we need--need quickly--to get people understanding that the current situation--and drift--is unacceptable. Not "we disagree with it it". Not "wrong". Not "our candidate will run against you on it." But unacceptable.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Viscerally, i’m with you. But how do you get there?

    I can think of several ways to get there, but secession ain’t among them.

    Being willing to speak about “separation” rather than just “we disagree” is making the point that what they are doing is *intolerable*. It’s “wake TFU assholes”–“liberty or death” rhetoric.

    I agree with you. But why would we cede valuable land to make that point?

    The first step, which Trump began but never completed, is to get the GOP to become our political party and to represent our agenda.

    At the same time we need to welcome those Democrats who side with us and to turn out those Republicans who do not. Again, Trump started this step, but never really finished it.

    Talk of secession doesn’t help to do any of this.

    Second, we need a new intellectual class. Every successful political movement needs a group of intellectuals to inform, provide ideas, and keep the movement on the right policy tracks. Our current GOP establishment class of intellectuals is antagonistic toward our aims and seeks to undermine us at every opportunity.

    That means we need to start supporting people like Steve and others who are doing God’s work, but who were marginalized by the establishment intellectuals who controlled the party over the last several decades.

    Talk of secession doesn’t help with any of this.

    Third, we need to support media which actively promotes our agenda rather than just tolerates our presence.

    Until we go far in completing these three steps, we won’t have an accurate sense of our political strength.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    That means we need to start supporting people like Steve and others who are doing God’s work, but who were marginalized by the establishment intellectuals who controlled the party over the last several decades.
     
    Just bear in mind, Steve isn't remotely pro-White. None of the HBD pundits like White identity. They may provide some useful information but they oppose every measure that would actually help the White nation.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  103. @vinteuil
    @Reg Cæsar


    Your comment inspired Corvinus to open a Socratic dialogue with himself...
     
    So you think Pincher Martin & Richard Taylor are sock puppets for Corvinus?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Reg Cæsar

    He’s a clueless dullard. He tried to correct my grammar the other day, and when I snapped at him for being a fusspot, he began stalking me – even gratuitously mentioning my moniker in posts and discussions in which I was not taking part.

    The name “Corvinus” seems slightly familiar, but I don’t have any specific idea who he’s talking about. I’ve been posting at this site, desultorily, for more than a decade.

  104. @Anon
    @bigdicknick


    our talking points have gone mainstream and there is no longer anything they can do to stop it.
     
    The phrase “Great Replacement” is better than nothing, but it is fundamentally unserious. One shouldn’t refer to the conquest of one’s ancestral homeland, and to the threat of extraction, with such a casual, value-neutral term. The neutrality of “the Great Replacement” undermines the claims of wrongdoing in the mouths of those who use it.

    Try “the Silent Holocaust” or something of that nature instead.

    Replies: @Chester

    Ethnic cleansing

  105. @Reg Cæsar
    @ATBOTL


    People who say that the problem is not immigration, it’s white people not having enough children are anti-white shills trying to distract people from fighting immigration.
     
    A century ago white people were doing both. As with reducing bastardy rates, it takes less of one and more of the other.

    Replies: @ATBOTL

    We don’t necessary need an ever growing population. Our population can fluctuate over time and we will be fine without immigration.

  106. Anonymous[880] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor

    Some of "our people" are never going to be on "our side."

    So don't wait for impossible conditions before you take meaningful action that might lead to victory.

    You know why progressives win so often? You know why they march from one political victory to the next? Because they don't wait for all "their people" to be on "their side."

    "Secession" is just another word for retreat. It means you're daydreaming of setting up some white republic in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc., which will fail anyway for the same reason we're losing in the U.S. now.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I’m against secession. It becomes a time wasting fantasy were people imagine themselves off in the woods somewhere. But whatever political action is necessary, progressives do engage in propaganda to convince large numbers of people.

    That’s what school indoctrination is all about, of course. But it’s unclear what you mean by “meaningful action“.

    For 60 years guys on our side have done Showboat things that get attention but absolutely fail. Because they don’t understand how to move a society. and usually they just help the other side.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Anonymous


    That’s what school indoctrination is all about, of course. But it’s unclear what you mean by “meaningful action“.
     
    I was deliberately vague. I believe there are many possible acts one could take which would be meaningful. So I didn't want to limit how others might conceive of "meaningful action."

    Succession, however, ain't among them.


    For 60 years guys on our side have done Showboat things that get attention but absolutely fail. Because they don’t understand how to move a society. and usually they just help the other side.
     
    I agree with you on this.

    One general suggestion I have for our team is to study how progressives do it. They rarely poll watch. They don't care if their issue is only supported by a minority of Americans at any particular time. They are excellent at capturing institutions to fulfill their aims without the need for legislation. The Supreme Court Justices they nominate almost never deviate from liberal orthodoxy, while ours constantly deviate from conservative judicial principles.

    Many conservatives pooh-pooh radical leftists like Saul Alinsky and his book "Rules for Radicals". But if his approach works, and ours doesn't, then perhaps we ought to take a page out of his book for how to organize our grassroots.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Anonymous

  107. @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Travis

    Agree, the replacement has been completed. Whites are a minority of Americans under the age of 19. The death spiral began 9 years ago. Over the last decade we had 4 million more white deaths than births.

    The number of white deaths is increasing as boomers start turning 80 and white births continue falling. The White Population of the US will decline by 9 million over the next decade as we allow 10 million non-whites to migrate into America. We are in phase 3 of the replacement, as more whites die each year than are born.

    Replies: @Flip, @Ben tillman

    I think Balkanization needs to be the strategy by concentrating our numbers on a regional basis and trying to reduce the power of the central government.

    • Agree: Travis
  108. @anonymous
    @SafeNow


    Thanks to Tucker for going that far, but he stops short. Every time I have heard him, he characterizes it as a VOTING replacement. He says they will vote the Dem line. He never calls it a CULTURE replacement.
     
    You both avoid the main issue and driving force. It is a RACIAL replacement.

    Replies: @SafeNow

    “It is RACIAL replacement.”

    True. But I wrestle with one hypocrisy I have. My Chinese-American doc listens to all of my questions with incredible patience and decency and smarts. And then there’s the Chinese-American young vet tech who meticulously and conscientiously wrote down everything I was saying about my dog’s history. I realize she replaced a traditional American young woman who would have had that job, but when my dog’s life is on the line, my dog is what I care about. My guess is that most people here would be happy about these racial replacements.

  109. @Anon
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    It is not feminization but masculinization. Feminine = being afraid of others, trying to keep them out at all costs, despite the fact that they aren't even altering the demographics of your society; it's your women not reproducing that did that.


    15,000 Haitians? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the +100 million white children who could have been born.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Etruscan Film Star, @Alden, @Ben tillman

    The masculine response would be to kil or, at least, repel the invaders.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Ben tillman

    More like the basement dwelling incel response.

  110. @Anonymous
    @Pincher Martin

    I’m against secession. It becomes a time wasting fantasy were people imagine themselves off in the woods somewhere. But whatever political action is necessary, progressives do engage in propaganda to convince large numbers of people.

    That’s what school indoctrination is all about, of course. But it’s unclear what you mean by “meaningful action“.

    For 60 years guys on our side have done Showboat things that get attention but absolutely fail. Because they don’t understand how to move a society. and usually they just help the other side.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    That’s what school indoctrination is all about, of course. But it’s unclear what you mean by “meaningful action“.

    I was deliberately vague. I believe there are many possible acts one could take which would be meaningful. So I didn’t want to limit how others might conceive of “meaningful action.”

    Succession, however, ain’t among them.

    For 60 years guys on our side have done Showboat things that get attention but absolutely fail. Because they don’t understand how to move a society. and usually they just help the other side.

    I agree with you on this.

    One general suggestion I have for our team is to study how progressives do it. They rarely poll watch. They don’t care if their issue is only supported by a minority of Americans at any particular time. They are excellent at capturing institutions to fulfill their aims without the need for legislation. The Supreme Court Justices they nominate almost never deviate from liberal orthodoxy, while ours constantly deviate from conservative judicial principles.

    Many conservatives pooh-pooh radical leftists like Saul Alinsky and his book “Rules for Radicals”. But if his approach works, and ours doesn’t, then perhaps we ought to take a page out of his book for how to organize our grassroots.

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
    @Pincher Martin

    Alinsky’s approach works only because of who he is and whom he is attacking. We can’t do it his way. His side has no principles. His side is ruthlessly intolerant. His side is anchored by a multi-million-person organism whose top priority is to make sure that no group can organize in opposition to it.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    , @Anonymous
    @Pincher Martin

    Yes that makes sense. And I like a flexible attitude anyway. People get too trapped in one specific “solution“. Like an imaginary homeland in the Northwest.

    Technology keeps evolving and we don’t know where society will be in 10 or 20 years. And I totally agree about adopting techniques that WORK! That would be a change for our side.

  111. @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Travis

    Agree, the replacement has been completed. Whites are a minority of Americans under the age of 19. The death spiral began 9 years ago. Over the last decade we had 4 million more white deaths than births.

    The number of white deaths is increasing as boomers start turning 80 and white births continue falling. The White Population of the US will decline by 9 million over the next decade as we allow 10 million non-whites to migrate into America. We are in phase 3 of the replacement, as more whites die each year than are born.

    Replies: @Flip, @Ben tillman

    Still, we are much better off than we expected to be at this point. Fifteen years ago, the granting of citizenship to 22 million illegals seemed like a fait accompli to be formalized, certainly, within the next ten years. Miraculously, so far, we have staved this off. Also miraculously, we elected an outsider to the Presidency.

    Our side has greatly exceeded expectations over the past 15-20 years. We have bought more time than we thought we could. Let’s use it.

    • Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Ben tillman

    Did Any of those 2o million illegal aliens get deported ?

    The demographics of the US would still be the same today if we granted amnesty to the 20 million illegals 15 years ago. Those illegal aliens are still here, they never left and they had millions of children who are now US citizens

    Many of those illegals are now legal via other means, such as getting married to a US citizen or having a child sponsor them for a green card.

    Amnesty would be bad politically , but it does not actually change the current or future demographics of the United States. The current 20 million illegal aliens living in America have no reason to leave, and they will stay and have children here as they have been doing for decades.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  112. @Pincher Martin
    @Anonymous


    That’s what school indoctrination is all about, of course. But it’s unclear what you mean by “meaningful action“.
     
    I was deliberately vague. I believe there are many possible acts one could take which would be meaningful. So I didn't want to limit how others might conceive of "meaningful action."

    Succession, however, ain't among them.


    For 60 years guys on our side have done Showboat things that get attention but absolutely fail. Because they don’t understand how to move a society. and usually they just help the other side.
     
    I agree with you on this.

    One general suggestion I have for our team is to study how progressives do it. They rarely poll watch. They don't care if their issue is only supported by a minority of Americans at any particular time. They are excellent at capturing institutions to fulfill their aims without the need for legislation. The Supreme Court Justices they nominate almost never deviate from liberal orthodoxy, while ours constantly deviate from conservative judicial principles.

    Many conservatives pooh-pooh radical leftists like Saul Alinsky and his book "Rules for Radicals". But if his approach works, and ours doesn't, then perhaps we ought to take a page out of his book for how to organize our grassroots.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Anonymous

    Alinsky’s approach works only because of who he is and whom he is attacking. We can’t do it his way. His side has no principles. His side is ruthlessly intolerant. His side is anchored by a multi-million-person organism whose top priority is to make sure that no group can organize in opposition to it.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Ben tillman


    Alinsky’s approach works only because of who he is and whom he is attacking. We can’t do it his way. His side has no principles. His side is ruthlessly intolerant. His side is anchored by a multi-million-person organism whose top priority is to make sure that no group can organize in opposition to it.
     
    Then what you're saying is that we have no choice but to lose because your principles don't allow you to bring a gun to a gun fight.

    I think that's absurd, but it highlights what I consider to be the biggest problem with many conservatives today. Their conservative principles seem to mainly exist to prevent them from taking any effective political action.

    Too many conservatives bring the rope and tie the knots to their own nooses by which progressives can then hang them.

    If your political principles prevent you from taking the approach you need to safeguard your country and yourself from what you have described as a "ruthlessly intolerant" political opponent, then I would politely suggest that your political principles are worthless.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  113. Somewhow you get the feeling of the War of the Worlds.

    You can’t run, you can’t hide. There is an evil, demented force out there, stalking the countryside, zapping people on a whim. Surrender, drop all weapons.

    Biden blasts horseback Border Patrol officers, vows they ‘WILL PAY’ for trying to stop illegal migrants from crossing

    US President Joe Biden has promised to punish the Border Patrol agents photographed apprehending Haitian migrants near the Del Rio border crossing in Texas, calling the images of agents doing their jobs on horseback “outrageous.”

    “It’s horrible what you saw. To see people like they did, with horses, running them over, people being strapped, it’s outrageous,” the president said in his first public remarks on the situation on Friday.

    In response to the surge in public outrage, in which the agents’ reins were mistaken for “whips,” the Department of Homeland Security has discontinued horse patrols. David Foote, the US special envoy to Haiti, has also quit his job, vowing to not be “associated with the United States’ inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the danger posed by armed gangs to daily life.” Condemning the US’ “policy approach” to Haiti as “deeply flawed,” Foote insisted the US must deliver “immediate assistance” to the Haitian government.

    Several Border Patrol agents have also been temporarily relieved of their duties, according to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who reassured reporters that the men seen on horseback had been “placed on administrative leave and will not be interacting with any migrants,” after supposedly “using brutal and inappropriate measures against innocent people.”

    It also turns out that all the immigrants have been removed from The Underpass of the Saints. But where to?

    • Replies: @Alden
    @El Dato

    Where to? To your neighborhood.

  114. Anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin
    @Anonymous


    That’s what school indoctrination is all about, of course. But it’s unclear what you mean by “meaningful action“.
     
    I was deliberately vague. I believe there are many possible acts one could take which would be meaningful. So I didn't want to limit how others might conceive of "meaningful action."

    Succession, however, ain't among them.


    For 60 years guys on our side have done Showboat things that get attention but absolutely fail. Because they don’t understand how to move a society. and usually they just help the other side.
     
    I agree with you on this.

    One general suggestion I have for our team is to study how progressives do it. They rarely poll watch. They don't care if their issue is only supported by a minority of Americans at any particular time. They are excellent at capturing institutions to fulfill their aims without the need for legislation. The Supreme Court Justices they nominate almost never deviate from liberal orthodoxy, while ours constantly deviate from conservative judicial principles.

    Many conservatives pooh-pooh radical leftists like Saul Alinsky and his book "Rules for Radicals". But if his approach works, and ours doesn't, then perhaps we ought to take a page out of his book for how to organize our grassroots.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Anonymous

    Yes that makes sense. And I like a flexible attitude anyway. People get too trapped in one specific “solution“. Like an imaginary homeland in the Northwest.

    Technology keeps evolving and we don’t know where society will be in 10 or 20 years. And I totally agree about adopting techniques that WORK! That would be a change for our side.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
  115. @Ben tillman
    @Pincher Martin

    Alinsky’s approach works only because of who he is and whom he is attacking. We can’t do it his way. His side has no principles. His side is ruthlessly intolerant. His side is anchored by a multi-million-person organism whose top priority is to make sure that no group can organize in opposition to it.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Alinsky’s approach works only because of who he is and whom he is attacking. We can’t do it his way. His side has no principles. His side is ruthlessly intolerant. His side is anchored by a multi-million-person organism whose top priority is to make sure that no group can organize in opposition to it.

    Then what you’re saying is that we have no choice but to lose because your principles don’t allow you to bring a gun to a gun fight.

    I think that’s absurd, but it highlights what I consider to be the biggest problem with many conservatives today. Their conservative principles seem to mainly exist to prevent them from taking any effective political action.

    Too many conservatives bring the rope and tie the knots to their own nooses by which progressives can then hang them.

    If your political principles prevent you from taking the approach you need to safeguard your country and yourself from what you have described as a “ruthlessly intolerant” political opponent, then I would politely suggest that your political principles are worthless.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Pincher Martin


    Then what you’re saying is that we have no choice but to lose because your principles don’t allow you to bring a gun to a gun fight.
     
    No, I said that the Left has no principles. That's an allusion to Alinsky's instruction to use the opponent's principles against it. Pay attention. I've agreed with your last two paragraphs a million times on this blog and elsewhere over the last 20+ years.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  116. @AnotherDad
    @AnotherDad


    We can not work for ourselves. We exist for the benefit of nobler “minorities”. Essentially minoritarianism is the assertion that white gentiles are serfs.
     
    If Tucker really wants to do some serious political work, he could do a lot by simply saying "Separate nations"--and making the critical point:

    The establishment's immigration policy is an open attack specifically on the white people who built America, but actually all Americans and their posterity. It is not something our side can abide, because it is the destruction of the American nation. If they insist on it, then we are required to separate from them.

    They have the right to commit suicide. They do not have the right to make us commit suicide. That is genocide.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Sick of Orcs, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous

    It’s not like Tucker’s unaware of these issues. He’s not reporting on the Great Replacement because he just realized “hey, there’s this replacement thing happening! Who knew? That’s big news!”

    Based on things he’s said recently and his disarmed casual humor in previous interviews with now-cancelled people like Gavin McInnes, I’d say he’s likely not a white nationalist but is aware of racial issues and sympathetic to a dissident perspective on them.

    He’s got to introduce things into the public mind and wider discourse when they can be accepted. I’m sure he’s trying to manage this all the time. If he just came out against minoritarianism outright without building up sympathy in the listening audience, he would simply get canned immediately. He is walking a fine line as it is.

    There are, I suspect, a lot of people like my parents who are pretty willing to dissent from popular opinion but grew up during the Civil Rights era and still balk over racial issues. Even though my father has always referred to rap and reggae as “third world music”, if you explicitly talk about realities like the US being an historically white nation with a non-contributory black minority rather than a race-blind melting pot, he engages CrimeStop.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Chrisnonymous


    Even though my father has always referred to rap and reggae as “third world music”
     
    Unfortunately, it's First World (pseudo-)music. Music in the real Third World is much better.



    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=01etjs8JYM8
    , @Anonymous
    @Chrisnonymous


    Based on things he’s said recently and his disarmed casual humor in previous interviews with now-cancelled people like Gavin McInnes, I’d say he’s likely not a white nationalist but is aware of racial issues and sympathetic to a dissident perspective on them.
     
    Gavin McInnes is a cuck. He was on trad Catholic podcaster Patrick Coffin’s Show and said the Jews don’t have anything to do with the radical leftist social engineering and destruction of Western Christian culture. They just have high IQs and so are perceived by others as being behind it.


    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ejeH6dW8-TY/W29ORI_vRzI/AAAAAAAAh5s/7fe8x5QnB_4BfCchZ7lPo4oc4yEEV2p9ACLcBGAs/s1600/gavin.jpg

     

    , @ATBOTL
    @Chrisnonymous


    There are, I suspect, a lot of people like my parents who are pretty willing to dissent from popular opinion but grew up during the Civil Rights era and still balk over racial issues. Even though my father has always referred to rap and reggae as “third world music”, if you explicitly talk about realities like the US being an historically white nation with a non-contributory black minority rather than a race-blind melting pot, he engages CrimeStop.
     
    Sadly, we are running out of time to convert these kinds of boomers before they die.
  117. @Anon
    @notsaying

    A shocking number of Republican voters remain almost entirely unaware that this is happening. No one ever tells them. What Tucker is doing is pretty remarkable.

    Over the past several years, I've had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they're making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @AnotherDad, @KenH

    And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    I’m still shocked at the educated and intelligent people I come across who can’t make simply connections between mass immigration and America becoming a one party Democrat tyranny and shithole nation.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
  118. @AnotherDad
    @Anon



    Over the past several years, I’ve had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they’re making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.
     
    Even on Steve's HBD oriented blog, there are a bunch of commenters who refuse to see that immigration is issue #1.--essentially the only issue that really matters right now, the issue that utterly dominates the shape of "the future".

    They're all hopped up on affirmative action or money printing or Israel or the wars or ... whatever.

    Stuff that may be interesting or is annoying, but which is tractable or fixable. But the effects of immigration are not "fixable" ... and after a while there is simply no "fixing". You have a different country with a different people and culture--your nation has been killed off. Their genocide successful.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @lavoisier

    In a sense you are right but in another sense, everything is moving too fast and all these issues are inter-related. The military NDAA and mask mandates and vaccine passports are all related to compliance and free thinking, without which you can’t make headway with the public on immigration. Likewise, in order to see the true impact of immigration, people need to reject the narratives about US history that they learned in public school and university, which are related to CRT, academic Communism, and the JQ.

    It used to be possible to introduce immigration as an economic or nationalist issue, but now you can’t even do that because doctrinaire socialist perspectives have been replaced with radical anti-rational ones.

    The one really big distraction I see is Israel. I’ve even modified my own pro-Israel views somewhat, but even so, that’s not our concern. Do the Palestinians have a right to at least some of that land? The correct answer from us is not yes or no, but who cares?

  119. @vinteuil
    @Reg Cæsar


    Your comment inspired Corvinus to open a Socratic dialogue with himself...
     
    So you think Pincher Martin & Richard Taylor are sock puppets for Corvinus?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Reg Cæsar

    So you think Pincher Martin & Richard Taylor are sock puppets for Corvinus?

    Or all three are puppets for Morris Dees and Richard Cohen. They need to keep busy in their retirement.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Reg Cæsar

    Well, someone here is keeping busy in his dotage. I've never had so much attention with so little effort.

  120. @Chrisnonymous
    @AnotherDad

    It's not like Tucker's unaware of these issues. He's not reporting on the Great Replacement because he just realized "hey, there's this replacement thing happening! Who knew? That's big news!"

    Based on things he's said recently and his disarmed casual humor in previous interviews with now-cancelled people like Gavin McInnes, I'd say he's likely not a white nationalist but is aware of racial issues and sympathetic to a dissident perspective on them.

    He's got to introduce things into the public mind and wider discourse when they can be accepted. I'm sure he's trying to manage this all the time. If he just came out against minoritarianism outright without building up sympathy in the listening audience, he would simply get canned immediately. He is walking a fine line as it is.

    There are, I suspect, a lot of people like my parents who are pretty willing to dissent from popular opinion but grew up during the Civil Rights era and still balk over racial issues. Even though my father has always referred to rap and reggae as "third world music", if you explicitly talk about realities like the US being an historically white nation with a non-contributory black minority rather than a race-blind melting pot, he engages CrimeStop.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous, @ATBOTL

    Even though my father has always referred to rap and reggae as “third world music”

    Unfortunately, it’s First World (pseudo-)music. Music in the real Third World is much better.

  121. @SafeNow
    @HammerJack

    Tucker’s monologue is superbly written and delivered. Unfortunately, when it is time for him to extemporize with guests, to think of the pertinent follow up question, etc., it appears that he is not that adroit. Ted Cruz is the smartest Republican. When he was at Princeton and then Harvard Law school, he was basically the best debater in the country, and he’s still got it. It’s too bad about that image with the luggage cart and looking disheveled at the airport, which cemented his nerd image. DeSantis will be the one to go up against Newsom.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @vinteuil, @HammerJack, @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    Tucker’s monologue is superbly written and delivered. Unfortunately, when it is time for him to extemporize with guests, to think of the pertinent follow up question, etc., it appears that he is not that adroit.

    Yeah, he’s hopeless when it comes to sparring. And the constant fake, forced giggling is so painful.

    That said, he’s going places that even Ann Coulter avoids.

  122. @Reg Cæsar
    @vinteuil


    So you think Pincher Martin & Richard Taylor are sock puppets for Corvinus?
     
    Or all three are puppets for Morris Dees and Richard Cohen. They need to keep busy in their retirement.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Well, someone here is keeping busy in his dotage. I’ve never had so much attention with so little effort.

  123. @Ben tillman
    @Anon

    The masculine response would be to kil or, at least, repel the invaders.

    Replies: @Anon

    More like the basement dwelling incel response.

  124. Anonymous[289] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    @AnotherDad

    It's not like Tucker's unaware of these issues. He's not reporting on the Great Replacement because he just realized "hey, there's this replacement thing happening! Who knew? That's big news!"

    Based on things he's said recently and his disarmed casual humor in previous interviews with now-cancelled people like Gavin McInnes, I'd say he's likely not a white nationalist but is aware of racial issues and sympathetic to a dissident perspective on them.

    He's got to introduce things into the public mind and wider discourse when they can be accepted. I'm sure he's trying to manage this all the time. If he just came out against minoritarianism outright without building up sympathy in the listening audience, he would simply get canned immediately. He is walking a fine line as it is.

    There are, I suspect, a lot of people like my parents who are pretty willing to dissent from popular opinion but grew up during the Civil Rights era and still balk over racial issues. Even though my father has always referred to rap and reggae as "third world music", if you explicitly talk about realities like the US being an historically white nation with a non-contributory black minority rather than a race-blind melting pot, he engages CrimeStop.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous, @ATBOTL

    Based on things he’s said recently and his disarmed casual humor in previous interviews with now-cancelled people like Gavin McInnes, I’d say he’s likely not a white nationalist but is aware of racial issues and sympathetic to a dissident perspective on them.

    Gavin McInnes is a cuck. He was on trad Catholic podcaster Patrick Coffin’s Show and said the Jews don’t have anything to do with the radical leftist social engineering and destruction of Western Christian culture. They just have high IQs and so are perceived by others as being behind it.

    • Troll: Chrisnonymous
  125. @Currahee
    Wow! Now they will get him for sure.

    Replies: @Richard B

    Wow! Now they will get him for sure.

    Nah! They need him around. They can’t kill their whipping boy.

    And even if they did (and maybe they will) they’d still have to replace him.

    But seriously, people have been predicting TC’s end like clockwork, but, like clockwork, he keeps coming back. And I think about that.

    Who knows? Maybe they cosign his paychecks.

  126. @Charon
    @Richard B

    Exactly right, and even this is essentially rehashing old news. It's like the infamous War on Whites. People are still arguing if it's real or not, when in actual fact it's already over. Just mopping-up operations now.

    Replies: @Richard B

    True. And since it’s so obvious, one has to wonder why the Left continues to flip out on cue every time someone mentions the unmentionable. They are starting to celebrate it more now. But they also continue to flip out. They really are crazy.

  127. @Alden
    @Anon

    Another ignorant moron MAN OF UNZ who doesn’t know it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby. My husband and his 2 brothers have 10 children 17 grand children and 1 great grandchild so far. Instead of incessant bitching and whining like middle school girls the MEN OF UNZ should;

    1 read the basic fact about human reproduction it takes both a man and a woman

    2 find a woman marry her and have some White children.

    Unless you are so hideous and ugly creepy and weird no woman will even speak with you and are so poor you can’t afford even one child let alone 2-5.

    Reading the I hate women, babies are conceived by women alone no sperm necessary comments by the weirdo bizarro obsessed with other people’s fertility obsessed MEN OF UNZ. I believe the Steve blog attracts men with the diagnosis of FOP or fertility obsessed psychosis. A real mental illness.

    I’m probably the only person in this blog who has 4 children and 8 grandchildren. While the majority of the commenters are 60 year old virgin men severely afflicted with incurable fertility obsessed psychosis.

    Replies: @Veteran Aryan

    I believe the Steve blog attracts men with the diagnosis of FOP or fertility obsessed psychosis. A real mental illness.

    I looked it up on Bing and the top return was “Fertility and pregnancy in women with psychotic disorders.” It didn’t actually list bloviating about Men Of Unz as a symptom, but then again I didn’t read that far.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Veteran Aryan

    Another 60 year old male virgin bloviating that White women should have more children All by themselves

    I just made FOP up. I wish the childless MEN OF UNZ would explain why they constantly preach that White women should have children.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Buzz Mohawk

  128. @Paleo Liberal
    @Ian Smith

    And those are among the top reasons why I still vote for the Democratic Party, which I hate. The only thing worse than the execrable Democratic Parry is the GOP.

    Add to that — the complete obedience of the GOP to the Saudis. Oh, the Saudis want us to destroy the planet so they can sell more oil? The Saudis and Israelis want us to invade Iraq? The Saudis want to spread conspiracy theories about climate scientists? What Republican can object?

    Add to that— I lived in NYC for many years and knew people who had done business with Trump. Everyone knew he was a con man and probably in bed with the Mafia. Even Ann Coulter finally figured that one out.

    I’ll tell you what. A friend of mine lamented that there is no longer a patriotic party of the working people. Start putting out some pro-worker patriots and I will start voting for the GOP.

    The GOP would sweep both houses and the White House if they did that. But their corporate masters would object, so it ain’t gonna happen, I am extremely sad to say.

    Replies: @cityview

    Oh, I agree with you–I too would welcome a patriotic pro-worker party, but I would want it to have its own name. I don’t think either the Republicans or the Democrats in their current form would ever want it, and I wouldn’t want them.

    Like many people in Democratic one-party areas that don’t have open primaries, I maintain a Democratic voter registration, because if you only vote independent or some other third-party choice, the decisions are all made before they ever get to you. But I haven’t voted for any Democrats in quite a few years, with the exception of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. I am very unhappy with the choices presented to me; and, since I am not affluent, feel that it doesn’t matter much anyway.

  129. @Pincher Martin
    @AnotherDad


    Viscerally, i’m with you. But how do you get there?
     
    I can think of several ways to get there, but secession ain't among them.

    Being willing to speak about “separation” rather than just “we disagree” is making the point that what they are doing is *intolerable*. It’s “wake TFU assholes”–“liberty or death” rhetoric.
     
    I agree with you. But why would we cede valuable land to make that point?

    The first step, which Trump began but never completed, is to get the GOP to become our political party and to represent our agenda.

    At the same time we need to welcome those Democrats who side with us and to turn out those Republicans who do not. Again, Trump started this step, but never really finished it.

    Talk of secession doesn't help to do any of this.

    Second, we need a new intellectual class. Every successful political movement needs a group of intellectuals to inform, provide ideas, and keep the movement on the right policy tracks. Our current GOP establishment class of intellectuals is antagonistic toward our aims and seeks to undermine us at every opportunity.

    That means we need to start supporting people like Steve and others who are doing God's work, but who were marginalized by the establishment intellectuals who controlled the party over the last several decades.

    Talk of secession doesn't help with any of this.

    Third, we need to support media which actively promotes our agenda rather than just tolerates our presence.

    Until we go far in completing these three steps, we won't have an accurate sense of our political strength.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor

    That means we need to start supporting people like Steve and others who are doing God’s work, but who were marginalized by the establishment intellectuals who controlled the party over the last several decades.

    Just bear in mind, Steve isn’t remotely pro-White. None of the HBD pundits like White identity. They may provide some useful information but they oppose every measure that would actually help the White nation.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    Just bear in mind, Steve isn’t remotely pro-White.
     
    By your standards, I doubt I am, either. But if you want to win and preserve something of the old America, you'll follow our lead. Steve's ideas on citizenism have broad potential appeal. Your ideas do not.

    Look at the demographics for young Americans. The country is not white and it will never be white again. And you will never have enough white racial solidarity to push it back in that direction, even if you wanted to do so. Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration. You can't do that without a lot of help from other Americans - both white and nonwhite - who will never accept a white racial agenda.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @RichardTaylor

  130. @anon
    @HammerJack

    Tucker has too many odd verbal tics to win I think. Style beats substance.

    His weird mock voices and fake laughs come across as really, hate to say it, the male version of the Kamala/Hillary cackle that many think disqualified them.

    Trump too had some weird verbal tics, but to use the overused 2021 go-to analytical frame, Trump's tics tended to be more alpha while Tucker's seem more beta.

    Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax

    If I could get any message to Tucker, it would be to knock it off with the fake mocking voices and forced laughter. It’s just not effective rhetorically and undermines the seriousness of his message.

    • Agree: Prester John
  131. @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    That means we need to start supporting people like Steve and others who are doing God’s work, but who were marginalized by the establishment intellectuals who controlled the party over the last several decades.
     
    Just bear in mind, Steve isn't remotely pro-White. None of the HBD pundits like White identity. They may provide some useful information but they oppose every measure that would actually help the White nation.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Just bear in mind, Steve isn’t remotely pro-White.

    By your standards, I doubt I am, either. But if you want to win and preserve something of the old America, you’ll follow our lead. Steve’s ideas on citizenism have broad potential appeal. Your ideas do not.

    Look at the demographics for young Americans. The country is not white and it will never be white again. And you will never have enough white racial solidarity to push it back in that direction, even if you wanted to do so. Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration. You can’t do that without a lot of help from other Americans – both white and nonwhite – who will never accept a white racial agenda.

    • Agree: HammerJack
    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    Steve’s ideas on citizenism have broad potential appeal. Your ideas do not.
     
    They do not. Not with non-Whites. The only people who would go for that guff were silly White. At the risk of sounding smart aleck, do you go outdoors? Talk to anybody or watch TV? We are moving toward radically more polarization (which is a good thing).

    Look at the demographics for young Americans. The country is not white and it will never be white again.
     
    Yes, exactly. The behavior of White people when they're safe in some all White enclave (say goofy liberal Minnesota 50 years ago) is quite different from how they act when outnumbered. Compare that to South Carolina, where Whites were literally a minority starting in 1820 through at least 1920. What were their attitudes on race? It's no coincidence that the strongest demands for segregation come in such areas.

    Was South Africa majority White during apartheid?


    Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration.
     
    America as a White majority country is dead meat. The issue going forward is whether Whites see themselves as a polity and and a people. And whether we get the right to have our own spaces. It's happened many times before when Whites were a minority.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    , @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration.
     
    What's best about America are White Americans. Even if all non-White immigration were stopped cold, we have more than enough to breed out Whites without some kind of right to separate spaces or segregation of some form.

    After all, Blacks, Latinos and Asians have that right and practice it every day.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  132. @SafeNow
    @HammerJack

    Tucker’s monologue is superbly written and delivered. Unfortunately, when it is time for him to extemporize with guests, to think of the pertinent follow up question, etc., it appears that he is not that adroit. Ted Cruz is the smartest Republican. When he was at Princeton and then Harvard Law school, he was basically the best debater in the country, and he’s still got it. It’s too bad about that image with the luggage cart and looking disheveled at the airport, which cemented his nerd image. DeSantis will be the one to go up against Newsom.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @vinteuil, @HammerJack, @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    Tucker is especially glib–verbally agile, even–when you compare him with the last few occupants of the White House. I’m sure he has weaknesses as a candidate, but that’s not one of them. Lack of political infrastructure, that’s another matter. Trump lacked that too, but he had billions of dollars.

  133. @Anon
    @Etruscan Film Star

    The United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. Much like Africa, the continent.

    We'd have to raise our population to about a billion just to reach population densities comparable to Western Europe - the homeland of most White American ancestors. Likewise, Africa will need multiple billions to reach that level. Most central and southern African countries have a population density comparable to the US state of Colorado. There is much room to expand in.

    This means you are not only a low-t wimp, but a low-IQ, low-t wimp.
    How does it feel to be the worst of both worlds? Those immigrants were not less desirable than people such as yourself.

    Replies: @Etruscan Film Star

    The United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. Much like Africa, the continent.

    I will ignore your schoolyard invective at the end of your comment, and instead explain something to you.

    In claiming that “the United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet,” you rely on a common fallacy promoted by excess-breeding cheerleaders. You assume that population growth will simply occupy the space that isn’t currently full up. Sorry, bub, it doesn’t work that way.

    The wide-open spaces you imagine are just waiting to be occupied by an endless supply of more people are not “empty.” They currently serve important functions, such as farming, supplying water, power transmission, and resource extraction. And a lot of land is basically uninhabitable — mountains, swamps, deserts. You can’t calculate a meaningful population density just by comparing the number of people with the number of square miles in the country.

    Besides, additional people don’t just spread out evenly or opt for being pioneers in the Mojave Desert. They congregate in cities and other areas where density is already high.

    So if you look out of an airplane window and see all the sparsely inhabited land and proclaim, “See that, we can support another billion people!” … try thinking instead.

    • Agree: notsaying, Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Etruscan Film Star

    Thank you. This was exactly my thought.

    , @Anon
    @Etruscan Film Star

    Absolute horseshit. The United States has the most under-utilized and unintensive farmland in the world. And land use hasn't increased since the 1940s despite the population increase.

    There's more than enough land out there, dummy. Farming techniques are more sophisticated than the days of the plough.

  134. @El Dato
    Somewhow you get the feeling of the War of the Worlds.

    You can't run, you can't hide. There is an evil, demented force out there, stalking the countryside, zapping people on a whim. Surrender, drop all weapons.

    Biden blasts horseback Border Patrol officers, vows they ‘WILL PAY’ for trying to stop illegal migrants from crossing


    US President Joe Biden has promised to punish the Border Patrol agents photographed apprehending Haitian migrants near the Del Rio border crossing in Texas, calling the images of agents doing their jobs on horseback “outrageous.”

    “It’s horrible what you saw. To see people like they did, with horses, running them over, people being strapped, it’s outrageous,” the president said in his first public remarks on the situation on Friday.
     


    In response to the surge in public outrage, in which the agents’ reins were mistaken for “whips,” the Department of Homeland Security has discontinued horse patrols. David Foote, the US special envoy to Haiti, has also quit his job, vowing to not be “associated with the United States’ inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the danger posed by armed gangs to daily life.” Condemning the US’ “policy approach” to Haiti as “deeply flawed,” Foote insisted the US must deliver “immediate assistance” to the Haitian government.

    Several Border Patrol agents have also been temporarily relieved of their duties, according to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who reassured reporters that the men seen on horseback had been “placed on administrative leave and will not be interacting with any migrants,” after supposedly “using brutal and inappropriate measures against innocent people.”
     

    It also turns out that all the immigrants have been removed from The Underpass of the Saints. But where to?

    Replies: @Alden

    Where to? To your neighborhood.

  135. @Veteran Aryan
    @Alden


    I believe the Steve blog attracts men with the diagnosis of FOP or fertility obsessed psychosis. A real mental illness.
     
    I looked it up on Bing and the top return was "Fertility and pregnancy in women with psychotic disorders." It didn't actually list bloviating about Men Of Unz as a symptom, but then again I didn't read that far.

    Replies: @Alden

    Another 60 year old male virgin bloviating that White women should have more children All by themselves

    I just made FOP up. I wish the childless MEN OF UNZ would explain why they constantly preach that White women should have children.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Alden


    I wish the childless MEN OF UNZ would explain why they constantly preach that White women should have children.
     
    Is it not important for White women to have children?
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Alden

    Just FYI, my wife and I are childfree. It was a mutual decision, albeit prompted as a condition of marriage by me.

    This decision in no way involves White people, or You, or history. Rather, it was based on certain very serious challenges I faced and was not willing to pass on.

    I made a eugenic decision, and You and everyone else here should thank me!

    There must have been literally millions of other White men in America who wanted children and would have had them. I find it hard to believe that those men did not answer the call, since God gave them every reason and VERY STRONG URGE to do so.

    What really happened is that massive immigration plus heavy birthrates by non-Whites, outnumbered whatever the most amorous White breeders could ever have done.

    So, please, all of you, stop with the implied or direct blame on those of us who (in some cases VERY wisely) CHOSE not to reproduce. That is irrelevant. Can't you see that? Or, is your mathematical intelligence so poor that you cannot?

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

  136. https://nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/stacey-abrams-georgia-governor-election-brian-kemp.html
    »We Can Replace Them: …an embittered white conservative minority [is] terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority. … American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.«


    https://bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-24/american-prosperity-depends-on-a-nonwhite-future
    »American Prosperity Depends on a Nonwhite Future«

    Quotes on whites, whiteness, “white race,” and immigration by Susan Sontag, Jean-Paul Sartre, and others progressives: https://wp.me/pc5QDQ-11

  137. @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    Just bear in mind, Steve isn’t remotely pro-White.
     
    By your standards, I doubt I am, either. But if you want to win and preserve something of the old America, you'll follow our lead. Steve's ideas on citizenism have broad potential appeal. Your ideas do not.

    Look at the demographics for young Americans. The country is not white and it will never be white again. And you will never have enough white racial solidarity to push it back in that direction, even if you wanted to do so. Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration. You can't do that without a lot of help from other Americans - both white and nonwhite - who will never accept a white racial agenda.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @RichardTaylor

    Steve’s ideas on citizenism have broad potential appeal. Your ideas do not.

    They do not. Not with non-Whites. The only people who would go for that guff were silly White. At the risk of sounding smart aleck, do you go outdoors? Talk to anybody or watch TV? We are moving toward radically more polarization (which is a good thing).

    Look at the demographics for young Americans. The country is not white and it will never be white again.

    Yes, exactly. The behavior of White people when they’re safe in some all White enclave (say goofy liberal Minnesota 50 years ago) is quite different from how they act when outnumbered. Compare that to South Carolina, where Whites were literally a minority starting in 1820 through at least 1920. What were their attitudes on race? It’s no coincidence that the strongest demands for segregation come in such areas.

    Was South Africa majority White during apartheid?

    Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration.

    America as a White majority country is dead meat. The issue going forward is whether Whites see themselves as a polity and and a people. And whether we get the right to have our own spaces. It’s happened many times before when Whites were a minority.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    They do not. Not with non-Whites. The only people who would go for that guff were silly White.
     
    The last sentence in your blockquote and your attitude in the section I quoted above don't jibe, so I'll assume you're speaking about Sailer's "citizenism" and not providing me with a refreshingly honest self-criticism.

    Even if you don't agree that Sailer's views have "broad potential appeal", you must agree they are far more likely to be entertained in public than your own views.


    At the risk of sounding smart aleck, do you go outdoors? Talk to anybody or watch TV? We are moving toward radically more polarization (which is a good thing).
     
    Ah, yes, "Heighten the contradictions!" Why do you dumbass radicals all sound the same, no matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on? Can't you guys come up with any fresh material?

    Yes, there is more polarization today than in decades past, but the polarization is *political*, not racial. Biden still received more votes from whites in 2020 (41 million +) than he did from all non-white groups combined. A greater or equal percentage of whites voted for Biden in 2020 (41%) than voted for Carter in 1980 (36%), Mondale in 1984 (34%), Dukakis in 1988 (40%), Clinton in 1992 (39%), Kerry in 2004 (41%), Obama in 2012 (39%), or Hillary in 2016 (37%)

    Only Clinton in 1996 (44%) and Gore in 2000 (42%) received a higher percent of the white vote than did Biden last year.

    So where is this greater racial polarization you're speaking of, Mister Taylor? I don't see it. Better get back to work heightening those contradictions.


    Yes, exactly. The behavior of White people when they’re safe in some all White enclave (say goofy liberal Minnesota 50 years ago) is quite different from how they act when outnumbered. Compare that to South Carolina, where Whites were literally a minority starting in 1820 through at least 1920. What were their attitudes on race? It’s no coincidence that the strongest demands for segregation come in such areas.
     
    Using the white-black experience in the U.S. is misleading when talking about the problems of immigration today.

    Whites aren't outnumbered by blacks anywhere in the U.S. except for some urban areas. It's the physical safety of Asians, Latinos and other minorities which are now more at risk from black crime than it is that of whites, who have long experience steering clear of where blacks reside.

    Look at California. Blacks are a small percentage of the state population. About half the national average. But whites are no longer even a plurality in the state. And the problem isn't that whites feel unsafe in California; it's that the state no longer resembles the country they grew up in and feel most comfortable with. The political and cultural habits have completely changed.

    Allowing immigration to continue at its present rate will mean that this feeling which is now common in California will quickly spread to other places in the country, eventually reaching everywhere.


    America as a White majority country is dead meat. The issue going forward is whether Whites see themselves as a polity and a people.
     
    They won't. Look at the stats I gave you above. There's been no "radical" movement in the white voting percentage in decades. The country becomes less white, and yet whites still vote about the same.

    Of course the Democrats might overreach and become even more radicalized in their racial politics and that will likely scare more white voters to the GOP. But it didn't happen last year when I would have thought that conditions were ripe for it. If over 40% of whites still vote Democrat after last summer's BLM riots and the corresponding rise in the homicide rate, then it's clearly gonna take a lot more to racially polarize white voters than even gross political race-mongering by Democrats.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @RichardTaylor

  138. @Ben tillman
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Still, we are much better off than we expected to be at this point. Fifteen years ago, the granting of citizenship to 22 million illegals seemed like a fait accompli to be formalized, certainly, within the next ten years. Miraculously, so far, we have staved this off. Also miraculously, we elected an outsider to the Presidency.

    Our side has greatly exceeded expectations over the past 15-20 years. We have bought more time than we thought we could. Let’s use it.

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Did Any of those 2o million illegal aliens get deported ?

    The demographics of the US would still be the same today if we granted amnesty to the 20 million illegals 15 years ago. Those illegal aliens are still here, they never left and they had millions of children who are now US citizens

    Many of those illegals are now legal via other means, such as getting married to a US citizen or having a child sponsor them for a green card.

    Amnesty would be bad politically , but it does not actually change the current or future demographics of the United States. The current 20 million illegal aliens living in America have no reason to leave, and they will stay and have children here as they have been doing for decades.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Bullshit. Illegals can be deported. We expected that they would be non-deportable citizens by now. And they aren't.

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

  139. @Alden
    @Veteran Aryan

    Another 60 year old male virgin bloviating that White women should have more children All by themselves

    I just made FOP up. I wish the childless MEN OF UNZ would explain why they constantly preach that White women should have children.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Buzz Mohawk

    I wish the childless MEN OF UNZ would explain why they constantly preach that White women should have children.

    Is it not important for White women to have children?

  140. @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    Just bear in mind, Steve isn’t remotely pro-White.
     
    By your standards, I doubt I am, either. But if you want to win and preserve something of the old America, you'll follow our lead. Steve's ideas on citizenism have broad potential appeal. Your ideas do not.

    Look at the demographics for young Americans. The country is not white and it will never be white again. And you will never have enough white racial solidarity to push it back in that direction, even if you wanted to do so. Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration. You can't do that without a lot of help from other Americans - both white and nonwhite - who will never accept a white racial agenda.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor, @RichardTaylor

    Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration.

    What’s best about America are White Americans. Even if all non-White immigration were stopped cold, we have more than enough to breed out Whites without some kind of right to separate spaces or segregation of some form.

    After all, Blacks, Latinos and Asians have that right and practice it every day.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    What’s best about America are White Americans. Even if all non-White immigration were stopped cold, we have more than enough to breed out Whites without some kind of right to separate spaces or segregation of some form.

    After all, Blacks, Latinos and Asians have that right and practice it every day.
     

    If whites really had ever wanted this after 1965 until the 1990s, they could have easily gotten it. Nothing could've stopped them from getting it.

    They just didn't want it. Not a clear majority of them anyway. You've misread the strength and commitment of your own racial constituency.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor

  141. @Chrisnonymous
    @AnotherDad

    It's not like Tucker's unaware of these issues. He's not reporting on the Great Replacement because he just realized "hey, there's this replacement thing happening! Who knew? That's big news!"

    Based on things he's said recently and his disarmed casual humor in previous interviews with now-cancelled people like Gavin McInnes, I'd say he's likely not a white nationalist but is aware of racial issues and sympathetic to a dissident perspective on them.

    He's got to introduce things into the public mind and wider discourse when they can be accepted. I'm sure he's trying to manage this all the time. If he just came out against minoritarianism outright without building up sympathy in the listening audience, he would simply get canned immediately. He is walking a fine line as it is.

    There are, I suspect, a lot of people like my parents who are pretty willing to dissent from popular opinion but grew up during the Civil Rights era and still balk over racial issues. Even though my father has always referred to rap and reggae as "third world music", if you explicitly talk about realities like the US being an historically white nation with a non-contributory black minority rather than a race-blind melting pot, he engages CrimeStop.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous, @ATBOTL

    There are, I suspect, a lot of people like my parents who are pretty willing to dissent from popular opinion but grew up during the Civil Rights era and still balk over racial issues. Even though my father has always referred to rap and reggae as “third world music”, if you explicitly talk about realities like the US being an historically white nation with a non-contributory black minority rather than a race-blind melting pot, he engages CrimeStop.

    Sadly, we are running out of time to convert these kinds of boomers before they die.

  142. @Anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Someone made a humorous remark somewhere that Mossad must have something on AOC. I'm beginning to think there must be something to that. She actually changed her vote from no to present, despite the fact that her non-no vote wasn't necessary at all to pass the funding.

    Someone forced AOC to grovel.

    My gut suspicion is that most of her campaign funds are coming from liberal Jews who threatened to cut her off, and she folded. Either that, or her biggest campaign donor actually is Mossad.

    Has anybody looked into the identies of her biggest donors?

    Replies: @El Dato, @anonymous, @bigdicknick, @Prester John

    I suspect that the Mossad probably has a dossier on EVERYBODY in The Swamp–from the very top (meaning Guess Who) to the very bottom (which runs deep); otherwise, why are we supporting a country whom we should be treating just like any other country–friends if they agree with us, foes if they don’t.

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
  143. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1441151837793439749

    That settles it. I think we've found our next president.

    Replies: @bigdicknick, @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @anon, @J1234, @Prester John

    I have been predicting Tucker’s dismissal from Team Fox for awhile now but have been wrong in terms of exactly when the hammer would drop. Nevertheless, I continue to maintain that eventually he will go the way of O’Reilly. The Bolsheviks who comprise the oligarchy which runs this country can stand having their nose rubbed in their own dogshit for only so long before they reach for the eject button (possibly in the form of some kind of ersatz “scandal”). I suspect that the podcast that Tucker has set up was done in anticipation of the eventuality that he will be ejected from the toaster.

  144. @El Dato
    After all these years

    https://twitter.com/GullibleGull/status/1441297933740101640

    You can see her crying "DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH"

    Replies: @Prester John

    Leb’ wohl, Mutti! Und hau ab!

  145. @Charon
    @International Jew


    Iron Dome isn’t for protecting Jews, it’s for the protection of Arabs
     
    Yes, that very talking point is on the AIPAC website. All of Israel's military exists to protect Arabs, right? To protect them from the pulverizing they'd get if we used our fists! Also: "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you!" Tell us another one.

    Replies: @International Jew

    You’re letting your imagination carry you away.

    • Replies: @ATBOTL
    @International Jew

    You got caught using a ludicrously dishonest talmud-style argument, that makes zero sense logically and is full of contradictions and distortions. It's amazing how little self-awareness you have. Then you resort to a typical Jewish, Freud-style psychological attack when your ridiculous argument is not believed by the goyim.

    "You’re letting your imagination carry you away."

    Yeah, we are somehow mentally maladjusted for not believing an argument so twisted and transparently false, it sounds like a cartoon villain made it. This is the kind of psychological aggression that Jews are known for. They try to lie to you to con money from you, and then when you don't fall for it, they verbally abuse you. It's psychopathic behavior is what it is.

    We don't owe you billions of dollars. Stop asking white people for money.

  146. @AnotherDad
    @Anon



    Over the past several years, I’ve had a bunch of conversations with right-wing normies about this. This extremely basic talking point-that immigrants and their children vote in supermajorities for the left and that they’re making red states blue-was jarring to them. They all got very uncomfortable when they realized that it made perfect sense and that they had no counterargument to it. And these were fairly smart people who were interested in politics.

    There are tens and tens of millions of Americans whose hearts are in the right place but whose heads are filled with nonsense.
     
    Even on Steve's HBD oriented blog, there are a bunch of commenters who refuse to see that immigration is issue #1.--essentially the only issue that really matters right now, the issue that utterly dominates the shape of "the future".

    They're all hopped up on affirmative action or money printing or Israel or the wars or ... whatever.

    Stuff that may be interesting or is annoying, but which is tractable or fixable. But the effects of immigration are not "fixable" ... and after a while there is simply no "fixing". You have a different country with a different people and culture--your nation has been killed off. Their genocide successful.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @lavoisier

    They’re all hopped up on affirmative action or money printing or Israel or the wars or … whatever.

    I agree that massive Third World immigration to the West is the central issue that we face. But please do not ignore the disproportionate role played by the people of Israel in the immigration disaster we have experienced and continue to experience.

    Whether brain dead white liberals are sufficient to have caused our immigration disaster is certainly a reasonable question to ask.

    But the disproportionate role of Jewish people in this disaster should not be minimized. Their pushing for massive non-white immigration into the West may well be the most important factor responsible for the immigration disasters experienced by once stable European derived nations.

    The immigration disaster did not happen by accident. It was planned and it is a form of genocide.

  147. Changing the ethnic and racial mix of our nation has always been part of our history, Mr. Sailer. It’s who we are.

  148. @HammerJack
    It's cool how Tucker is pushing the envelope, now that he doesn't have any advertisers left. A few decades ago this kind of "real talk" might have made a difference. Better late than never, I suppose.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-racial-wreckening-sees-murders-up-by-almost-5000/#comment-4918650

    Replies: @Daniel H, @Corvinus

    Actually, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.

    I imagine your ancestors come to the States and probably experienced a similar sentiment of “why are you here”.

    • Troll: AceDeuce
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    Actually, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.
     
    Actually, immigration has not been a permanent part of U.S. history. It wasn't in the first several decades after the U.S. Founding nor in the middle of the 20th century. And certainly "replacement" has never been in the cards until recently.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  149. @Sick of Orcs
    @AnotherDad

    We need Secession if only to protect Red States both from internal locusts migrating from blue s-holes as well as alien invaders.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Corvinus

    Lol, secession. Only talk on your end here. And now is never the right time. It’s always on the horizon. I’ve heard this same tired argument for 50 years. Do something about it. The Orcs have crashed the gate and are everywhere!

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus

    Things have to get really bad first.

    Collapse of the petrodollar, 18-wheelers stopping all deliveries, Fraudsident biden attacking a border state that decides to shoot/landmine charging illegals.

    Secession is really about management; instead of a federal behemoth, an accountable smaller government. If a mere corporation can realize it's too big to succeed what does that say about fedmob?

    The nonstop flood of Turd Worlders is going to trigger a war anyway, that's an historical constant.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  150. @HammerJack
    @JohnnyWalker123


    I think we’ve found our next president.
     
    You may think you've found your next candidate, but Tucker has made it clear that he doesn't want his life ruined. Mind you, he's head and shoulders above any politico out there, and IMHO he's due for a change (no advertising, for example) but he saw what they did to Trump, and Trump had vastly greater resources at his disposal than Tucker will ever have. Instead, the GOPe will nominate some weak neocon-retread like DeSantis, and continue its headlong slide into irrelevance.

    I hope I'm wrong. Tucker could win.

    Replies: @anon, @SafeNow, @IHTG, @Spisarevski

    Trump had vastly greater resources at his disposal than Tucker will ever have

    Not in the cognitive department, that’s for sure.

    Nor did Trump have moles in the NYT and the NSA. Instead his own administration was the leakiest ship in history, while Tucker not only has loyal people working for him, but has friends in important places, too.

    Tucker is more intelligent, will be much more competent, and understands the game better than Trump so he will be a better player.
    Of course that doesn’t mean that they won’t destroy him, it just means that it doesn’t necessarily have to go the same way it did for Trump.

  151. @Corvinus
    @HammerJack

    Actually, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.

    I imagine your ancestors come to the States and probably experienced a similar sentiment of “why are you here”.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Actually, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.

    Actually, immigration has not been a permanent part of U.S. history. It wasn’t in the first several decades after the U.S. Founding nor in the middle of the 20th century. And certainly “replacement” has never been in the cards until recently.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    To the contrary, immigration to the U,S official began in 1790 with passage of federal legislation. In the 1840’s, we saw our first wave. The Irish and Germans. And, yes, the WASPs were specifically concerned back then about being replaced, hence the creation of nativist organizations by the 1850s.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  152. @Alden
    @Veteran Aryan

    Another 60 year old male virgin bloviating that White women should have more children All by themselves

    I just made FOP up. I wish the childless MEN OF UNZ would explain why they constantly preach that White women should have children.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Buzz Mohawk

    Just FYI, my wife and I are childfree. It was a mutual decision, albeit prompted as a condition of marriage by me.

    This decision in no way involves White people, or You, or history. Rather, it was based on certain very serious challenges I faced and was not willing to pass on.

    I made a eugenic decision, and You and everyone else here should thank me!

    There must have been literally millions of other White men in America who wanted children and would have had them. I find it hard to believe that those men did not answer the call, since God gave them every reason and VERY STRONG URGE to do so.

    What really happened is that massive immigration plus heavy birthrates by non-Whites, outnumbered whatever the most amorous White breeders could ever have done.

    So, please, all of you, stop with the implied or direct blame on those of us who (in some cases VERY wisely) CHOSE not to reproduce. That is irrelevant. Can’t you see that? Or, is your mathematical intelligence so poor that you cannot?

    • Thanks: Etruscan Film Star
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Sorry there won't be a Buzz Jr. on iSteve in 30-40 years.

  153. @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    Lol, secession. Only talk on your end here. And now is never the right time. It’s always on the horizon. I’ve heard this same tired argument for 50 years. Do something about it. The Orcs have crashed the gate and are everywhere!

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

    Things have to get really bad first.

    Collapse of the petrodollar, 18-wheelers stopping all deliveries, Fraudsident biden attacking a border state that decides to shoot/landmine charging illegals.

    Secession is really about management; instead of a federal behemoth, an accountable smaller government. If a mere corporation can realize it’s too big to succeed what does that say about fedmob?

    The nonstop flood of Turd Worlders is going to trigger a war anyway, that’s an historical constant.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    “Things have to get really bad first.”

    Lol, right. Always pushing it off until later.

    “The nonstop flood of Turd Worlders is going to trigger a war anyway, that’s an historical constant.”

    Lol, it’s been nonstop for 50 years! Yet, the time is not right to fight. It never is…

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

  154. @SafeNow
    Thanks to Tucker for going that far, but he stops short. Every time I have heard him, he characterizes it as a VOTING replacement. He says they will vote the Dem line. He never calls it a CULTURE replacement. Sure, they will vote the Dem line on voting day. But the migrants are changing the culture the other 364 days a year. Tucker ignores the other 364 days. He defines the migrants as voting reinforcements. In contrast, Pat Buchanan says that he prefers the old culture, and in fact, it is better. Please correct me if I am wrong; if Tucker has gone the additional distance and I missed it.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anonymous, @Inselaffen

    It’s funny where people draw the line on ‘stopping short’ – when I hear people complaining about ‘but the infrastructure/schools/housing/traffic’ that’s one layer of ‘pussy’, just a mere displacement for what people deep down feel uncomfortable about but probably feel uncomfortable even thinking about it explicitly – but I also consider ‘but muh culture’ just the next level of pussy (‘our’ culture was very different 100, 200, 300 years ago but it wasn’t alien – and it does need to change from what it is today, for sure)- why not address the real issue and call out the racial replacement.

    Another term for racial replacement, of course, is genocide.

    As for Tucker, there are limits to what you can – and should say, when trying to appeal to a wide audience of ‘normies’ on TV, I think he’s doing a fine job.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Inselaffen


    just a mere displacement for what people deep down feel uncomfortable about
     
    What would you say it is that people deep down feel uncomfortable about?

    Replies: @Inselaffen

  155. @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus

    Things have to get really bad first.

    Collapse of the petrodollar, 18-wheelers stopping all deliveries, Fraudsident biden attacking a border state that decides to shoot/landmine charging illegals.

    Secession is really about management; instead of a federal behemoth, an accountable smaller government. If a mere corporation can realize it's too big to succeed what does that say about fedmob?

    The nonstop flood of Turd Worlders is going to trigger a war anyway, that's an historical constant.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Things have to get really bad first.”

    Lol, right. Always pushing it off until later.

    “The nonstop flood of Turd Worlders is going to trigger a war anyway, that’s an historical constant.”

    Lol, it’s been nonstop for 50 years! Yet, the time is not right to fight. It never is…

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus

    Sounds like you're either hoping Secession will happen or daring it to happen.

    Secession has already happened, it's just in its cold war phase. I don't consider blue staters in blue states to be real Americans (the punchline is neither do they.)

    The Nose, for whatever reason, decided to admit this year The Great Replacement is real and happening.

    Interesting times.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  156. @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    Actually, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.
     
    Actually, immigration has not been a permanent part of U.S. history. It wasn't in the first several decades after the U.S. Founding nor in the middle of the 20th century. And certainly "replacement" has never been in the cards until recently.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    To the contrary, immigration to the U,S official began in 1790 with passage of federal legislation. In the 1840’s, we saw our first wave. The Irish and Germans. And, yes, the WASPs were specifically concerned back then about being replaced, hence the creation of nativist organizations by the 1850s.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    To the contrary, immigration to the U,S official began in 1790 with passage of federal legislation. In the 1840’s, we saw our first wave. The Irish and Germans. And, yes, the WASPs were specifically concerned back then about being replaced, hence the creation of nativist organizations by the 1850s.
     
    Both the syntax and content of your first sentence are confusing. We were not after all discussing legislation, but historical facts. Large-scale immigration to the U.S. did NOT exist from the founding of the Republic to the 1830s, nor did it exist from 1924 to 1965. In neither period were Americans worried about being replaced for the simple fact that replacement was not happening.

    Second, you have confused a generic dislike of immigration, which has happened in the U.S. for many reasons, with fears of being replaced. Immigrants have been disliked because they lower wages, provide economic competition, have religious, linguistic or political differences, look different, etc. The fear of being replaced has not traditionally been among those worries until recently because by and large Americans were not being replaced so much as slightly diluted.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  157. @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    Steve’s ideas on citizenism have broad potential appeal. Your ideas do not.
     
    They do not. Not with non-Whites. The only people who would go for that guff were silly White. At the risk of sounding smart aleck, do you go outdoors? Talk to anybody or watch TV? We are moving toward radically more polarization (which is a good thing).

    Look at the demographics for young Americans. The country is not white and it will never be white again.
     
    Yes, exactly. The behavior of White people when they're safe in some all White enclave (say goofy liberal Minnesota 50 years ago) is quite different from how they act when outnumbered. Compare that to South Carolina, where Whites were literally a minority starting in 1820 through at least 1920. What were their attitudes on race? It's no coincidence that the strongest demands for segregation come in such areas.

    Was South Africa majority White during apartheid?


    Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration.
     
    America as a White majority country is dead meat. The issue going forward is whether Whites see themselves as a polity and and a people. And whether we get the right to have our own spaces. It's happened many times before when Whites were a minority.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    They do not. Not with non-Whites. The only people who would go for that guff were silly White.

    The last sentence in your blockquote and your attitude in the section I quoted above don’t jibe, so I’ll assume you’re speaking about Sailer’s “citizenism” and not providing me with a refreshingly honest self-criticism.

    Even if you don’t agree that Sailer’s views have “broad potential appeal”, you must agree they are far more likely to be entertained in public than your own views.

    At the risk of sounding smart aleck, do you go outdoors? Talk to anybody or watch TV? We are moving toward radically more polarization (which is a good thing).

    Ah, yes, “Heighten the contradictions!” Why do you dumbass radicals all sound the same, no matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on? Can’t you guys come up with any fresh material?

    Yes, there is more polarization today than in decades past, but the polarization is *political*, not racial. Biden still received more votes from whites in 2020 (41 million +) than he did from all non-white groups combined. A greater or equal percentage of whites voted for Biden in 2020 (41%) than voted for Carter in 1980 (36%), Mondale in 1984 (34%), Dukakis in 1988 (40%), Clinton in 1992 (39%), Kerry in 2004 (41%), Obama in 2012 (39%), or Hillary in 2016 (37%)

    Only Clinton in 1996 (44%) and Gore in 2000 (42%) received a higher percent of the white vote than did Biden last year.

    So where is this greater racial polarization you’re speaking of, Mister Taylor? I don’t see it. Better get back to work heightening those contradictions.

    Yes, exactly. The behavior of White people when they’re safe in some all White enclave (say goofy liberal Minnesota 50 years ago) is quite different from how they act when outnumbered. Compare that to South Carolina, where Whites were literally a minority starting in 1820 through at least 1920. What were their attitudes on race? It’s no coincidence that the strongest demands for segregation come in such areas.

    Using the white-black experience in the U.S. is misleading when talking about the problems of immigration today.

    Whites aren’t outnumbered by blacks anywhere in the U.S. except for some urban areas. It’s the physical safety of Asians, Latinos and other minorities which are now more at risk from black crime than it is that of whites, who have long experience steering clear of where blacks reside.

    Look at California. Blacks are a small percentage of the state population. About half the national average. But whites are no longer even a plurality in the state. And the problem isn’t that whites feel unsafe in California; it’s that the state no longer resembles the country they grew up in and feel most comfortable with. The political and cultural habits have completely changed.

    Allowing immigration to continue at its present rate will mean that this feeling which is now common in California will quickly spread to other places in the country, eventually reaching everywhere.

    America as a White majority country is dead meat. The issue going forward is whether Whites see themselves as a polity and a people.

    They won’t. Look at the stats I gave you above. There’s been no “radical” movement in the white voting percentage in decades. The country becomes less white, and yet whites still vote about the same.

    Of course the Democrats might overreach and become even more radicalized in their racial politics and that will likely scare more white voters to the GOP. But it didn’t happen last year when I would have thought that conditions were ripe for it. If over 40% of whites still vote Democrat after last summer’s BLM riots and the corresponding rise in the homicide rate, then it’s clearly gonna take a lot more to racially polarize white voters than even gross political race-mongering by Democrats.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Pincher Martin


    Of course the Democrats might overreach and become even more radicalized in their racial politics and that will likely scare more white voters to the GOP. But it didn’t happen last year when I would have thought that conditions were ripe for it.
     
    Bullshit. The George Floyd thing immediately lost the GOP 20% of its voters, as one would expect. The riots slowly brought almost all of that 20% back. Unlike that 20%, white people who vote for Democrats are completely irrational. Why would you expect any real-world event to influence their votes? Mexicans, however, hate George Floyd and everything the pro-GF freakout implies.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    , @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    Ah, yes, "Heighten the contradictions!"
     
    I'm not doing it. It's a predictable dynamic of a multi-racial country. What multi-racial country in history didn't make RACE the most important issue?

    So where is this greater racial polarization you’re speaking of, Mister Taylor? I don’t see it
     
    Uh ... wow.

    Yes, there is more polarization today than in decades past, but the polarization is *political*, not racial ... Only Clinton in 1996 (44%) and Gore in 2000 (42%) received a higher percent of the white vote than did Biden last year.
     
    Take the Jewish and Muslim vote out of the White category and see how it looks. There are others thrown in the White category. If you look at White Gentiles, you're talking close to 2/3s voting as a block. And yes, there is a hardcore minority of White race-traitors.

    By the way, have you noticed that Blacks vote a bit as a block?


    ... no “radical” movement in the white voting percentage in decades.
     
    If you didn't see the events of the last 5 years as a massive change in White attitude, you're blind. Tucker Carlson is far more radical than anything Bill O'Reilly dared say just a few years ago (and he was considered too "White supremacist" at the time).

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  158. @Pincher Martin
    @Ben tillman


    Alinsky’s approach works only because of who he is and whom he is attacking. We can’t do it his way. His side has no principles. His side is ruthlessly intolerant. His side is anchored by a multi-million-person organism whose top priority is to make sure that no group can organize in opposition to it.
     
    Then what you're saying is that we have no choice but to lose because your principles don't allow you to bring a gun to a gun fight.

    I think that's absurd, but it highlights what I consider to be the biggest problem with many conservatives today. Their conservative principles seem to mainly exist to prevent them from taking any effective political action.

    Too many conservatives bring the rope and tie the knots to their own nooses by which progressives can then hang them.

    If your political principles prevent you from taking the approach you need to safeguard your country and yourself from what you have described as a "ruthlessly intolerant" political opponent, then I would politely suggest that your political principles are worthless.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Then what you’re saying is that we have no choice but to lose because your principles don’t allow you to bring a gun to a gun fight.

    No, I said that the Left has no principles. That’s an allusion to Alinsky’s instruction to use the opponent’s principles against it. Pay attention. I’ve agreed with your last two paragraphs a million times on this blog and elsewhere over the last 20+ years.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @ben tillman


    No, I said that the Left has no principles. That’s an allusion to Alinsky’s instruction to use the opponent’s principles against it. Pay attention. I’ve agreed with your last two paragraphs a million times on this blog and elsewhere over the last 20+ years.
     
    What in God's name is wrong with using political opponents' principles against them? I see that every day on both sides of the political aisle.

    First, ask yourself, "Is Alinsky's side winning because of their superior tactics? And are we therefore losing because of our inferior tactics?"

    If you believe that to be the case, then ask yourself, "Do I want to win?"

    Finally, adjust accordingly.

    The problem I have with some conservatives is that they seem to have something against winning political battles. It's as if political victory sullies their principles. But if some of our long term goals are ever to be achieved, then it will first take a few dishonest political victories in the beginning to smooth the way.

  159. @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    Your only hope is to preserve a little of what you think is best in America by stopping mass immigration.
     
    What's best about America are White Americans. Even if all non-White immigration were stopped cold, we have more than enough to breed out Whites without some kind of right to separate spaces or segregation of some form.

    After all, Blacks, Latinos and Asians have that right and practice it every day.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    What’s best about America are White Americans. Even if all non-White immigration were stopped cold, we have more than enough to breed out Whites without some kind of right to separate spaces or segregation of some form.

    After all, Blacks, Latinos and Asians have that right and practice it every day.

    If whites really had ever wanted this after 1965 until the 1990s, they could have easily gotten it. Nothing could’ve stopped them from getting it.

    They just didn’t want it. Not a clear majority of them anyway. You’ve misread the strength and commitment of your own racial constituency.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    If whites really had ever wanted this after 1965 until the 1990s, they could have easily gotten it. Nothing could’ve stopped them from getting it.
     
    Ever heard of White Flight? Of course, Whites prefer White areas. Why on earth do we have a Police State to enforce affirmative action, forced integration and dissent on race if it's so popular?

    You know perfectly well that the Establishment of both parties and the entire media worked overtime to make sure Whites were never allowed the option to do anything about mass non-White immigration. And both parties lied through their teeth about it.

    You’ve misread the strength and commitment of your own racial constituency.
     
    We had oceans of silly White people in places like Minnesota and Vermont who had never seen a non-White face. They thought everyone on earth was a White person but with a different paint job. And when people tried to get serious about it, we had a lukewarm response by too many "thought leaders" proposing things like Citizenism.

    You're right that Whites in many parts of the country were not loyal enough to their own people. And their descendants will pay the price for generations.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  160. @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Ben tillman

    Did Any of those 2o million illegal aliens get deported ?

    The demographics of the US would still be the same today if we granted amnesty to the 20 million illegals 15 years ago. Those illegal aliens are still here, they never left and they had millions of children who are now US citizens

    Many of those illegals are now legal via other means, such as getting married to a US citizen or having a child sponsor them for a green card.

    Amnesty would be bad politically , but it does not actually change the current or future demographics of the United States. The current 20 million illegal aliens living in America have no reason to leave, and they will stay and have children here as they have been doing for decades.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Bullshit. Illegals can be deported. We expected that they would be non-deportable citizens by now. And they aren’t.

    • Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @ben tillman

    Of course illegals can be deported, yet few are, of the estimated 20 million illegal aliens in American in 2014 only 1.5 million have been deported. 92% of them are still here, raising families and having babies. Millions of those who were illegal in 2014 now have green cards, which can be obtained via marriage or sponsorship by a close relative.

    Currently we have 21 million illegal aliens and 90% of them will never be deported. Even Trump , who promised to deport millions, deported just 950,000 illegal aliens during during his 4 years in office. The Obama administration deported twice as many aliens as the Trump administration.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-11564824601

  161. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Alden

    Just FYI, my wife and I are childfree. It was a mutual decision, albeit prompted as a condition of marriage by me.

    This decision in no way involves White people, or You, or history. Rather, it was based on certain very serious challenges I faced and was not willing to pass on.

    I made a eugenic decision, and You and everyone else here should thank me!

    There must have been literally millions of other White men in America who wanted children and would have had them. I find it hard to believe that those men did not answer the call, since God gave them every reason and VERY STRONG URGE to do so.

    What really happened is that massive immigration plus heavy birthrates by non-Whites, outnumbered whatever the most amorous White breeders could ever have done.

    So, please, all of you, stop with the implied or direct blame on those of us who (in some cases VERY wisely) CHOSE not to reproduce. That is irrelevant. Can't you see that? Or, is your mathematical intelligence so poor that you cannot?

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    Sorry there won’t be a Buzz Jr. on iSteve in 30-40 years.

    • Thanks: Buzz Mohawk
  162. @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    They do not. Not with non-Whites. The only people who would go for that guff were silly White.
     
    The last sentence in your blockquote and your attitude in the section I quoted above don't jibe, so I'll assume you're speaking about Sailer's "citizenism" and not providing me with a refreshingly honest self-criticism.

    Even if you don't agree that Sailer's views have "broad potential appeal", you must agree they are far more likely to be entertained in public than your own views.


    At the risk of sounding smart aleck, do you go outdoors? Talk to anybody or watch TV? We are moving toward radically more polarization (which is a good thing).
     
    Ah, yes, "Heighten the contradictions!" Why do you dumbass radicals all sound the same, no matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on? Can't you guys come up with any fresh material?

    Yes, there is more polarization today than in decades past, but the polarization is *political*, not racial. Biden still received more votes from whites in 2020 (41 million +) than he did from all non-white groups combined. A greater or equal percentage of whites voted for Biden in 2020 (41%) than voted for Carter in 1980 (36%), Mondale in 1984 (34%), Dukakis in 1988 (40%), Clinton in 1992 (39%), Kerry in 2004 (41%), Obama in 2012 (39%), or Hillary in 2016 (37%)

    Only Clinton in 1996 (44%) and Gore in 2000 (42%) received a higher percent of the white vote than did Biden last year.

    So where is this greater racial polarization you're speaking of, Mister Taylor? I don't see it. Better get back to work heightening those contradictions.


    Yes, exactly. The behavior of White people when they’re safe in some all White enclave (say goofy liberal Minnesota 50 years ago) is quite different from how they act when outnumbered. Compare that to South Carolina, where Whites were literally a minority starting in 1820 through at least 1920. What were their attitudes on race? It’s no coincidence that the strongest demands for segregation come in such areas.
     
    Using the white-black experience in the U.S. is misleading when talking about the problems of immigration today.

    Whites aren't outnumbered by blacks anywhere in the U.S. except for some urban areas. It's the physical safety of Asians, Latinos and other minorities which are now more at risk from black crime than it is that of whites, who have long experience steering clear of where blacks reside.

    Look at California. Blacks are a small percentage of the state population. About half the national average. But whites are no longer even a plurality in the state. And the problem isn't that whites feel unsafe in California; it's that the state no longer resembles the country they grew up in and feel most comfortable with. The political and cultural habits have completely changed.

    Allowing immigration to continue at its present rate will mean that this feeling which is now common in California will quickly spread to other places in the country, eventually reaching everywhere.


    America as a White majority country is dead meat. The issue going forward is whether Whites see themselves as a polity and a people.
     
    They won't. Look at the stats I gave you above. There's been no "radical" movement in the white voting percentage in decades. The country becomes less white, and yet whites still vote about the same.

    Of course the Democrats might overreach and become even more radicalized in their racial politics and that will likely scare more white voters to the GOP. But it didn't happen last year when I would have thought that conditions were ripe for it. If over 40% of whites still vote Democrat after last summer's BLM riots and the corresponding rise in the homicide rate, then it's clearly gonna take a lot more to racially polarize white voters than even gross political race-mongering by Democrats.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @RichardTaylor

    Of course the Democrats might overreach and become even more radicalized in their racial politics and that will likely scare more white voters to the GOP. But it didn’t happen last year when I would have thought that conditions were ripe for it.

    Bullshit. The George Floyd thing immediately lost the GOP 20% of its voters, as one would expect. The riots slowly brought almost all of that 20% back. Unlike that 20%, white people who vote for Democrats are completely irrational. Why would you expect any real-world event to influence their votes? Mexicans, however, hate George Floyd and everything the pro-GF freakout implies.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @ben tillman


    Bullshit. The George Floyd thing immediately lost the GOP 20% of its voters, as one would expect. The riots slowly brought almost all of that 20% back. Unlike that 20%, white people who vote for Democrats are completely irrational.
     
    How do you know this? Why would you believe that one-fifth of GOP voters cared enough about the fate of George Floyd, a common criminal, to leave their party just because some local policeman put a knee on his neck for too long?

    All we know for sure is that in the November election last year, 41% of white voters supported Joe Biden, and that is right in line with, if not slightly higher than, the support previous Democratic candidates for president have polled among whites.
  163. @ben tillman
    @Pincher Martin


    Then what you’re saying is that we have no choice but to lose because your principles don’t allow you to bring a gun to a gun fight.
     
    No, I said that the Left has no principles. That's an allusion to Alinsky's instruction to use the opponent's principles against it. Pay attention. I've agreed with your last two paragraphs a million times on this blog and elsewhere over the last 20+ years.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    No, I said that the Left has no principles. That’s an allusion to Alinsky’s instruction to use the opponent’s principles against it. Pay attention. I’ve agreed with your last two paragraphs a million times on this blog and elsewhere over the last 20+ years.

    What in God’s name is wrong with using political opponents’ principles against them? I see that every day on both sides of the political aisle.

    First, ask yourself, “Is Alinsky’s side winning because of their superior tactics? And are we therefore losing because of our inferior tactics?”

    If you believe that to be the case, then ask yourself, “Do I want to win?”

    Finally, adjust accordingly.

    The problem I have with some conservatives is that they seem to have something against winning political battles. It’s as if political victory sullies their principles. But if some of our long term goals are ever to be achieved, then it will first take a few dishonest political victories in the beginning to smooth the way.

  164. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    To the contrary, immigration to the U,S official began in 1790 with passage of federal legislation. In the 1840’s, we saw our first wave. The Irish and Germans. And, yes, the WASPs were specifically concerned back then about being replaced, hence the creation of nativist organizations by the 1850s.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    To the contrary, immigration to the U,S official began in 1790 with passage of federal legislation. In the 1840’s, we saw our first wave. The Irish and Germans. And, yes, the WASPs were specifically concerned back then about being replaced, hence the creation of nativist organizations by the 1850s.

    Both the syntax and content of your first sentence are confusing. We were not after all discussing legislation, but historical facts. Large-scale immigration to the U.S. did NOT exist from the founding of the Republic to the 1830s, nor did it exist from 1924 to 1965. In neither period were Americans worried about being replaced for the simple fact that replacement was not happening.

    Second, you have confused a generic dislike of immigration, which has happened in the U.S. for many reasons, with fears of being replaced. Immigrants have been disliked because they lower wages, provide economic competition, have religious, linguistic or political differences, look different, etc. The fear of being replaced has not traditionally been among those worries until recently because by and large Americans were not being replaced so much as slightly diluted.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    We were not after all discussing legislation, but historical facts.”

    The historical fact is that the U.S. equipped itself to bring in immigrants in 1790.

    “Large-scale immigration to the U.S. did NOT exist from the founding of the Republic to the 1830s, nor did it exist from 1924 to 1965.”

    Well, you stated that “immigration has not been a permanent part of U.S. history.” Clearly, it was given that statute I cited. So now you added a caveat here.
    Well, from 1815 to 1860, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe. The birth of the nativist movement in the 1850s centered around the large influx of Catholics, and these organizations feared that the steady stream would erode their political power and national identity, and thus lead to their eventual replacement if numbers remained high.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  165. @ben tillman
    @Pincher Martin


    Of course the Democrats might overreach and become even more radicalized in their racial politics and that will likely scare more white voters to the GOP. But it didn’t happen last year when I would have thought that conditions were ripe for it.
     
    Bullshit. The George Floyd thing immediately lost the GOP 20% of its voters, as one would expect. The riots slowly brought almost all of that 20% back. Unlike that 20%, white people who vote for Democrats are completely irrational. Why would you expect any real-world event to influence their votes? Mexicans, however, hate George Floyd and everything the pro-GF freakout implies.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Bullshit. The George Floyd thing immediately lost the GOP 20% of its voters, as one would expect. The riots slowly brought almost all of that 20% back. Unlike that 20%, white people who vote for Democrats are completely irrational.

    How do you know this? Why would you believe that one-fifth of GOP voters cared enough about the fate of George Floyd, a common criminal, to leave their party just because some local policeman put a knee on his neck for too long?

    All we know for sure is that in the November election last year, 41% of white voters supported Joe Biden, and that is right in line with, if not slightly higher than, the support previous Democratic candidates for president have polled among whites.

  166. It’s ridiculous to nitpick Tucker Carlson’s message or methodology. I love the man, and I have previously never felt anything for a tv hairdo behind an anchor desk. But I love Tucker Carlson, and want his story – and ours – to end well and not tragically.

    Some people, apparently, think that Carlson being killed by an assassin would be “useful” in that it would highlight the MSM’s disinterest and complicity; that seems an intolerably awful price to pay to learn once more what every American already knows, and has for some time: that politicians and national-affairs ‘journalists’ are completely interchangeable shit talkers who should mutually get on their knees and pray to God that whites stay strong and united, rather than shrug their shoulders and head for high ground far from the blue states and their diverse sources of strength. For there’s a very good reason every honest man and woman fantasizes Chris Hayes or Brian Stelter blowing out a tire on MLK Blvd anywhere.

    And the orcs know it too, which is why wherever we go, they obsessively follow as closely as zoning laws permit. (Here, the dollar value of the Frankfurt School coaching they enjoy is truly incalculable.)

  167. Michael Anton.

  168. @Etruscan Film Star
    @Anon


    The United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. Much like Africa, the continent.
     
    I will ignore your schoolyard invective at the end of your comment, and instead explain something to you.

    In claiming that "the United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet," you rely on a common fallacy promoted by excess-breeding cheerleaders. You assume that population growth will simply occupy the space that isn't currently full up. Sorry, bub, it doesn't work that way.

    The wide-open spaces you imagine are just waiting to be occupied by an endless supply of more people are not "empty." They currently serve important functions, such as farming, supplying water, power transmission, and resource extraction. And a lot of land is basically uninhabitable — mountains, swamps, deserts. You can't calculate a meaningful population density just by comparing the number of people with the number of square miles in the country.

    Besides, additional people don't just spread out evenly or opt for being pioneers in the Mojave Desert. They congregate in cities and other areas where density is already high.

    So if you look out of an airplane window and see all the sparsely inhabited land and proclaim, "See that, we can support another billion people!" ... try thinking instead.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Anon

    Thank you. This was exactly my thought.

  169. @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    They do not. Not with non-Whites. The only people who would go for that guff were silly White.
     
    The last sentence in your blockquote and your attitude in the section I quoted above don't jibe, so I'll assume you're speaking about Sailer's "citizenism" and not providing me with a refreshingly honest self-criticism.

    Even if you don't agree that Sailer's views have "broad potential appeal", you must agree they are far more likely to be entertained in public than your own views.


    At the risk of sounding smart aleck, do you go outdoors? Talk to anybody or watch TV? We are moving toward radically more polarization (which is a good thing).
     
    Ah, yes, "Heighten the contradictions!" Why do you dumbass radicals all sound the same, no matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on? Can't you guys come up with any fresh material?

    Yes, there is more polarization today than in decades past, but the polarization is *political*, not racial. Biden still received more votes from whites in 2020 (41 million +) than he did from all non-white groups combined. A greater or equal percentage of whites voted for Biden in 2020 (41%) than voted for Carter in 1980 (36%), Mondale in 1984 (34%), Dukakis in 1988 (40%), Clinton in 1992 (39%), Kerry in 2004 (41%), Obama in 2012 (39%), or Hillary in 2016 (37%)

    Only Clinton in 1996 (44%) and Gore in 2000 (42%) received a higher percent of the white vote than did Biden last year.

    So where is this greater racial polarization you're speaking of, Mister Taylor? I don't see it. Better get back to work heightening those contradictions.


    Yes, exactly. The behavior of White people when they’re safe in some all White enclave (say goofy liberal Minnesota 50 years ago) is quite different from how they act when outnumbered. Compare that to South Carolina, where Whites were literally a minority starting in 1820 through at least 1920. What were their attitudes on race? It’s no coincidence that the strongest demands for segregation come in such areas.
     
    Using the white-black experience in the U.S. is misleading when talking about the problems of immigration today.

    Whites aren't outnumbered by blacks anywhere in the U.S. except for some urban areas. It's the physical safety of Asians, Latinos and other minorities which are now more at risk from black crime than it is that of whites, who have long experience steering clear of where blacks reside.

    Look at California. Blacks are a small percentage of the state population. About half the national average. But whites are no longer even a plurality in the state. And the problem isn't that whites feel unsafe in California; it's that the state no longer resembles the country they grew up in and feel most comfortable with. The political and cultural habits have completely changed.

    Allowing immigration to continue at its present rate will mean that this feeling which is now common in California will quickly spread to other places in the country, eventually reaching everywhere.


    America as a White majority country is dead meat. The issue going forward is whether Whites see themselves as a polity and a people.
     
    They won't. Look at the stats I gave you above. There's been no "radical" movement in the white voting percentage in decades. The country becomes less white, and yet whites still vote about the same.

    Of course the Democrats might overreach and become even more radicalized in their racial politics and that will likely scare more white voters to the GOP. But it didn't happen last year when I would have thought that conditions were ripe for it. If over 40% of whites still vote Democrat after last summer's BLM riots and the corresponding rise in the homicide rate, then it's clearly gonna take a lot more to racially polarize white voters than even gross political race-mongering by Democrats.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @RichardTaylor

    Ah, yes, “Heighten the contradictions!”

    I’m not doing it. It’s a predictable dynamic of a multi-racial country. What multi-racial country in history didn’t make RACE the most important issue?

    So where is this greater racial polarization you’re speaking of, Mister Taylor? I don’t see it

    Uh … wow.

    Yes, there is more polarization today than in decades past, but the polarization is *political*, not racial … Only Clinton in 1996 (44%) and Gore in 2000 (42%) received a higher percent of the white vote than did Biden last year.

    Take the Jewish and Muslim vote out of the White category and see how it looks. There are others thrown in the White category. If you look at White Gentiles, you’re talking close to 2/3s voting as a block. And yes, there is a hardcore minority of White race-traitors.

    By the way, have you noticed that Blacks vote a bit as a block?

    … no “radical” movement in the white voting percentage in decades.

    If you didn’t see the events of the last 5 years as a massive change in White attitude, you’re blind. Tucker Carlson is far more radical than anything Bill O’Reilly dared say just a few years ago (and he was considered too “White supremacist” at the time).

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    I’m not doing it. It’s a predictable dynamic of a multi-racial country. What multi-racial country in history didn’t make RACE the most important issue?
     
    There are many multiracial countries in Latin America that don't make race the center of their national politics. One might argue that class is just used as a proxy for race in those countries because there is obvious racial sorting, as one would expect if you believe (as I do) that races have different median abilities. But the issue of race is not the center of their national political discussions as it sometimes is in the U.S.

    Uh … wow.
     
    Are you mathematically illiterate? I just gave you the figures from the last several presidential elections showing no movement among white voters toward the GOP despite the growing anti-white rhetoric among Democrats.

    You can counter that argument any number of ways, but "Uh ... wow" is not among the strongest.


    Take the Jewish and Muslim vote out of the White category and see how it looks.
     
    Jewish voters are at best two percent of all U.S. voters and three percent of all Democratic votes (since approximately one-quarter to one-third of Jews voted for Trump). Muslim-Americans aren't even that high.
  170. @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    What’s best about America are White Americans. Even if all non-White immigration were stopped cold, we have more than enough to breed out Whites without some kind of right to separate spaces or segregation of some form.

    After all, Blacks, Latinos and Asians have that right and practice it every day.
     

    If whites really had ever wanted this after 1965 until the 1990s, they could have easily gotten it. Nothing could've stopped them from getting it.

    They just didn't want it. Not a clear majority of them anyway. You've misread the strength and commitment of your own racial constituency.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor

    If whites really had ever wanted this after 1965 until the 1990s, they could have easily gotten it. Nothing could’ve stopped them from getting it.

    Ever heard of White Flight? Of course, Whites prefer White areas. Why on earth do we have a Police State to enforce affirmative action, forced integration and dissent on race if it’s so popular?

    You know perfectly well that the Establishment of both parties and the entire media worked overtime to make sure Whites were never allowed the option to do anything about mass non-White immigration. And both parties lied through their teeth about it.

    You’ve misread the strength and commitment of your own racial constituency.

    We had oceans of silly White people in places like Minnesota and Vermont who had never seen a non-White face. They thought everyone on earth was a White person but with a different paint job. And when people tried to get serious about it, we had a lukewarm response by too many “thought leaders” proposing things like Citizenism.

    You’re right that Whites in many parts of the country were not loyal enough to their own people. And their descendants will pay the price for generations.

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @RichardTaylor


    Ever heard of White Flight? Of course, Whites prefer White areas. Why on earth do we have a Police State to enforce affirmative action, forced integration and dissent on race if it’s so popular?
     
    First, we don't have a police state - and if we did, enforcing AA would be the least of its concerns.

    Second, we do have culturally-enforced norms in the U.S., in which politically inconvenient facts are frowned upon when discussed in public, but they are not enforced by a police state.

    Third, most polls show Americans are not afraid of living next to people of other races; they are afraid of living in impoverished black areas, because those areas are crime-ridden and dangerous. White flight is an antiquated concept dating back to the nineteen-sixties, and it is unrelated to immigration.

    How can you be an effective spokesman for your point of view when your opinions are such a jumble of unrelated topics?


    You know perfectly well that the Establishment of both parties and the entire media worked overtime to make sure Whites were never allowed the option to do anything about mass non-White immigration. And both parties lied through their teeth about it.
     
    True, and that's still not a police state.

    We had oceans of silly White people in places like Minnesota and Vermont who had never seen a non-White face.
     
    I was just in Vermont a couple of years ago. I was surprised by how many of the young hotel workers are non-white immigrants. Same goes with Wyoming.

    As for Minnesota, anyone who traveled to the big cities there would soon be inundated by the number of non-white faces they saw there. There are more blacks in Minneapolis and St Paul than there are in San Francisco and San Jose.
  171. @Etruscan Film Star
    @Anon


    The United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. Much like Africa, the continent.
     
    I will ignore your schoolyard invective at the end of your comment, and instead explain something to you.

    In claiming that "the United States is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet," you rely on a common fallacy promoted by excess-breeding cheerleaders. You assume that population growth will simply occupy the space that isn't currently full up. Sorry, bub, it doesn't work that way.

    The wide-open spaces you imagine are just waiting to be occupied by an endless supply of more people are not "empty." They currently serve important functions, such as farming, supplying water, power transmission, and resource extraction. And a lot of land is basically uninhabitable — mountains, swamps, deserts. You can't calculate a meaningful population density just by comparing the number of people with the number of square miles in the country.

    Besides, additional people don't just spread out evenly or opt for being pioneers in the Mojave Desert. They congregate in cities and other areas where density is already high.

    So if you look out of an airplane window and see all the sparsely inhabited land and proclaim, "See that, we can support another billion people!" ... try thinking instead.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Anon

    Absolute horseshit. The United States has the most under-utilized and unintensive farmland in the world. And land use hasn’t increased since the 1940s despite the population increase.

    There’s more than enough land out there, dummy. Farming techniques are more sophisticated than the days of the plough.

    • Disagree: Buzz Mohawk
  172. @ben tillman
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Bullshit. Illegals can be deported. We expected that they would be non-deportable citizens by now. And they aren't.

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Of course illegals can be deported, yet few are, of the estimated 20 million illegal aliens in American in 2014 only 1.5 million have been deported. 92% of them are still here, raising families and having babies. Millions of those who were illegal in 2014 now have green cards, which can be obtained via marriage or sponsorship by a close relative.

    Currently we have 21 million illegal aliens and 90% of them will never be deported. Even Trump , who promised to deport millions, deported just 950,000 illegal aliens during during his 4 years in office. The Obama administration deported twice as many aliens as the Trump administration.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-11564824601

  173. @International Jew
    @Charon

    You're letting your imagination carry you away.

    Replies: @ATBOTL

    You got caught using a ludicrously dishonest talmud-style argument, that makes zero sense logically and is full of contradictions and distortions. It’s amazing how little self-awareness you have. Then you resort to a typical Jewish, Freud-style psychological attack when your ridiculous argument is not believed by the goyim.

    “You’re letting your imagination carry you away.”

    Yeah, we are somehow mentally maladjusted for not believing an argument so twisted and transparently false, it sounds like a cartoon villain made it. This is the kind of psychological aggression that Jews are known for. They try to lie to you to con money from you, and then when you don’t fall for it, they verbally abuse you. It’s psychopathic behavior is what it is.

    We don’t owe you billions of dollars. Stop asking white people for money.

  174. @SafeNow
    @HammerJack

    Tucker’s monologue is superbly written and delivered. Unfortunately, when it is time for him to extemporize with guests, to think of the pertinent follow up question, etc., it appears that he is not that adroit. Ted Cruz is the smartest Republican. When he was at Princeton and then Harvard Law school, he was basically the best debater in the country, and he’s still got it. It’s too bad about that image with the luggage cart and looking disheveled at the airport, which cemented his nerd image. DeSantis will be the one to go up against Newsom.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @vinteuil, @HammerJack, @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    I agree about Cruz. He’s intelligent to the core. Maybe too intelligent to be in today’s political scene.

  175. @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    To the contrary, immigration to the U,S official began in 1790 with passage of federal legislation. In the 1840’s, we saw our first wave. The Irish and Germans. And, yes, the WASPs were specifically concerned back then about being replaced, hence the creation of nativist organizations by the 1850s.
     
    Both the syntax and content of your first sentence are confusing. We were not after all discussing legislation, but historical facts. Large-scale immigration to the U.S. did NOT exist from the founding of the Republic to the 1830s, nor did it exist from 1924 to 1965. In neither period were Americans worried about being replaced for the simple fact that replacement was not happening.

    Second, you have confused a generic dislike of immigration, which has happened in the U.S. for many reasons, with fears of being replaced. Immigrants have been disliked because they lower wages, provide economic competition, have religious, linguistic or political differences, look different, etc. The fear of being replaced has not traditionally been among those worries until recently because by and large Americans were not being replaced so much as slightly diluted.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    We were not after all discussing legislation, but historical facts.”

    The historical fact is that the U.S. equipped itself to bring in immigrants in 1790.

    “Large-scale immigration to the U.S. did NOT exist from the founding of the Republic to the 1830s, nor did it exist from 1924 to 1965.”

    Well, you stated that “immigration has not been a permanent part of U.S. history.” Clearly, it was given that statute I cited. So now you added a caveat here.
    Well, from 1815 to 1860, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe. The birth of the nativist movement in the 1850s centered around the large influx of Catholics, and these organizations feared that the steady stream would erode their political power and national identity, and thus lead to their eventual replacement if numbers remained high.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    The historical fact is that the U.S. equipped itself to bring in immigrants in 1790.
     
    There is no such thing as "equipped itself" in this context. The law at the time allowed immigration, but laws can be changed, as indeed they were later - and long before "replacement" was ever a possibility.

    The fact remains that as late as the 1830s, over 95% of the U.S. population was native-born. And when significant numbers of immigrants finally did start to roll in the 1840s, no Americans disliked or feared them because they believed they would be replaced, which is your unsupported thesis about American history. For example, no American was worried about the Irish or Jews swamping the United States demographically to the point of replacement. The southern United States, for example, wasn't even touched by immigration before the late 20th century. Southerners still voted for immigration restriction when such laws were put forward in Congress.

    Americans at the time just didn't like the immigrants for their neighborhoods and cities and politics, and rightly so.


    Well, you stated that “immigration has not been a permanent part of U.S. history.” Clearly, it was given that statute I cited.
     
    Many laws exist for no purpose. Immigration was simply a nonfactor in U.S. history for the first several decades of the country's existence.

    And, then, beginning in the late 19th century, immigration restrictions began to be ratcheted up until the 1920s, when once again, immigration became a nonfactor in U.S. history until the laws were again changed in modern times.


    The birth of the nativist movement in the 1850s centered around the large influx of Catholics, and these organizations feared that the steady stream would erode their political power and national identity, and thus lead to their eventual replacement if numbers remained high.
     
    Erosion of political power and national identity? Sure. Replacement? No.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  176. OT:


    [MORE]

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440672556164337670

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440676073323130885
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440678490613846028
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440683483114848266
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440694454495551500

    , @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://twitter.com/nypostopinion/status/1440433489279549441

    , @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://twitter.com/schreckreports/status/1440284392950165511

    https://twitter.com/schreckreports/status/1440286198522548229

    , @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442560961680977927

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442561610887933954
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442563176348934145
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442566159111499777
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442567498730250246

    Replies: @Corvinus

  177. @MEH 0910
    OT:
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440313872334798856

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440314701896814597
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440316227545563147
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440317888498339853
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440332962533232647
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440343943950913540
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440345637086584833
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440346611742248974
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440400871305584646
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440408366153490434

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910


    [MORE]

  178. @MEH 0910
    OT:
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440313872334798856

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440314701896814597
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440316227545563147
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440317888498339853
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440332962533232647
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440343943950913540
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440345637086584833
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440346611742248974
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440400871305584646
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440408366153490434

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910

  179. @MEH 0910
    OT:
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440313872334798856

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440314701896814597
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440316227545563147
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440317888498339853
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440332962533232647
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440343943950913540
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440345637086584833
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440346611742248974
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440400871305584646
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440408366153490434

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910

  180. @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    “Things have to get really bad first.”

    Lol, right. Always pushing it off until later.

    “The nonstop flood of Turd Worlders is going to trigger a war anyway, that’s an historical constant.”

    Lol, it’s been nonstop for 50 years! Yet, the time is not right to fight. It never is…

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

    Sounds like you’re either hoping Secession will happen or daring it to happen.

    Secession has already happened, it’s just in its cold war phase. I don’t consider blue staters in blue states to be real Americans (the punchline is neither do they.)

    The Nose, for whatever reason, decided to admit this year The Great Replacement is real and happening.

    Interesting times.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    “Sounds like you’re either hoping Secession will happen or daring it to happen.”

    More like I’m saying it’s not going to happen, especially when people like yourself aren’t willing to do do anything about it.

    “ I don’t consider blue staters in blue states to be real Americans (the punchline is neither do they.)”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

  181. https://twitter.com/JDKnox4/status/1441755067044929543?s=20

    this chart shows the future demographics of the US. The White population is in steep decline. The under 40 year-old population has been declining by 1.1 million per year for 30 years, as the non-white population is growing by 1 million per year. At this rate Whites will be completely replaced within the next 75 years.

  182. @Inselaffen
    @SafeNow

    It's funny where people draw the line on 'stopping short' - when I hear people complaining about 'but the infrastructure/schools/housing/traffic' that's one layer of 'pussy', just a mere displacement for what people deep down feel uncomfortable about but probably feel uncomfortable even thinking about it explicitly - but I also consider 'but muh culture' just the next level of pussy ('our' culture was very different 100, 200, 300 years ago but it wasn't alien - and it does need to change from what it is today, for sure)- why not address the real issue and call out the racial replacement.

    Another term for racial replacement, of course, is genocide.

    As for Tucker, there are limits to what you can - and should say, when trying to appeal to a wide audience of 'normies' on TV, I think he's doing a fine job.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    just a mere displacement for what people deep down feel uncomfortable about

    What would you say it is that people deep down feel uncomfortable about?

    • Replies: @Inselaffen
    @Anonymous

    The very presence of large numbers of aliens in itself. It's, well... 'alienating'.

    But you're not allowed to say or even think like that (if you're white), so, 'but muh traffic infrastructure'.

    On the other hand they understand very explicitly well how positive it is to be surrounded by kin when pushing for ever larger inclusiveness and 'representation'... for minorities (though I don't know if it's even possible to get any more blacksaturation than we have in advertising right now...)

  183. @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus

    Sounds like you're either hoping Secession will happen or daring it to happen.

    Secession has already happened, it's just in its cold war phase. I don't consider blue staters in blue states to be real Americans (the punchline is neither do they.)

    The Nose, for whatever reason, decided to admit this year The Great Replacement is real and happening.

    Interesting times.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Sounds like you’re either hoping Secession will happen or daring it to happen.”

    More like I’m saying it’s not going to happen, especially when people like yourself aren’t willing to do do anything about it.

    “ I don’t consider blue staters in blue states to be real Americans (the punchline is neither do they.)”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus


    More like I’m saying it’s not going to happen, especially when people like yourself aren’t willing to do do anything about it.
     
    History is full of surprises so it would be foolish to rule anything out. And what shall I do that you yourself are incapable of doing? You have absolutely no idea who I am, and vice-versa.

    “ I don’t consider blue staters in blue states to be real Americans (the punchline is neither do they.)”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.
     
    Blue staters have made it abundantly clear who they are: pro-big government, pro-open borders, pro-high taxes, pro-diversity, pro-feminism. They are also anti-Christian, anti-White, anti-free speech, anti-2A. The American flag triggers them as much as the Confederate. Red Staters have nothing in common with these dolts who are ashamed to be American, except the federal mafia overshadowing us all.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  184. @MEH 0910
    OT:
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440313872334798856

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440314701896814597
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440316227545563147
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440317888498339853
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440332962533232647
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440343943950913540
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440345637086584833
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440346611742248974
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440400871305584646
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440408366153490434

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910


    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @MEH 0910

    Classic Glenn. Accuse your opponents of the same things he does on a regular basis.

  185. @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    “Sounds like you’re either hoping Secession will happen or daring it to happen.”

    More like I’m saying it’s not going to happen, especially when people like yourself aren’t willing to do do anything about it.

    “ I don’t consider blue staters in blue states to be real Americans (the punchline is neither do they.)”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

    More like I’m saying it’s not going to happen, especially when people like yourself aren’t willing to do do anything about it.

    History is full of surprises so it would be foolish to rule anything out. And what shall I do that you yourself are incapable of doing? You have absolutely no idea who I am, and vice-versa.

    “ I don’t consider blue staters in blue states to be real Americans (the punchline is neither do they.)”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    Blue staters have made it abundantly clear who they are: pro-big government, pro-open borders, pro-high taxes, pro-diversity, pro-feminism. They are also anti-Christian, anti-White, anti-free speech, anti-2A. The American flag triggers them as much as the Confederate. Red Staters have nothing in common with these dolts who are ashamed to be American, except the federal mafia overshadowing us all.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    “And what shall I do that you yourself are incapable of doing?”

    I’m not the one demanding secession.

    “You have absolutely no idea who I am, and vice-versa.”

    It’s apparent of your type—bitch and moan but never do anything about it to rectify the situation.

    “ Blue staters…”

    Doubling down on the No True Scotsman Fallacy ain’t no way to live, my fellow white.

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

  186. @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442560961680977927

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442561610887933954
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442563176348934145
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442566159111499777
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442567498730250246

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Classic Glenn. Accuse your opponents of the same things he does on a regular basis.

  187. @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus


    More like I’m saying it’s not going to happen, especially when people like yourself aren’t willing to do do anything about it.
     
    History is full of surprises so it would be foolish to rule anything out. And what shall I do that you yourself are incapable of doing? You have absolutely no idea who I am, and vice-versa.

    “ I don’t consider blue staters in blue states to be real Americans (the punchline is neither do they.)”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.
     
    Blue staters have made it abundantly clear who they are: pro-big government, pro-open borders, pro-high taxes, pro-diversity, pro-feminism. They are also anti-Christian, anti-White, anti-free speech, anti-2A. The American flag triggers them as much as the Confederate. Red Staters have nothing in common with these dolts who are ashamed to be American, except the federal mafia overshadowing us all.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “And what shall I do that you yourself are incapable of doing?”

    I’m not the one demanding secession.

    “You have absolutely no idea who I am, and vice-versa.”

    It’s apparent of your type—bitch and moan but never do anything about it to rectify the situation.

    “ Blue staters…”

    Doubling down on the No True Scotsman Fallacy ain’t no way to live, my fellow white.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus


    I’m not the one demanding secession.
     
    I don't have to do a thing to encourage Secession, it's already here, even shitlib Ken Burns said as much.

    I'd rather it wasn't, I grew up in the United States, and I'm not going to live under the yoke of communist oppression.

    It’s apparent of your type—bitch and moan but never do anything about it to rectify the situation.
     
    Attacking me rather than my ideas is called an ad hominem argument.

    My comments apparently have an impact. I mean, here you are.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  188. @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    “And what shall I do that you yourself are incapable of doing?”

    I’m not the one demanding secession.

    “You have absolutely no idea who I am, and vice-versa.”

    It’s apparent of your type—bitch and moan but never do anything about it to rectify the situation.

    “ Blue staters…”

    Doubling down on the No True Scotsman Fallacy ain’t no way to live, my fellow white.

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

    I’m not the one demanding secession.

    I don’t have to do a thing to encourage Secession, it’s already here, even shitlib Ken Burns said as much.

    I’d rather it wasn’t, I grew up in the United States, and I’m not going to live under the yoke of communist oppression.

    It’s apparent of your type—bitch and moan but never do anything about it to rectify the situation.

    Attacking me rather than my ideas is called an ad hominem argument.

    My comments apparently have an impact. I mean, here you are.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    "I don’t have to do a thing to encourage Secession, it’s already here"

    No, it is not. The term has a specific meaning. The problem is that some people apply it to any situation they think is relevant, when in reality it is not.

    "I’d rather it wasn’t, I grew up in the United States, and I’m not going to live under the yoke of communist oppression."

    We all grew up in the United States, and remain a citizen of said nation. And, again, there is no "yoke of communist oppression", you are being bombastic. I understand it is easier for you to make labels in that fashion without having to critically think.

    "Attacking me rather than my ideas is called an ad hominem argument."

    I am attacking your idea that you believe secession will inevitably happen, and that is to a good end. I am attacking your idea as to outright refuse to intervene.

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

  189. @Anonymous
    @Inselaffen


    just a mere displacement for what people deep down feel uncomfortable about
     
    What would you say it is that people deep down feel uncomfortable about?

    Replies: @Inselaffen

    The very presence of large numbers of aliens in itself. It’s, well… ‘alienating’.

    But you’re not allowed to say or even think like that (if you’re white), so, ‘but muh traffic infrastructure’.

    On the other hand they understand very explicitly well how positive it is to be surrounded by kin when pushing for ever larger inclusiveness and ‘representation’… for minorities (though I don’t know if it’s even possible to get any more blacksaturation than we have in advertising right now…)

  190. @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus


    I’m not the one demanding secession.
     
    I don't have to do a thing to encourage Secession, it's already here, even shitlib Ken Burns said as much.

    I'd rather it wasn't, I grew up in the United States, and I'm not going to live under the yoke of communist oppression.

    It’s apparent of your type—bitch and moan but never do anything about it to rectify the situation.
     
    Attacking me rather than my ideas is called an ad hominem argument.

    My comments apparently have an impact. I mean, here you are.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I don’t have to do a thing to encourage Secession, it’s already here”

    No, it is not. The term has a specific meaning. The problem is that some people apply it to any situation they think is relevant, when in reality it is not.

    “I’d rather it wasn’t, I grew up in the United States, and I’m not going to live under the yoke of communist oppression.”

    We all grew up in the United States, and remain a citizen of said nation. And, again, there is no “yoke of communist oppression”, you are being bombastic. I understand it is easier for you to make labels in that fashion without having to critically think.

    “Attacking me rather than my ideas is called an ad hominem argument.”

    I am attacking your idea that you believe secession will inevitably happen, and that is to a good end. I am attacking your idea as to outright refuse to intervene.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus

    I believe we're headed for secession within the next 10 years, or if that word is too scary, a divorce or (hopefully) amicable parting of ways.

    The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can't share the same space.

    (The silver lining of Covidhoax is it's awakened even that third of the population normally indifferent to politics. It's really stomped the gas.)

    And, again, there is no “yoke of communist oppression”, you are being bombastic.
     

    There is a Red America and Blue America, each with different value systems, and a widening gulf between. I don't believe this is disputed by either side.

    And no, we didn't all grow up here. To wit: the invading hordes.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  191. @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    "I don’t have to do a thing to encourage Secession, it’s already here"

    No, it is not. The term has a specific meaning. The problem is that some people apply it to any situation they think is relevant, when in reality it is not.

    "I’d rather it wasn’t, I grew up in the United States, and I’m not going to live under the yoke of communist oppression."

    We all grew up in the United States, and remain a citizen of said nation. And, again, there is no "yoke of communist oppression", you are being bombastic. I understand it is easier for you to make labels in that fashion without having to critically think.

    "Attacking me rather than my ideas is called an ad hominem argument."

    I am attacking your idea that you believe secession will inevitably happen, and that is to a good end. I am attacking your idea as to outright refuse to intervene.

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

    I believe we’re headed for secession within the next 10 years, or if that word is too scary, a divorce or (hopefully) amicable parting of ways.

    The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.

    (The silver lining of Covidhoax is it’s awakened even that third of the population normally indifferent to politics. It’s really stomped the gas.)

    And, again, there is no “yoke of communist oppression”, you are being bombastic.

    There is a Red America and Blue America, each with different value systems, and a widening gulf between. I don’t believe this is disputed by either side.

    And no, we didn’t all grow up here. To wit: the invading hordes.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    “I believe we’re headed for secession within the next 10 years, or if that word is too scary, a divorce or (hopefully) amicable parting of ways.”

    Secession is a pipe dream. For starters, there is a considerable force on the Alt Right where secession requires racial separation as well as political separation within the borders of the new configuration. The Alt Right would fracture in a similar fashion as the Whigs over the issue of slavery between northern and southern members–white nationalists, the Alt Light and the “true” Alt Right would be at each other’s throats about whether they ought to be mass exodus of people through coercion and outright force of “anti-whites” and their proxies from “white lands” or “nationalist enclaves”.

    Furthermore, the adjustment would be extremely disruptive, let alone the process of accomplishing it. Local and state laws would have to be completely redone given the removal of federal guidelines. It would be an absolute mess for commercial interests, environmental standards, labor regulations…and sportsball. Our national economy would inevitably tank. Moreover, there would be considerable pushback. Why would people be shamed, at best, or forced to, at worst, to move from their current places of residence? Do they not have freedom of association to remain there? What would happen if they refuse to leave? What procedures are in place to deal with this situation? In the meantime, what temporary measures are put in place as we make this transition with the international community?

    “The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.”

    Except we are not Yugoslavia with only a handful of historically divided ethnicities who were at each other’s throats. The comparison is not apt.

    “There is a Red America and Blue America, each with different value systems, and a widening gulf between. I don’t believe this is disputed by either side.”

    There is a division, assuredly, but it is not as black and white as you think it is.

    “And no, we didn’t all grow up here. To wit: the invading hordes.”

    Do you mean the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, etc.?

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

  192. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    We were not after all discussing legislation, but historical facts.”

    The historical fact is that the U.S. equipped itself to bring in immigrants in 1790.

    “Large-scale immigration to the U.S. did NOT exist from the founding of the Republic to the 1830s, nor did it exist from 1924 to 1965.”

    Well, you stated that “immigration has not been a permanent part of U.S. history.” Clearly, it was given that statute I cited. So now you added a caveat here.
    Well, from 1815 to 1860, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe. The birth of the nativist movement in the 1850s centered around the large influx of Catholics, and these organizations feared that the steady stream would erode their political power and national identity, and thus lead to their eventual replacement if numbers remained high.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    The historical fact is that the U.S. equipped itself to bring in immigrants in 1790.

    There is no such thing as “equipped itself” in this context. The law at the time allowed immigration, but laws can be changed, as indeed they were later – and long before “replacement” was ever a possibility.

    The fact remains that as late as the 1830s, over 95% of the U.S. population was native-born. And when significant numbers of immigrants finally did start to roll in the 1840s, no Americans disliked or feared them because they believed they would be replaced, which is your unsupported thesis about American history. For example, no American was worried about the Irish or Jews swamping the United States demographically to the point of replacement. The southern United States, for example, wasn’t even touched by immigration before the late 20th century. Southerners still voted for immigration restriction when such laws were put forward in Congress.

    Americans at the time just didn’t like the immigrants for their neighborhoods and cities and politics, and rightly so.

    Well, you stated that “immigration has not been a permanent part of U.S. history.” Clearly, it was given that statute I cited.

    Many laws exist for no purpose. Immigration was simply a nonfactor in U.S. history for the first several decades of the country’s existence.

    And, then, beginning in the late 19th century, immigration restrictions began to be ratcheted up until the 1920s, when once again, immigration became a nonfactor in U.S. history until the laws were again changed in modern times.

    The birth of the nativist movement in the 1850s centered around the large influx of Catholics, and these organizations feared that the steady stream would erode their political power and national identity, and thus lead to their eventual replacement if numbers remained high.

    Erosion of political power and national identity? Sure. Replacement? No.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “There is no such thing as “equipped itself” in this context.”

    Of course there is. The nation made preparations for future groups of people to enter its shores. It “equipped itself” with a process to do so, i.e. federal legislation.

    “but laws can be changed, as indeed they were later – and long before “replacement” was ever a possibility.”

    Like the quota acts of the 1920’s, which targeted Eastern Europeans who were viewed as other than desirable.

    “And when significant numbers of immigrants finally did start to roll in the 1840s, no Americans disliked or feared them because they believed they would be replaced, which is your unsupported thesis about American history”.

    The Know-Nothings of the 1850’s formed because of WASP fear that Catholic Church would control a large bloc of voters, especially newcomers from Ireland and Germany. This political group sought to restore their vision of what America should like like with temperance and self-reliance, with American nationality and work ethic enshrined as the nation’s highest values. This way of life was in jeopardy as hordes of the “unwashed masses” would put into place a government subjected to the whims of the pope. The Know-Nothings argued that Roman Catholics were a threat to the stability of the nation, and German and Irish immigrants undermined and “swamped” the old order established by the Founding Fathers.

    “Southerners still voted for immigration restriction when such laws were put forward in Congress.”



    Indeed, of white Europeans deemed to be inferior. The greater the numbers, the more likely the Polish and Italians would gain power and influence, and replace the “tried and true” vision of America with a bastardized version.

    “Americans at the time just didn’t like the immigrants for their neighborhoods and cities and politics…”

    Like white Europeans, consisting of the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians.

    “and rightly so.”

    In what specific ways?

    “Many laws exist for no purpose.”

    That is patently false. Laws are specifically crafted fur our posterity. See: Preamble to Constitution.

    “Immigration was simply a nonfactor in U.S. history for the first several decades of the country’s existence.”

    Yet, there was a mechanism in place if and when immigrants came.

    “And, then, beginning in the late 19th century, immigration restrictions began to be ratcheted up until the 1920s, when once again, immigration became a nonfactor in U.S. history…”

    Immigration has always been a factor, it’s just a matter of to what extent.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  193. @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    Ah, yes, "Heighten the contradictions!"
     
    I'm not doing it. It's a predictable dynamic of a multi-racial country. What multi-racial country in history didn't make RACE the most important issue?

    So where is this greater racial polarization you’re speaking of, Mister Taylor? I don’t see it
     
    Uh ... wow.

    Yes, there is more polarization today than in decades past, but the polarization is *political*, not racial ... Only Clinton in 1996 (44%) and Gore in 2000 (42%) received a higher percent of the white vote than did Biden last year.
     
    Take the Jewish and Muslim vote out of the White category and see how it looks. There are others thrown in the White category. If you look at White Gentiles, you're talking close to 2/3s voting as a block. And yes, there is a hardcore minority of White race-traitors.

    By the way, have you noticed that Blacks vote a bit as a block?


    ... no “radical” movement in the white voting percentage in decades.
     
    If you didn't see the events of the last 5 years as a massive change in White attitude, you're blind. Tucker Carlson is far more radical than anything Bill O'Reilly dared say just a few years ago (and he was considered too "White supremacist" at the time).

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    I’m not doing it. It’s a predictable dynamic of a multi-racial country. What multi-racial country in history didn’t make RACE the most important issue?

    There are many multiracial countries in Latin America that don’t make race the center of their national politics. One might argue that class is just used as a proxy for race in those countries because there is obvious racial sorting, as one would expect if you believe (as I do) that races have different median abilities. But the issue of race is not the center of their national political discussions as it sometimes is in the U.S.

    Uh … wow.

    Are you mathematically illiterate? I just gave you the figures from the last several presidential elections showing no movement among white voters toward the GOP despite the growing anti-white rhetoric among Democrats.

    You can counter that argument any number of ways, but “Uh … wow” is not among the strongest.

    Take the Jewish and Muslim vote out of the White category and see how it looks.

    Jewish voters are at best two percent of all U.S. voters and three percent of all Democratic votes (since approximately one-quarter to one-third of Jews voted for Trump). Muslim-Americans aren’t even that high.

  194. @RichardTaylor
    @Pincher Martin


    If whites really had ever wanted this after 1965 until the 1990s, they could have easily gotten it. Nothing could’ve stopped them from getting it.
     
    Ever heard of White Flight? Of course, Whites prefer White areas. Why on earth do we have a Police State to enforce affirmative action, forced integration and dissent on race if it's so popular?

    You know perfectly well that the Establishment of both parties and the entire media worked overtime to make sure Whites were never allowed the option to do anything about mass non-White immigration. And both parties lied through their teeth about it.

    You’ve misread the strength and commitment of your own racial constituency.
     
    We had oceans of silly White people in places like Minnesota and Vermont who had never seen a non-White face. They thought everyone on earth was a White person but with a different paint job. And when people tried to get serious about it, we had a lukewarm response by too many "thought leaders" proposing things like Citizenism.

    You're right that Whites in many parts of the country were not loyal enough to their own people. And their descendants will pay the price for generations.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Ever heard of White Flight? Of course, Whites prefer White areas. Why on earth do we have a Police State to enforce affirmative action, forced integration and dissent on race if it’s so popular?

    First, we don’t have a police state – and if we did, enforcing AA would be the least of its concerns.

    Second, we do have culturally-enforced norms in the U.S., in which politically inconvenient facts are frowned upon when discussed in public, but they are not enforced by a police state.

    Third, most polls show Americans are not afraid of living next to people of other races; they are afraid of living in impoverished black areas, because those areas are crime-ridden and dangerous. White flight is an antiquated concept dating back to the nineteen-sixties, and it is unrelated to immigration.

    How can you be an effective spokesman for your point of view when your opinions are such a jumble of unrelated topics?

    You know perfectly well that the Establishment of both parties and the entire media worked overtime to make sure Whites were never allowed the option to do anything about mass non-White immigration. And both parties lied through their teeth about it.

    True, and that’s still not a police state.

    We had oceans of silly White people in places like Minnesota and Vermont who had never seen a non-White face.

    I was just in Vermont a couple of years ago. I was surprised by how many of the young hotel workers are non-white immigrants. Same goes with Wyoming.

    As for Minnesota, anyone who traveled to the big cities there would soon be inundated by the number of non-white faces they saw there. There are more blacks in Minneapolis and St Paul than there are in San Francisco and San Jose.

  195. @Mr. Blank
    It's a myth, except when they're bragging about it.

    Seriously, the way the left simultaneously denies what they're doing with immigration while then turning around and high-fiving each other over it — sometimes within the very same article! — has to be the most insulting, infuriating thing in contemporary political discourse.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @John Regan, @Sick of Orcs

    It’s a myth, except when they’re bragging about it.

    This is what is meant by, “They always go too far.” Though the historical count is much higher, the meme is 109/110.

  196. @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus

    I believe we're headed for secession within the next 10 years, or if that word is too scary, a divorce or (hopefully) amicable parting of ways.

    The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can't share the same space.

    (The silver lining of Covidhoax is it's awakened even that third of the population normally indifferent to politics. It's really stomped the gas.)

    And, again, there is no “yoke of communist oppression”, you are being bombastic.
     

    There is a Red America and Blue America, each with different value systems, and a widening gulf between. I don't believe this is disputed by either side.

    And no, we didn't all grow up here. To wit: the invading hordes.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I believe we’re headed for secession within the next 10 years, or if that word is too scary, a divorce or (hopefully) amicable parting of ways.”

    Secession is a pipe dream. For starters, there is a considerable force on the Alt Right where secession requires racial separation as well as political separation within the borders of the new configuration. The Alt Right would fracture in a similar fashion as the Whigs over the issue of slavery between northern and southern members–white nationalists, the Alt Light and the “true” Alt Right would be at each other’s throats about whether they ought to be mass exodus of people through coercion and outright force of “anti-whites” and their proxies from “white lands” or “nationalist enclaves”.

    Furthermore, the adjustment would be extremely disruptive, let alone the process of accomplishing it. Local and state laws would have to be completely redone given the removal of federal guidelines. It would be an absolute mess for commercial interests, environmental standards, labor regulations…and sportsball. Our national economy would inevitably tank. Moreover, there would be considerable pushback. Why would people be shamed, at best, or forced to, at worst, to move from their current places of residence? Do they not have freedom of association to remain there? What would happen if they refuse to leave? What procedures are in place to deal with this situation? In the meantime, what temporary measures are put in place as we make this transition with the international community?

    “The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.”

    Except we are not Yugoslavia with only a handful of historically divided ethnicities who were at each other’s throats. The comparison is not apt.

    “There is a Red America and Blue America, each with different value systems, and a widening gulf between. I don’t believe this is disputed by either side.”

    There is a division, assuredly, but it is not as black and white as you think it is.

    “And no, we didn’t all grow up here. To wit: the invading hordes.”

    Do you mean the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, etc.?

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus


    Secession is a pipe dream. For starters, there is a considerable force on the Alt Right where secession requires racial separation as well as political separation within the borders of the new configuration. The Alt Right would fracture in a similar fashion as the Whigs over the issue of slavery between northern and southern members–white nationalists, the Alt Light and the “true” Alt Right would be at each other’s throats about whether they ought to be mass exodus of people through coercion and outright force of “anti-whites” and their proxies from “white lands” or “nationalist enclaves”.
     
    I appreciate the thought you've put into your response, these are valid concerns.

    Your line of questioning assumes the alt right (rebranded the Dissident Right) has political power in the USSA, when they have none. Whites have no rights and zero representation as a racial group with its own interests. Were this not true, bipolar James Shields would not be facing an absurd sentence for what amounts to panicking as his car was being smashed by a mob and Derek Chauvin would have not been railroaded for the overdose of a psychotic giant and career criminal.

    Furthermore, the adjustment would be extremely disruptive, let alone the process of accomplishing it. Local and state laws would have to be completely redone given the removal of federal guidelines. It would be an absolute mess for commercial interests, environmental standards, labor regulations…and sportsball. Our national economy would inevitably tank. Moreover, there would be considerable pushback. Why would people be shamed, at best, or forced to, at worst, to move from their current places of residence?
     
    Concerns outweighed by the evils of the present federal mafia responsible for nearly all of the aforementioned onerous regulations on the economy as well as White-shaming.

    Do they not have freedom of association to remain there?
     
    We don't have "freedom of association" now! communist california has already outlawed all-White male corporate boardrooms.

    What would happen if they refuse to leave? What procedures are in place to deal with this situation? In the meantime, what temporary measures are put in place as we make this transition with the international community?
     
    Because these technical questions are indeed challenging doesn't invalidate the need for separation from a leviathan, out-of-control, sinking and burning federal mafia.

    “The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.”

    Except we are not Yugoslavia with only a handful of historically divided ethnicities who were at each other’s throats. The comparison is not apt.
     
    It is apt. The Red/Blue divide crosses religious and cultural issues as well as ethnic hatred, which in the West is everyone versus Whites, courtesy of the (((underminers.)))

    “There is a Red America and Blue America, each with different value systems, and a widening gulf between. I don’t believe this is disputed by either side.”

    There is a division, assuredly, but it is not as black and white as you think it is.
     
    The fundamental differences between the two philosophies are indeed serious. Shades of gray fall by the wayside when the federal mafia is totalitarian. And it is.

    “And no, we didn’t all grow up here. To wit: the invading hordes.”

    Do you mean the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, etc.?
     
    The dominant American culture, laws and values were based on English Common law and Anglo traditions aka White guys. Arriving foreigners assimilated, the ones who wanted to succeed. That is no longer the case, and has not been since the mid-6os, thanks again to the (((underminers))) selling the lie that diversity is a strength.

    The federal mafia runs unopposed. The uniparty doesn't give a shit whether elections are rigged. Criminals roam free. There are no borders. Shlomo has finally (partially) admitted The Great Replacement is real. A White person can lose everything if caught in the wrong place and time, accidentally offending the Exalted Negro or some other bullshit "oppressed" horde.

    Recently Fraudsiden biden said he'll "allow things to return to normal" once he force-vaxes 98% of Americans. Right. In times past--recent when weighed against history--an arrogant monster like him would be tarred and feathered.

    There's no reason for Red States to stay in this arrangement which doesn't serve their interests. The system is broken beyond repair. The logistics of Secession pale in comparison to globalists' plans for you and me.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  197. @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    The historical fact is that the U.S. equipped itself to bring in immigrants in 1790.
     
    There is no such thing as "equipped itself" in this context. The law at the time allowed immigration, but laws can be changed, as indeed they were later - and long before "replacement" was ever a possibility.

    The fact remains that as late as the 1830s, over 95% of the U.S. population was native-born. And when significant numbers of immigrants finally did start to roll in the 1840s, no Americans disliked or feared them because they believed they would be replaced, which is your unsupported thesis about American history. For example, no American was worried about the Irish or Jews swamping the United States demographically to the point of replacement. The southern United States, for example, wasn't even touched by immigration before the late 20th century. Southerners still voted for immigration restriction when such laws were put forward in Congress.

    Americans at the time just didn't like the immigrants for their neighborhoods and cities and politics, and rightly so.


    Well, you stated that “immigration has not been a permanent part of U.S. history.” Clearly, it was given that statute I cited.
     
    Many laws exist for no purpose. Immigration was simply a nonfactor in U.S. history for the first several decades of the country's existence.

    And, then, beginning in the late 19th century, immigration restrictions began to be ratcheted up until the 1920s, when once again, immigration became a nonfactor in U.S. history until the laws were again changed in modern times.


    The birth of the nativist movement in the 1850s centered around the large influx of Catholics, and these organizations feared that the steady stream would erode their political power and national identity, and thus lead to their eventual replacement if numbers remained high.
     
    Erosion of political power and national identity? Sure. Replacement? No.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “There is no such thing as “equipped itself” in this context.”

    Of course there is. The nation made preparations for future groups of people to enter its shores. It “equipped itself” with a process to do so, i.e. federal legislation.

    “but laws can be changed, as indeed they were later – and long before “replacement” was ever a possibility.”

    Like the quota acts of the 1920’s, which targeted Eastern Europeans who were viewed as other than desirable.

    “And when significant numbers of immigrants finally did start to roll in the 1840s, no Americans disliked or feared them because they believed they would be replaced, which is your unsupported thesis about American history”.

    The Know-Nothings of the 1850’s formed because of WASP fear that Catholic Church would control a large bloc of voters, especially newcomers from Ireland and Germany. This political group sought to restore their vision of what America should like like with temperance and self-reliance, with American nationality and work ethic enshrined as the nation’s highest values. This way of life was in jeopardy as hordes of the “unwashed masses” would put into place a government subjected to the whims of the pope. The Know-Nothings argued that Roman Catholics were a threat to the stability of the nation, and German and Irish immigrants undermined and “swamped” the old order established by the Founding Fathers.

    “Southerners still voted for immigration restriction when such laws were put forward in Congress.”



    Indeed, of white Europeans deemed to be inferior. The greater the numbers, the more likely the Polish and Italians would gain power and influence, and replace the “tried and true” vision of America with a bastardized version.

    “Americans at the time just didn’t like the immigrants for their neighborhoods and cities and politics…”

    Like white Europeans, consisting of the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians.

    “and rightly so.”

    In what specific ways?

    “Many laws exist for no purpose.”

    That is patently false. Laws are specifically crafted fur our posterity. See: Preamble to Constitution.

    “Immigration was simply a nonfactor in U.S. history for the first several decades of the country’s existence.”

    Yet, there was a mechanism in place if and when immigrants came.

    “And, then, beginning in the late 19th century, immigration restrictions began to be ratcheted up until the 1920s, when once again, immigration became a nonfactor in U.S. history…”

    Immigration has always been a factor, it’s just a matter of to what extent.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    Of course there is. The nation made preparations for future groups of people to enter its shores. It “equipped itself” with a process to do so, i.e. federal legislation.
     
    The law allowed for immigration. That's all you can say. There were no other preparations. Indeed, none were necessary as it turned out. The sequence of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and then the War of 1812 kept almost all immigrants away from the U.S. for decades.

    They weren't missed, either. The U.S. birth rate was so high that the U.S. population exploded, anyway. The average American woman at the time had around six or seven babies, most of whom made it to adulthood.


    Like the quota acts of the 1920’s, which targeted Eastern Europeans who were viewed as other than desirable.
     
    Yes, they were undesirable. Their politics were radical. Their habits were considered dirty and alien. But quotas were not enacted out of a fear of replacement. There weren't enough Jews and Irish Catholics in the world to replace Protestant Americans at the time.

    The Know-Nothings of the 1850’s formed because of WASP fear that Catholic Church would control a large bloc of voters, especially newcomers from Ireland and Germany. This political group sought to restore their vision of what America should like like with temperance and self-reliance, with American nationality and work ethic enshrined as the nation’s highest values. This way of life was in jeopardy as hordes of the “unwashed masses” would put into place a government subjected to the whims of the pope. The Know-Nothings argued that Roman Catholics were a threat to the stability of the nation, and German and Irish immigrants undermined and “swamped” the old order established by the Founding Fathers.
     
    You're confusing several different factors that have nothing to do with your original thesis about replacement. I've already said that native-born American citizens who were leery of immigration feared the political and cultural erosion of the American Protestant norm. But that has nothing to do with the notion of "replacement" similar to how white protestants replaced Native Americans (i.e., Indians) on the continent, which is how you originally used the term.

    Indeed, of white Europeans deemed to be inferior. The greater the numbers, the more likely the Polish and Italians would gain power and influence, and replace the “tried and true” vision of America with a bastardized version.
     
    The point you are missing is that southerners did not vote for restrictive immigration laws because they feared being replaced. Immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries hardly touched them at all. It's only been in the last twenty to thirty years that immigration has become a significant factor in the demographics of the south.

    Having first brought up this idea that "replacement" is a constant theme in U.S. history, you now seem reluctant to own it.


    In what specific ways?
     
    Catholic immigrants before the Civil War were usually Democrats who supported slavery, since the Church had sanctioned the institution. It got the point in New York City during the Civil War that there were draft riots made up mostly of Irish immigrants who didn't want to fight for freeing the black man. You don't understand why Protestants in the north might be upset by this?

    Jewish, Irish and Italian immigrants were always stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party (and sometimes of communist, socialist and anarchist parties). It took nearly a century for white Catholics to break away from the Democratic Party and vote Republican. Jews still haven't managed to break away. You don't see why Protestant Republicans might not want to see their rival party gain strength through immigration?

    These immigrants also tended to support the most corrupt urban political machines in the country. And labor unions. You don't see why mainstream Americans might blanch at such political habits?


    That is patently false. Laws are specifically crafted fur our posterity.
     
    Constitutions are created for posterity. Laws are created for the present, and therefore subject to immediate change depending on the whims of ever-changing groups of lawmakers.

    And indeed that is what happened. The 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the 1795 Naturalization Act which in turn was replaced by the 1798 Naturalization Act and so on. There was nothing permanent about it.


    Immigration has always been a factor, it’s just a matter of to what extent.
     
    No, it has not always been a factor. Young Americans in 1830 and 1965 were unlikely to even know any foreign-born persons unless they were their friends' parents or grandparents or they lived in one of the half-dozen largest coastal urban centers. Those Americans worked almost solely with other American-born persons, married other American-born persons, and interacted with other American-born persons.

    But we weren't talking about immigration being a factor; we were talking about your notion of "replacement" being something inherent in American history.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  198. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “There is no such thing as “equipped itself” in this context.”

    Of course there is. The nation made preparations for future groups of people to enter its shores. It “equipped itself” with a process to do so, i.e. federal legislation.

    “but laws can be changed, as indeed they were later – and long before “replacement” was ever a possibility.”

    Like the quota acts of the 1920’s, which targeted Eastern Europeans who were viewed as other than desirable.

    “And when significant numbers of immigrants finally did start to roll in the 1840s, no Americans disliked or feared them because they believed they would be replaced, which is your unsupported thesis about American history”.

    The Know-Nothings of the 1850’s formed because of WASP fear that Catholic Church would control a large bloc of voters, especially newcomers from Ireland and Germany. This political group sought to restore their vision of what America should like like with temperance and self-reliance, with American nationality and work ethic enshrined as the nation’s highest values. This way of life was in jeopardy as hordes of the “unwashed masses” would put into place a government subjected to the whims of the pope. The Know-Nothings argued that Roman Catholics were a threat to the stability of the nation, and German and Irish immigrants undermined and “swamped” the old order established by the Founding Fathers.

    “Southerners still voted for immigration restriction when such laws were put forward in Congress.”



    Indeed, of white Europeans deemed to be inferior. The greater the numbers, the more likely the Polish and Italians would gain power and influence, and replace the “tried and true” vision of America with a bastardized version.

    “Americans at the time just didn’t like the immigrants for their neighborhoods and cities and politics…”

    Like white Europeans, consisting of the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians.

    “and rightly so.”

    In what specific ways?

    “Many laws exist for no purpose.”

    That is patently false. Laws are specifically crafted fur our posterity. See: Preamble to Constitution.

    “Immigration was simply a nonfactor in U.S. history for the first several decades of the country’s existence.”

    Yet, there was a mechanism in place if and when immigrants came.

    “And, then, beginning in the late 19th century, immigration restrictions began to be ratcheted up until the 1920s, when once again, immigration became a nonfactor in U.S. history…”

    Immigration has always been a factor, it’s just a matter of to what extent.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Of course there is. The nation made preparations for future groups of people to enter its shores. It “equipped itself” with a process to do so, i.e. federal legislation.

    The law allowed for immigration. That’s all you can say. There were no other preparations. Indeed, none were necessary as it turned out. The sequence of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and then the War of 1812 kept almost all immigrants away from the U.S. for decades.

    They weren’t missed, either. The U.S. birth rate was so high that the U.S. population exploded, anyway. The average American woman at the time had around six or seven babies, most of whom made it to adulthood.

    Like the quota acts of the 1920’s, which targeted Eastern Europeans who were viewed as other than desirable.

    Yes, they were undesirable. Their politics were radical. Their habits were considered dirty and alien. But quotas were not enacted out of a fear of replacement. There weren’t enough Jews and Irish Catholics in the world to replace Protestant Americans at the time.

    The Know-Nothings of the 1850’s formed because of WASP fear that Catholic Church would control a large bloc of voters, especially newcomers from Ireland and Germany. This political group sought to restore their vision of what America should like like with temperance and self-reliance, with American nationality and work ethic enshrined as the nation’s highest values. This way of life was in jeopardy as hordes of the “unwashed masses” would put into place a government subjected to the whims of the pope. The Know-Nothings argued that Roman Catholics were a threat to the stability of the nation, and German and Irish immigrants undermined and “swamped” the old order established by the Founding Fathers.

    You’re confusing several different factors that have nothing to do with your original thesis about replacement. I’ve already said that native-born American citizens who were leery of immigration feared the political and cultural erosion of the American Protestant norm. But that has nothing to do with the notion of “replacement” similar to how white protestants replaced Native Americans (i.e., Indians) on the continent, which is how you originally used the term.

    Indeed, of white Europeans deemed to be inferior. The greater the numbers, the more likely the Polish and Italians would gain power and influence, and replace the “tried and true” vision of America with a bastardized version.

    The point you are missing is that southerners did not vote for restrictive immigration laws because they feared being replaced. Immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries hardly touched them at all. It’s only been in the last twenty to thirty years that immigration has become a significant factor in the demographics of the south.

    Having first brought up this idea that “replacement” is a constant theme in U.S. history, you now seem reluctant to own it.

    In what specific ways?

    Catholic immigrants before the Civil War were usually Democrats who supported slavery, since the Church had sanctioned the institution. It got the point in New York City during the Civil War that there were draft riots made up mostly of Irish immigrants who didn’t want to fight for freeing the black man. You don’t understand why Protestants in the north might be upset by this?

    Jewish, Irish and Italian immigrants were always stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party (and sometimes of communist, socialist and anarchist parties). It took nearly a century for white Catholics to break away from the Democratic Party and vote Republican. Jews still haven’t managed to break away. You don’t see why Protestant Republicans might not want to see their rival party gain strength through immigration?

    These immigrants also tended to support the most corrupt urban political machines in the country. And labor unions. You don’t see why mainstream Americans might blanch at such political habits?

    That is patently false. Laws are specifically crafted fur our posterity.

    Constitutions are created for posterity. Laws are created for the present, and therefore subject to immediate change depending on the whims of ever-changing groups of lawmakers.

    And indeed that is what happened. The 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the 1795 Naturalization Act which in turn was replaced by the 1798 Naturalization Act and so on. There was nothing permanent about it.

    Immigration has always been a factor, it’s just a matter of to what extent.

    No, it has not always been a factor. Young Americans in 1830 and 1965 were unlikely to even know any foreign-born persons unless they were their friends’ parents or grandparents or they lived in one of the half-dozen largest coastal urban centers. Those Americans worked almost solely with other American-born persons, married other American-born persons, and interacted with other American-born persons.

    But we weren’t talking about immigration being a factor; we were talking about your notion of “replacement” being something inherent in American history.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “The law allowed for immigration. That’s all you can say.”

    With that law making immigration policy a permanent fixture in our history by way of developing policies centering around it.

    “The sequence of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and then the War of 1812 kept almost all immigrants away from the U.S. for decades.”

    To the contrary, as I noted previously, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe from 1815-1860. That hardly constitutes “kept almost all immigrants away”.

    “They weren’t missed, either. The U.S. birth rate was so high that the U.S. population exploded, anyway. The average American woman at the time had around six or seven babies, most of whom made it to adulthood.”

    OK.

    “Yes, they were undesirable. Their politics were radical. Their habits were considered dirty and alien.”

    To WASPS. Are they also undesirable to you? Pray tell, what is your ethnic background(s)? When did your ancestors come to the States (provided you are an American)? Now, assuming the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians were "undesirable" and "radical", how in the world did they eventually become one of u.s.? Magic dirt?

    “But quotas were not enacted out of a fear of replacement. There weren’t enough Jews and Irish Catholics in the world to replace Protestant Americans at the time.”

    If those groups continued to come in at what was viewed as alarming rates, WASPs clearly feared they would be replaced as the dominant political and societal influence. Thus, measures were undertaken to stem that tide.

    “Catholic immigrants before the Civil War were usually Democrats who supported slavery, since the Church had sanctioned the institution.”

    You mean those Catholic immigrants who sought to own slaves. For some defenders of slavery, not merely the Bible but also Christian tradition supported their position, and they mined the past for examples of Christian slaveholding. On the other hand, both white and black antislavery authors used religious history to bolster their cases against the " peculiar institution".

    “It got the point in New York City during the Civil War that there were draft riots made up mostly of Irish immigrants who didn’t want to fight for freeing the black man. You don’t understand why Protestants in the north might be upset by this?”

    The reason being the Irish immigrants believed they were not part and parcel to the factors that led to the Civil War, so why should they be forced right off the boat to America to be drafted into the Union Army.

    "Jewish, Irish and Italian immigrants were always stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party (and sometimes of communist, socialist and anarchist parties). It took nearly a century for white Catholics to break away from the Democratic Party and vote Republican. Jews still haven’t managed to break away. You don’t see why Protestant Republicans might not want to see their rival party gain strength through immigration?"

    Indeed, and replace the WASP ways of life.

    “Laws are created for the present, and therefore subject to immediate change depending on the whims of ever-changing groups of lawmakers.”

    Laws are created due to past conditions and are implemented to address patent wrongs that the general public seeks to correct. These laws are subject to change due to citizen pressure.

    “The 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the 1795 Naturalization Act which in turn was replaced by the 1798 Naturalization Act and so on. There was nothing permanent about it.”

    What is permanent is that immigration laws existed, with policies crafted that reflected that particular law, and eventually due to political and social changes in our society, the law was changed.

    “Young Americans in 1830 and 1965 were unlikely to even know any foreign-born persons unless they were their friends’ parents or grandparents or they lived in one of the half-dozen largest coastal urban centers.”

    Just because this particular group did not encounter foreign born people in their daily lives does not mean immigration was not a fixture in the overall American society. Five million came here from Europe. They settled in urban areas, or moved into the interior for land. Assuredly, there was contact between immigrants and native born peoples. To what extent and how frequent depended on locality. After 1850, this trend accelerated.

    “But we weren’t talking about immigration being a factor; we were talking about your notion of “replacement” being something inherent in American history.”

    Which has been a fixture in our past, present, and future.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Pincher Martin

  199. @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    “I believe we’re headed for secession within the next 10 years, or if that word is too scary, a divorce or (hopefully) amicable parting of ways.”

    Secession is a pipe dream. For starters, there is a considerable force on the Alt Right where secession requires racial separation as well as political separation within the borders of the new configuration. The Alt Right would fracture in a similar fashion as the Whigs over the issue of slavery between northern and southern members–white nationalists, the Alt Light and the “true” Alt Right would be at each other’s throats about whether they ought to be mass exodus of people through coercion and outright force of “anti-whites” and their proxies from “white lands” or “nationalist enclaves”.

    Furthermore, the adjustment would be extremely disruptive, let alone the process of accomplishing it. Local and state laws would have to be completely redone given the removal of federal guidelines. It would be an absolute mess for commercial interests, environmental standards, labor regulations…and sportsball. Our national economy would inevitably tank. Moreover, there would be considerable pushback. Why would people be shamed, at best, or forced to, at worst, to move from their current places of residence? Do they not have freedom of association to remain there? What would happen if they refuse to leave? What procedures are in place to deal with this situation? In the meantime, what temporary measures are put in place as we make this transition with the international community?

    “The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.”

    Except we are not Yugoslavia with only a handful of historically divided ethnicities who were at each other’s throats. The comparison is not apt.

    “There is a Red America and Blue America, each with different value systems, and a widening gulf between. I don’t believe this is disputed by either side.”

    There is a division, assuredly, but it is not as black and white as you think it is.

    “And no, we didn’t all grow up here. To wit: the invading hordes.”

    Do you mean the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, etc.?

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

    Secession is a pipe dream. For starters, there is a considerable force on the Alt Right where secession requires racial separation as well as political separation within the borders of the new configuration. The Alt Right would fracture in a similar fashion as the Whigs over the issue of slavery between northern and southern members–white nationalists, the Alt Light and the “true” Alt Right would be at each other’s throats about whether they ought to be mass exodus of people through coercion and outright force of “anti-whites” and their proxies from “white lands” or “nationalist enclaves”.

    I appreciate the thought you’ve put into your response, these are valid concerns.

    Your line of questioning assumes the alt right (rebranded the Dissident Right) has political power in the USSA, when they have none. Whites have no rights and zero representation as a racial group with its own interests. Were this not true, bipolar James Shields would not be facing an absurd sentence for what amounts to panicking as his car was being smashed by a mob and Derek Chauvin would have not been railroaded for the overdose of a psychotic giant and career criminal.

    Furthermore, the adjustment would be extremely disruptive, let alone the process of accomplishing it. Local and state laws would have to be completely redone given the removal of federal guidelines. It would be an absolute mess for commercial interests, environmental standards, labor regulations…and sportsball. Our national economy would inevitably tank. Moreover, there would be considerable pushback. Why would people be shamed, at best, or forced to, at worst, to move from their current places of residence?

    Concerns outweighed by the evils of the present federal mafia responsible for nearly all of the aforementioned onerous regulations on the economy as well as White-shaming.

    Do they not have freedom of association to remain there?

    We don’t have “freedom of association” now! communist california has already outlawed all-White male corporate boardrooms.

    What would happen if they refuse to leave? What procedures are in place to deal with this situation? In the meantime, what temporary measures are put in place as we make this transition with the international community?

    Because these technical questions are indeed challenging doesn’t invalidate the need for separation from a leviathan, out-of-control, sinking and burning federal mafia.

    “The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.”

    Except we are not Yugoslavia with only a handful of historically divided ethnicities who were at each other’s throats. The comparison is not apt.

    It is apt. The Red/Blue divide crosses religious and cultural issues as well as ethnic hatred, which in the West is everyone versus Whites, courtesy of the (((underminers.)))

    “There is a Red America and Blue America, each with different value systems, and a widening gulf between. I don’t believe this is disputed by either side.”

    There is a division, assuredly, but it is not as black and white as you think it is.

    The fundamental differences between the two philosophies are indeed serious. Shades of gray fall by the wayside when the federal mafia is totalitarian. And it is.

    “And no, we didn’t all grow up here. To wit: the invading hordes.”

    Do you mean the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, etc.?

    The dominant American culture, laws and values were based on English Common law and Anglo traditions aka White guys. Arriving foreigners assimilated, the ones who wanted to succeed. That is no longer the case, and has not been since the mid-6os, thanks again to the (((underminers))) selling the lie that diversity is a strength.

    The federal mafia runs unopposed. The uniparty doesn’t give a shit whether elections are rigged. Criminals roam free. There are no borders. Shlomo has finally (partially) admitted The Great Replacement is real. A White person can lose everything if caught in the wrong place and time, accidentally offending the Exalted Negro or some other bullshit “oppressed” horde.

    Recently Fraudsiden biden said he’ll “allow things to return to normal” once he force-vaxes 98% of Americans. Right. In times past–recent when weighed against history–an arrogant monster like him would be tarred and feathered.

    There’s no reason for Red States to stay in this arrangement which doesn’t serve their interests. The system is broken beyond repair. The logistics of Secession pale in comparison to globalists’ plans for you and me.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Sick of Orcs

    "Your line of questioning assumes the alt right (rebranded the Dissident Right) has political power in the USSA, when they have none."

    To the contrary, the Alt Right has considerable influence. See: Donald Trump.

    "Whites have no rights..."

    Of course we do. You simply choose not to believe it.

    "and zero representation as a racial group with its own interests."

    Whites make their own decisions about race and culture. You are certainly entitled to pursue your own course.

    "Derek Chauvin would have not been railroaded for the overdose of a psychotic giant and career criminal."

    You mean there was justice in a case involving a police officer who used excessive force. It makes no difference about what Floyd's background, as that has nothing to do with the criminal act perpetrated against him.

    "Concerns outweighed by the evils of the present federal mafia responsible for nearly all of the aforementioned onerous regulations on the economy as well as White-shaming."

    There is no federal mafia. You are conveniently redefining terms to suit your narrative.

    "We don’t have “freedom of association” now!"

    Of course we do. It's just we never had complete and unadulterated freedom of association. Of course, you should blame Southrons for not adhering to "separation but equal", as they clearly violated its spirit for 60 years. Thankfully, civilized southern whites took back their states in the 1960's.

    "communist california has already outlawed all-White male corporate boardrooms."

    California is not communist. And, yes, I would agree that the law is state overreach and should be challenged in a court of law.

    "Because these technical questions are indeed challenging doesn’t invalidate the need for separation from a leviathan, out-of-control, sinking and burning federal mafia."

    Again, there is no federal mafia. Furthermore, such technical questions must be addressed prior to any actual move toward secession begins in earnest.

    “The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.”

    Except that situation is not analogous to the U.S.

    "The fundamental differences between the two philosophies are indeed serious. Shades of gray fall by the wayside when the federal mafia is totalitarian. And it is."

    Except the U.S. is not totalitarian. It doesn't fit the criteria.

    "The dominant American culture, laws and values were based on English Common law and Anglo traditions aka White guys."

    Then, the American culture, which is a mixture of different political and cultural traditions, was developed roughly beginning in the 1750's.

    "Arriving foreigners assimilated, the ones who wanted to succeed."

    Which include white and non-white.

    "The federal mafia runs unopposed. The uniparty doesn’t give a shit whether elections are rigged. Criminals roam free. There are no borders. Shlomo has finally (partially) admitted The Great Replacement is real. A White person can lose everything if caught in the wrong place and time, accidentally offending the Exalted Negro or some other bullshit “oppressed” horde."

    Do you need a virtual brown paper bag to stop your hyperventilating?

    "There’s no reason for Red States to stay in this arrangement which doesn’t serve their interests. The system is broken beyond repair. The logistics of Secession pale in comparison to globalists’ plans for you and me."

    Ah, yes, it's al a conspiracy.

  200. @Sick of Orcs
    @Corvinus


    Secession is a pipe dream. For starters, there is a considerable force on the Alt Right where secession requires racial separation as well as political separation within the borders of the new configuration. The Alt Right would fracture in a similar fashion as the Whigs over the issue of slavery between northern and southern members–white nationalists, the Alt Light and the “true” Alt Right would be at each other’s throats about whether they ought to be mass exodus of people through coercion and outright force of “anti-whites” and their proxies from “white lands” or “nationalist enclaves”.
     
    I appreciate the thought you've put into your response, these are valid concerns.

    Your line of questioning assumes the alt right (rebranded the Dissident Right) has political power in the USSA, when they have none. Whites have no rights and zero representation as a racial group with its own interests. Were this not true, bipolar James Shields would not be facing an absurd sentence for what amounts to panicking as his car was being smashed by a mob and Derek Chauvin would have not been railroaded for the overdose of a psychotic giant and career criminal.

    Furthermore, the adjustment would be extremely disruptive, let alone the process of accomplishing it. Local and state laws would have to be completely redone given the removal of federal guidelines. It would be an absolute mess for commercial interests, environmental standards, labor regulations…and sportsball. Our national economy would inevitably tank. Moreover, there would be considerable pushback. Why would people be shamed, at best, or forced to, at worst, to move from their current places of residence?
     
    Concerns outweighed by the evils of the present federal mafia responsible for nearly all of the aforementioned onerous regulations on the economy as well as White-shaming.

    Do they not have freedom of association to remain there?
     
    We don't have "freedom of association" now! communist california has already outlawed all-White male corporate boardrooms.

    What would happen if they refuse to leave? What procedures are in place to deal with this situation? In the meantime, what temporary measures are put in place as we make this transition with the international community?
     
    Because these technical questions are indeed challenging doesn't invalidate the need for separation from a leviathan, out-of-control, sinking and burning federal mafia.

    “The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.”

    Except we are not Yugoslavia with only a handful of historically divided ethnicities who were at each other’s throats. The comparison is not apt.
     
    It is apt. The Red/Blue divide crosses religious and cultural issues as well as ethnic hatred, which in the West is everyone versus Whites, courtesy of the (((underminers.)))

    “There is a Red America and Blue America, each with different value systems, and a widening gulf between. I don’t believe this is disputed by either side.”

    There is a division, assuredly, but it is not as black and white as you think it is.
     
    The fundamental differences between the two philosophies are indeed serious. Shades of gray fall by the wayside when the federal mafia is totalitarian. And it is.

    “And no, we didn’t all grow up here. To wit: the invading hordes.”

    Do you mean the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, etc.?
     
    The dominant American culture, laws and values were based on English Common law and Anglo traditions aka White guys. Arriving foreigners assimilated, the ones who wanted to succeed. That is no longer the case, and has not been since the mid-6os, thanks again to the (((underminers))) selling the lie that diversity is a strength.

    The federal mafia runs unopposed. The uniparty doesn't give a shit whether elections are rigged. Criminals roam free. There are no borders. Shlomo has finally (partially) admitted The Great Replacement is real. A White person can lose everything if caught in the wrong place and time, accidentally offending the Exalted Negro or some other bullshit "oppressed" horde.

    Recently Fraudsiden biden said he'll "allow things to return to normal" once he force-vaxes 98% of Americans. Right. In times past--recent when weighed against history--an arrogant monster like him would be tarred and feathered.

    There's no reason for Red States to stay in this arrangement which doesn't serve their interests. The system is broken beyond repair. The logistics of Secession pale in comparison to globalists' plans for you and me.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Your line of questioning assumes the alt right (rebranded the Dissident Right) has political power in the USSA, when they have none.”

    To the contrary, the Alt Right has considerable influence. See: Donald Trump.

    “Whites have no rights…”

    Of course we do. You simply choose not to believe it.

    “and zero representation as a racial group with its own interests.”

    Whites make their own decisions about race and culture. You are certainly entitled to pursue your own course.

    “Derek Chauvin would have not been railroaded for the overdose of a psychotic giant and career criminal.”

    You mean there was justice in a case involving a police officer who used excessive force. It makes no difference about what Floyd’s background, as that has nothing to do with the criminal act perpetrated against him.

    “Concerns outweighed by the evils of the present federal mafia responsible for nearly all of the aforementioned onerous regulations on the economy as well as White-shaming.”

    There is no federal mafia. You are conveniently redefining terms to suit your narrative.

    “We don’t have “freedom of association” now!”

    Of course we do. It’s just we never had complete and unadulterated freedom of association. Of course, you should blame Southrons for not adhering to “separation but equal”, as they clearly violated its spirit for 60 years. Thankfully, civilized southern whites took back their states in the 1960’s.

    “communist california has already outlawed all-White male corporate boardrooms.”

    California is not communist. And, yes, I would agree that the law is state overreach and should be challenged in a court of law.

    “Because these technical questions are indeed challenging doesn’t invalidate the need for separation from a leviathan, out-of-control, sinking and burning federal mafia.”

    Again, there is no federal mafia. Furthermore, such technical questions must be addressed prior to any actual move toward secession begins in earnest.

    “The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.”

    Except that situation is not analogous to the U.S.

    “The fundamental differences between the two philosophies are indeed serious. Shades of gray fall by the wayside when the federal mafia is totalitarian. And it is.”

    Except the U.S. is not totalitarian. It doesn’t fit the criteria.

    “The dominant American culture, laws and values were based on English Common law and Anglo traditions aka White guys.”

    Then, the American culture, which is a mixture of different political and cultural traditions, was developed roughly beginning in the 1750’s.

    “Arriving foreigners assimilated, the ones who wanted to succeed.”

    Which include white and non-white.

    “The federal mafia runs unopposed. The uniparty doesn’t give a shit whether elections are rigged. Criminals roam free. There are no borders. Shlomo has finally (partially) admitted The Great Replacement is real. A White person can lose everything if caught in the wrong place and time, accidentally offending the Exalted Negro or some other bullshit “oppressed” horde.”

    Do you need a virtual brown paper bag to stop your hyperventilating?

    “There’s no reason for Red States to stay in this arrangement which doesn’t serve their interests. The system is broken beyond repair. The logistics of Secession pale in comparison to globalists’ plans for you and me.”

    Ah, yes, it’s al a conspiracy.

  201. “Your line of questioning assumes the alt right (rebranded the Dissident Right) has political power in the USSA, when they have none.”

    To the contrary, the Alt Right has considerable influence. See: Donald Trump.

    Trump was an Israel First clown who got nothing done. No ‘alt-righter’ would suddenly agree with red flag laws the way he did. He was a (cat-related expletive) all four years.

    “Whites have no rights…”

    Of course we do. You simply choose not to believe it.

    “We,” huh?

    “and zero representation as a racial group with its own interests.”

    You are certainly entitled to pursue your own course,

    …just don’t be surprised when we cancel, arrest and starve you, ebill racist!

    “Derek Chauvin would have not been railroaded for the overdose of a psychotic giant and career criminal.”

    You mean there was justice in a case involving a police officer who used excessive force. It makes no difference about what Floyd’s background, as that has nothing to do with the criminal act perpetrated against him.

    Were it not for St. Floyd’s “background” he wouldn’t have been in police custody AGAIN. All he had to do was remain seated in the cop car instead of wiggle-worming out, that and not swallow an entire stash of fentanyl.

    If Chauvin was trying to murder St. Floyd, would he really do so in front of a crowd with cameras? And when asshole biden weighed in with a veiled threat, the case should’ve been dismissed.

    There is no federal mafia.

    The actual mafia thinks so. They refer to the feds as, “that crew in Washington.”

    “We don’t have “freedom of association” now!”

    Of course we do. It’s just we never had complete and unadulterated freedom of association.

    At one time “we” did.

    Of course, you should blame Southrons for not adhering to “separation but equal”, as they clearly violated its spirit for 60 years. Thankfully, civilized southern whites took back their states in the 1960’s.

    And what a wonderful decision that was. Seen the latest crime rates?

    “communist california has already outlawed all-White male corporate boardrooms.”

    California is not communist.

    They’re as communist as what they can get away with, and left unopposed will keep rolling down that ramp.

    “Because these technical questions are indeed challenging doesn’t invalidate the need for separation from a leviathan, out-of-control, sinking and burning federal mafia.”

    Furthermore, such technical questions must be addressed prior to any actual move toward secession begins in earnest.

    That’s your opinion. But there may be scenarios without time to sit and worry about minute details.

    “The Yugoslav Wars are a prime example of how and why. Two opposing cultures can’t share the same space.”

    Except that situation is not analogous to the U.S.

    islam versus Christianity, judaism against Christianity, Blacks (fueled by Chosenites) against Whites, men versus women, old versus young. We are not a unified people anymore. Or maybe you think 100,000 Haitians are coming here to read the Constitution?

    Except the U.S. is not totalitarian. It doesn’t fit the criteria.

    It fits the criteria more every year. Enjoying covid hoax? Entire country subdued and greatly harmed over 0.21% deaths from a 99% recoverable-from virus.

    “The dominant American culture, laws and values were based on English Common law and Anglo traditions aka White guys.”

    Then, the American culture, which is a mixture of different political and cultural traditions, was developed roughly beginning in the 1750’s.

    It was still White guys.

    “Arriving foreigners assimilated, the ones who wanted to succeed.”

    Which include white and non-white.

    Correct. Until 1965, when arrivals were told, “No need to assimilate. Recreate the country you fled here.”

    “The federal mafia runs unopposed. The uniparty doesn’t give a shit whether elections are rigged. Criminals roam free. There are no borders. Shlomo has finally (partially) admitted The Great Replacement is real. A White person can lose everything if caught in the wrong place and time, accidentally offending the Exalted Negro or some other bullshit “oppressed” horde.”

    Do you need a virtual brown paper bag to stop your hyperventilating?

    Nothing I’ve said is false.

    “There’s no reason for Red States to stay in this arrangement which doesn’t serve their interests. The system is broken beyond repair. The logistics of Secession pale in comparison to globalists’ plans for you and me.”

    Ah, yes, it’s all a conspiracy,

    Right up until it’s proven true.

    Your role here as the town contrarian is well-noted. And that’s fine, you’re needed to keep us honest. I’d love to be wrong about everything I believe is coming to pass. But I see no evidence of law and order and sane decision-making at the top, meaning decisions that help America rather than harm her.

  202. @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    Of course there is. The nation made preparations for future groups of people to enter its shores. It “equipped itself” with a process to do so, i.e. federal legislation.
     
    The law allowed for immigration. That's all you can say. There were no other preparations. Indeed, none were necessary as it turned out. The sequence of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and then the War of 1812 kept almost all immigrants away from the U.S. for decades.

    They weren't missed, either. The U.S. birth rate was so high that the U.S. population exploded, anyway. The average American woman at the time had around six or seven babies, most of whom made it to adulthood.


    Like the quota acts of the 1920’s, which targeted Eastern Europeans who were viewed as other than desirable.
     
    Yes, they were undesirable. Their politics were radical. Their habits were considered dirty and alien. But quotas were not enacted out of a fear of replacement. There weren't enough Jews and Irish Catholics in the world to replace Protestant Americans at the time.

    The Know-Nothings of the 1850’s formed because of WASP fear that Catholic Church would control a large bloc of voters, especially newcomers from Ireland and Germany. This political group sought to restore their vision of what America should like like with temperance and self-reliance, with American nationality and work ethic enshrined as the nation’s highest values. This way of life was in jeopardy as hordes of the “unwashed masses” would put into place a government subjected to the whims of the pope. The Know-Nothings argued that Roman Catholics were a threat to the stability of the nation, and German and Irish immigrants undermined and “swamped” the old order established by the Founding Fathers.
     
    You're confusing several different factors that have nothing to do with your original thesis about replacement. I've already said that native-born American citizens who were leery of immigration feared the political and cultural erosion of the American Protestant norm. But that has nothing to do with the notion of "replacement" similar to how white protestants replaced Native Americans (i.e., Indians) on the continent, which is how you originally used the term.

    Indeed, of white Europeans deemed to be inferior. The greater the numbers, the more likely the Polish and Italians would gain power and influence, and replace the “tried and true” vision of America with a bastardized version.
     
    The point you are missing is that southerners did not vote for restrictive immigration laws because they feared being replaced. Immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries hardly touched them at all. It's only been in the last twenty to thirty years that immigration has become a significant factor in the demographics of the south.

    Having first brought up this idea that "replacement" is a constant theme in U.S. history, you now seem reluctant to own it.


    In what specific ways?
     
    Catholic immigrants before the Civil War were usually Democrats who supported slavery, since the Church had sanctioned the institution. It got the point in New York City during the Civil War that there were draft riots made up mostly of Irish immigrants who didn't want to fight for freeing the black man. You don't understand why Protestants in the north might be upset by this?

    Jewish, Irish and Italian immigrants were always stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party (and sometimes of communist, socialist and anarchist parties). It took nearly a century for white Catholics to break away from the Democratic Party and vote Republican. Jews still haven't managed to break away. You don't see why Protestant Republicans might not want to see their rival party gain strength through immigration?

    These immigrants also tended to support the most corrupt urban political machines in the country. And labor unions. You don't see why mainstream Americans might blanch at such political habits?


    That is patently false. Laws are specifically crafted fur our posterity.
     
    Constitutions are created for posterity. Laws are created for the present, and therefore subject to immediate change depending on the whims of ever-changing groups of lawmakers.

    And indeed that is what happened. The 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the 1795 Naturalization Act which in turn was replaced by the 1798 Naturalization Act and so on. There was nothing permanent about it.


    Immigration has always been a factor, it’s just a matter of to what extent.
     
    No, it has not always been a factor. Young Americans in 1830 and 1965 were unlikely to even know any foreign-born persons unless they were their friends' parents or grandparents or they lived in one of the half-dozen largest coastal urban centers. Those Americans worked almost solely with other American-born persons, married other American-born persons, and interacted with other American-born persons.

    But we weren't talking about immigration being a factor; we were talking about your notion of "replacement" being something inherent in American history.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The law allowed for immigration. That’s all you can say.”

    With that law making immigration policy a permanent fixture in our history by way of developing policies centering around it.

    “The sequence of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and then the War of 1812 kept almost all immigrants away from the U.S. for decades.”

    To the contrary, as I noted previously, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe from 1815-1860. That hardly constitutes “kept almost all immigrants away”.

    “They weren’t missed, either. The U.S. birth rate was so high that the U.S. population exploded, anyway. The average American woman at the time had around six or seven babies, most of whom made it to adulthood.”

    OK.

    “Yes, they were undesirable. Their politics were radical. Their habits were considered dirty and alien.”

    To WASPS. Are they also undesirable to you? Pray tell, what is your ethnic background(s)? When did your ancestors come to the States (provided you are an American)? Now, assuming the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians were “undesirable” and “radical”, how in the world did they eventually become one of u.s.? Magic dirt?

    “But quotas were not enacted out of a fear of replacement. There weren’t enough Jews and Irish Catholics in the world to replace Protestant Americans at the time.”

    If those groups continued to come in at what was viewed as alarming rates, WASPs clearly feared they would be replaced as the dominant political and societal influence. Thus, measures were undertaken to stem that tide.

    “Catholic immigrants before the Civil War were usually Democrats who supported slavery, since the Church had sanctioned the institution.”

    You mean those Catholic immigrants who sought to own slaves. For some defenders of slavery, not merely the Bible but also Christian tradition supported their position, and they mined the past for examples of Christian slaveholding. On the other hand, both white and black antislavery authors used religious history to bolster their cases against the ” peculiar institution”.

    “It got the point in New York City during the Civil War that there were draft riots made up mostly of Irish immigrants who didn’t want to fight for freeing the black man. You don’t understand why Protestants in the north might be upset by this?”

    The reason being the Irish immigrants believed they were not part and parcel to the factors that led to the Civil War, so why should they be forced right off the boat to America to be drafted into the Union Army.

    “Jewish, Irish and Italian immigrants were always stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party (and sometimes of communist, socialist and anarchist parties). It took nearly a century for white Catholics to break away from the Democratic Party and vote Republican. Jews still haven’t managed to break away. You don’t see why Protestant Republicans might not want to see their rival party gain strength through immigration?”

    Indeed, and replace the WASP ways of life.

    “Laws are created for the present, and therefore subject to immediate change depending on the whims of ever-changing groups of lawmakers.”

    Laws are created due to past conditions and are implemented to address patent wrongs that the general public seeks to correct. These laws are subject to change due to citizen pressure.

    “The 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the 1795 Naturalization Act which in turn was replaced by the 1798 Naturalization Act and so on. There was nothing permanent about it.”

    What is permanent is that immigration laws existed, with policies crafted that reflected that particular law, and eventually due to political and social changes in our society, the law was changed.

    “Young Americans in 1830 and 1965 were unlikely to even know any foreign-born persons unless they were their friends’ parents or grandparents or they lived in one of the half-dozen largest coastal urban centers.”

    Just because this particular group did not encounter foreign born people in their daily lives does not mean immigration was not a fixture in the overall American society. Five million came here from Europe. They settled in urban areas, or moved into the interior for land. Assuredly, there was contact between immigrants and native born peoples. To what extent and how frequent depended on locality. After 1850, this trend accelerated.

    “But we weren’t talking about immigration being a factor; we were talking about your notion of “replacement” being something inherent in American history.”

    Which has been a fixture in our past, present, and future.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    With that law making immigration policy a permanent fixture in our history by way of developing policies centering around it.
     
    There was no permanence to immigration policy. There were only laws that for the first several decades had little relevance to the development of the young American nation. The Americans who filled out the Northwest Territory and the Louisiana Purchase, for example, were not naturalized immigrants, but native-born Americans.

    There was no pressure to change immigration laws because why would anyone bother to change something that mattered so little? A few thousand immigrants a year (~6K) were easily swallowed up by the permanent demographic boom going on in the U.S. (200K to 300K annually). The U.S. Congress contented itself with making citizenship restrictions a little tougher, but there was no political pressure to do anything else.

    The moment immigration became more impactful to the nation after 1840, however, it also became a matter for serious political debate. U.S. population growth was still mostly driven by native-born Americans, but immigration was no longer something Americans could ignore. Their northern cities were filling up with many foreigners with alien habits who were not easy to assimilate.

    Had the issues which led to the Civil War not intervened the Know Nothings almost certainly would've helped change immigration policy. The Know Nothings were a northern progressive group, but on immigration policy they most likely would've found allies among the south if slavery hadn't dominated national discourse at the time.

    As it was, the restrictionist movement took a break during the Civil War and Reconstruction only to come back with renewed strength in the late 1870s when Chinese immigration out west became the primary issue. The nation became increasingly more restrictionist from 1882, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, until 1924, when the Immigration Act was signed.


    To the contrary, as I noted previously, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe from 1815-1860. That hardly constitutes “kept almost all immigrants away”.
     
    Your time period (1815-1860) is not a natural demarcation for describing different periods in U.S. immigration history. For example, immigration from 1815 to 1830 was flat; it more naturally fits with the 1790 to 1815 period.

    The 1830s were a transition period with a growing number of immigrants, but still manageable numbers. Only in the 1840s did immigration really pick up.

    Here is how one Wikipedia article estimates the number of immigrants to the U.S. per decade.

    1790 - 60,000

    1800 - 60,000

    1810 - 60,000

    1820 - 60,000

    1830 - 143,000

    1840 - 599,000

    1850 - 1,713,000

    The difference between immigration to the U.S. in the 1820s and in the 1850s is a factor of nearly 29. You should not sloppily put those two decades in the same era of U.S. immigration history. They don't belong together.


    To WASPS. Are they also undesirable to you? Pray tell, what is your ethnic background(s)? When did your ancestors come to the States (provided you are an American)?
     
    Why does my background matter? We are talking about the 19th and early 20th centuries, not the present day. You are making historical claims you can't support.

    The U.S. was a culturally WASP country for most of its history. There's a reason it took until 1928 for the first Catholic (Al Smith) to make a serious run at president and until 1960 for one to win the presidency.


    Now, assuming the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians were “undesirable” and “radical”, how in the world did they eventually become one of u.s.? Magic dirt?
     
    They became Americans because the issues that mattered earlier in U.S. history which separated some immigrant groups from native-born Americans no longer mattered in the late 20th century. Slavery was defeated. Religious identity became less important to most Americans. Public schools began blending out the differences between most whites.

    Your mistake is to assume those issues never did matter and never should've mattered. But that's just anachronistic thinking on your part.


    If those groups continued to come in at what was viewed as alarming rates, WASPs clearly feared they would be replaced as the dominant political and societal influence. Thus, measures were undertaken to stem that tide.
     
    No, the WASPs feared erosion of their cultural, social and political power. But they did not fear becoming the new Native Americans. They did not fear being swallowed up by a larger demographic entity.

    That's your mistake.


    You mean those Catholic immigrants who sought to own slaves.
     
    No, that's not what I mean. I mean that Catholics in general, whether they owned slaves or not, were more philosophically open to the idea of slavery in the mid-19th century than Protestant northerners because their religious pontiff in the Vatican did not condemn the practice.

    You must understand that the impetus for abolishing slavery, both in America and in Europe, found its fullest expression among Protestants, not Catholics.

    So northern abolitionists were rightly suspicious of the growing Catholic presence in the north. They believed that Catholics at the polls were not adverse to supporting the south's right to their peculiar institution. And, indeed, that is how it played out, both before the Civil War and after. Even as late as the 1930s, FDR's New Deal coalition was built mainly on the votes of southern whites who supported Jim Crow and immigrant groups in the north (Jews, Irish Catholics, and Italian Catholics).

    Here is how Catholicism and American Freedom: A History put it:


    Yet a powerful strain of explicit anti-Catholicism did shape the antislavery movement. Comparisons of Catholicism and slavery were not new—the earl of Shaftesbury declared in 1679, “Popery and Slavery, like two sisters, go hand in hand, sometimes one goes first, sometimes the other, in a door, but the other is always following close at hand”—but the intensity of the nineteenth-century American slavery debate and the rapid growth of a Catholic Church unwilling to condemn slavery made it newly compelling.

    By the late 1840s antislavery activists frequently denounced slavery and Catholicism as parallel despotic systems, opposed to education, free speech, and political liberty in predictable synchronicity. Protestants who tolerated slavery betrayed their principles, abolitionists believed, while Catholics who tolerated slavery applied them. Catholic leaders in Italy forbade distribution of the Bible to their people, just as southern slaveholders stopped the distribution of the Bible to slaves. Catholics relied upon oral instruction in catechism classes, just as slaveholders used oral instruction to prevent slave literacy. Slaveholders exerted unlimited control over female slaves, just as priests allegedly exercised sexual and emotional power over female penitents in the confessional. Slave quarters were likened to the “dungeons of the Popish Inquisition.” Popular exposés of women (allegedly) attempting to flee convents bore a startling resemblance to narratives describing efforts of slaves to flee the South.

    The list of anti-Catholic abolitionists in the first stages of the American movement is impressive. The first abolitionist martyr, Elijah Lovejoy, murdered in 1836 for his opposition to slavery, spent much of 1835 warning of the Catholic menace. George Bourne became, simultaneously, a leading antislavery and anti-Catholic agitator, writing attacks on Romanism and scurrilous convent narratives even as he became a crucial influence on Garrison’s Liberator. The abolitionist Angelina Grimké noted, “The Catholics are universally condemned, for denying the Bible to the common people, but, slaveholders must not blame them, for they are doing the very same thing, and for the very same reason, neither of these systems can bear the light which bursts from the pages of that Holy Book.”
     

    You've heard of Harriett Beecher Stowe and Frederick Douglass, right?

    Widespread antislavery sentiment in the 1850s often included an anti-Catholic undercurrent, as suggested by the careers of a wide range of American antislavery activists, including Harriet Beecher Stowe, her brother Edward Beecher, Frederick Douglass, Joseph Thompson, and George Cheever. The anti-Catholicism of the Beecher family began with father Lyman’s warnings about papal advances in the West during the 1830s, and extended to daughter Harriet’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. (In the novel Uncle Tom conspicuously escorts Catholic Eva to Methodist meetings, liberating her from the religious and political decadence of the Catholic, slave-owning St. Clare family.) Harriet’s brother Edward Beecher also attacked slavery, even as he published an 1855 manifesto on the papal conspiracy.

    Frederick Douglass, too, displayed a casual anti-Catholicism, attacking the “cunning illusions” of Catholic leaders. Thompson and Cheever became editors for the country’s most prominent religious weekly, the Independent, and, like many evangelicals opposed to slavery, switched back and forth from the dangers of slavery to the dangers of Catholicism. In one 1859 address Thompson noted that “Freedom is grappling with Slavery,” even as he worried that “Romanism is taking advantage of our religious freedom to oust religious instruction from common schools….”
     

    That American Catholics wanted to set up separate schools only added to the abolitionists' fears that those schools would be used to disseminate pro-slavery propaganda.

    You have the typical attitude of the modern man who is ignorant of history that because religious sects do not have serious schisms today that they must not have previously had serious issues in the past.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    Indeed, and replace the WASP ways of life.
     
    You used "replacement" with the first example being Native Americans who were wholly replaced by new European populations. That was your original example, and it was wholly dishonest in describing the later impact of immigration on U.S. history.

    Laws are created due to past conditions and are implemented to address patent wrongs that the general public seeks to correct. These laws are subject to change due to citizen pressure.
     
    Right, and why would there be any "citizen pressure" to change immigration laws when immigration to the U.S., for all intents and purposes, did not exist?

    Just because this particular group did not encounter foreign born people in their daily lives does not mean immigration was not a fixture in the overall American society. Five million came here from Europe. They settled in urban areas, or moved into the interior for land. Assuredly, there was contact between immigrants and native born peoples. To what extent and how frequent depended on locality. After 1850, this trend accelerated.
     
    But there was no replacement. And immigration laws were changed to make sure that the impact of the new populations were limited.
  203. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “The law allowed for immigration. That’s all you can say.”

    With that law making immigration policy a permanent fixture in our history by way of developing policies centering around it.

    “The sequence of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and then the War of 1812 kept almost all immigrants away from the U.S. for decades.”

    To the contrary, as I noted previously, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe from 1815-1860. That hardly constitutes “kept almost all immigrants away”.

    “They weren’t missed, either. The U.S. birth rate was so high that the U.S. population exploded, anyway. The average American woman at the time had around six or seven babies, most of whom made it to adulthood.”

    OK.

    “Yes, they were undesirable. Their politics were radical. Their habits were considered dirty and alien.”

    To WASPS. Are they also undesirable to you? Pray tell, what is your ethnic background(s)? When did your ancestors come to the States (provided you are an American)? Now, assuming the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians were "undesirable" and "radical", how in the world did they eventually become one of u.s.? Magic dirt?

    “But quotas were not enacted out of a fear of replacement. There weren’t enough Jews and Irish Catholics in the world to replace Protestant Americans at the time.”

    If those groups continued to come in at what was viewed as alarming rates, WASPs clearly feared they would be replaced as the dominant political and societal influence. Thus, measures were undertaken to stem that tide.

    “Catholic immigrants before the Civil War were usually Democrats who supported slavery, since the Church had sanctioned the institution.”

    You mean those Catholic immigrants who sought to own slaves. For some defenders of slavery, not merely the Bible but also Christian tradition supported their position, and they mined the past for examples of Christian slaveholding. On the other hand, both white and black antislavery authors used religious history to bolster their cases against the " peculiar institution".

    “It got the point in New York City during the Civil War that there were draft riots made up mostly of Irish immigrants who didn’t want to fight for freeing the black man. You don’t understand why Protestants in the north might be upset by this?”

    The reason being the Irish immigrants believed they were not part and parcel to the factors that led to the Civil War, so why should they be forced right off the boat to America to be drafted into the Union Army.

    "Jewish, Irish and Italian immigrants were always stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party (and sometimes of communist, socialist and anarchist parties). It took nearly a century for white Catholics to break away from the Democratic Party and vote Republican. Jews still haven’t managed to break away. You don’t see why Protestant Republicans might not want to see their rival party gain strength through immigration?"

    Indeed, and replace the WASP ways of life.

    “Laws are created for the present, and therefore subject to immediate change depending on the whims of ever-changing groups of lawmakers.”

    Laws are created due to past conditions and are implemented to address patent wrongs that the general public seeks to correct. These laws are subject to change due to citizen pressure.

    “The 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the 1795 Naturalization Act which in turn was replaced by the 1798 Naturalization Act and so on. There was nothing permanent about it.”

    What is permanent is that immigration laws existed, with policies crafted that reflected that particular law, and eventually due to political and social changes in our society, the law was changed.

    “Young Americans in 1830 and 1965 were unlikely to even know any foreign-born persons unless they were their friends’ parents or grandparents or they lived in one of the half-dozen largest coastal urban centers.”

    Just because this particular group did not encounter foreign born people in their daily lives does not mean immigration was not a fixture in the overall American society. Five million came here from Europe. They settled in urban areas, or moved into the interior for land. Assuredly, there was contact between immigrants and native born peoples. To what extent and how frequent depended on locality. After 1850, this trend accelerated.

    “But we weren’t talking about immigration being a factor; we were talking about your notion of “replacement” being something inherent in American history.”

    Which has been a fixture in our past, present, and future.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Pincher Martin

    With that law making immigration policy a permanent fixture in our history by way of developing policies centering around it.

    There was no permanence to immigration policy. There were only laws that for the first several decades had little relevance to the development of the young American nation. The Americans who filled out the Northwest Territory and the Louisiana Purchase, for example, were not naturalized immigrants, but native-born Americans.

    There was no pressure to change immigration laws because why would anyone bother to change something that mattered so little? A few thousand immigrants a year (~6K) were easily swallowed up by the permanent demographic boom going on in the U.S. (200K to 300K annually). The U.S. Congress contented itself with making citizenship restrictions a little tougher, but there was no political pressure to do anything else.

    The moment immigration became more impactful to the nation after 1840, however, it also became a matter for serious political debate. U.S. population growth was still mostly driven by native-born Americans, but immigration was no longer something Americans could ignore. Their northern cities were filling up with many foreigners with alien habits who were not easy to assimilate.

    Had the issues which led to the Civil War not intervened the Know Nothings almost certainly would’ve helped change immigration policy. The Know Nothings were a northern progressive group, but on immigration policy they most likely would’ve found allies among the south if slavery hadn’t dominated national discourse at the time.

    As it was, the restrictionist movement took a break during the Civil War and Reconstruction only to come back with renewed strength in the late 1870s when Chinese immigration out west became the primary issue. The nation became increasingly more restrictionist from 1882, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, until 1924, when the Immigration Act was signed.

    To the contrary, as I noted previously, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe from 1815-1860. That hardly constitutes “kept almost all immigrants away”.

    Your time period (1815-1860) is not a natural demarcation for describing different periods in U.S. immigration history. For example, immigration from 1815 to 1830 was flat; it more naturally fits with the 1790 to 1815 period.

    The 1830s were a transition period with a growing number of immigrants, but still manageable numbers. Only in the 1840s did immigration really pick up.

    Here is how one Wikipedia article estimates the number of immigrants to the U.S. per decade.

    1790 – 60,000

    1800 – 60,000

    1810 – 60,000

    1820 – 60,000

    1830 – 143,000

    1840 – 599,000

    1850 – 1,713,000

    The difference between immigration to the U.S. in the 1820s and in the 1850s is a factor of nearly 29. You should not sloppily put those two decades in the same era of U.S. immigration history. They don’t belong together.

    To WASPS. Are they also undesirable to you? Pray tell, what is your ethnic background(s)? When did your ancestors come to the States (provided you are an American)?

    Why does my background matter? We are talking about the 19th and early 20th centuries, not the present day. You are making historical claims you can’t support.

    The U.S. was a culturally WASP country for most of its history. There’s a reason it took until 1928 for the first Catholic (Al Smith) to make a serious run at president and until 1960 for one to win the presidency.

    Now, assuming the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians were “undesirable” and “radical”, how in the world did they eventually become one of u.s.? Magic dirt?

    They became Americans because the issues that mattered earlier in U.S. history which separated some immigrant groups from native-born Americans no longer mattered in the late 20th century. Slavery was defeated. Religious identity became less important to most Americans. Public schools began blending out the differences between most whites.

    Your mistake is to assume those issues never did matter and never should’ve mattered. But that’s just anachronistic thinking on your part.

    If those groups continued to come in at what was viewed as alarming rates, WASPs clearly feared they would be replaced as the dominant political and societal influence. Thus, measures were undertaken to stem that tide.

    No, the WASPs feared erosion of their cultural, social and political power. But they did not fear becoming the new Native Americans. They did not fear being swallowed up by a larger demographic entity.

    That’s your mistake.

    You mean those Catholic immigrants who sought to own slaves.

    No, that’s not what I mean. I mean that Catholics in general, whether they owned slaves or not, were more philosophically open to the idea of slavery in the mid-19th century than Protestant northerners because their religious pontiff in the Vatican did not condemn the practice.

    You must understand that the impetus for abolishing slavery, both in America and in Europe, found its fullest expression among Protestants, not Catholics.

    So northern abolitionists were rightly suspicious of the growing Catholic presence in the north. They believed that Catholics at the polls were not adverse to supporting the south’s right to their peculiar institution. And, indeed, that is how it played out, both before the Civil War and after. Even as late as the 1930s, FDR’s New Deal coalition was built mainly on the votes of southern whites who supported Jim Crow and immigrant groups in the north (Jews, Irish Catholics, and Italian Catholics).

    Here is how Catholicism and American Freedom: A History put it:

    Yet a powerful strain of explicit anti-Catholicism did shape the antislavery movement. Comparisons of Catholicism and slavery were not new—the earl of Shaftesbury declared in 1679, “Popery and Slavery, like two sisters, go hand in hand, sometimes one goes first, sometimes the other, in a door, but the other is always following close at hand”—but the intensity of the nineteenth-century American slavery debate and the rapid growth of a Catholic Church unwilling to condemn slavery made it newly compelling.

    By the late 1840s antislavery activists frequently denounced slavery and Catholicism as parallel despotic systems, opposed to education, free speech, and political liberty in predictable synchronicity. Protestants who tolerated slavery betrayed their principles, abolitionists believed, while Catholics who tolerated slavery applied them. Catholic leaders in Italy forbade distribution of the Bible to their people, just as southern slaveholders stopped the distribution of the Bible to slaves. Catholics relied upon oral instruction in catechism classes, just as slaveholders used oral instruction to prevent slave literacy. Slaveholders exerted unlimited control over female slaves, just as priests allegedly exercised sexual and emotional power over female penitents in the confessional. Slave quarters were likened to the “dungeons of the Popish Inquisition.” Popular exposés of women (allegedly) attempting to flee convents bore a startling resemblance to narratives describing efforts of slaves to flee the South.

    The list of anti-Catholic abolitionists in the first stages of the American movement is impressive. The first abolitionist martyr, Elijah Lovejoy, murdered in 1836 for his opposition to slavery, spent much of 1835 warning of the Catholic menace. George Bourne became, simultaneously, a leading antislavery and anti-Catholic agitator, writing attacks on Romanism and scurrilous convent narratives even as he became a crucial influence on Garrison’s Liberator. The abolitionist Angelina Grimké noted, “The Catholics are universally condemned, for denying the Bible to the common people, but, slaveholders must not blame them, for they are doing the very same thing, and for the very same reason, neither of these systems can bear the light which bursts from the pages of that Holy Book.”

    You’ve heard of Harriett Beecher Stowe and Frederick Douglass, right?

    Widespread antislavery sentiment in the 1850s often included an anti-Catholic undercurrent, as suggested by the careers of a wide range of American antislavery activists, including Harriet Beecher Stowe, her brother Edward Beecher, Frederick Douglass, Joseph Thompson, and George Cheever. The anti-Catholicism of the Beecher family began with father Lyman’s warnings about papal advances in the West during the 1830s, and extended to daughter Harriet’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. (In the novel Uncle Tom conspicuously escorts Catholic Eva to Methodist meetings, liberating her from the religious and political decadence of the Catholic, slave-owning St. Clare family.) Harriet’s brother Edward Beecher also attacked slavery, even as he published an 1855 manifesto on the papal conspiracy.

    Frederick Douglass, too, displayed a casual anti-Catholicism, attacking the “cunning illusions” of Catholic leaders. Thompson and Cheever became editors for the country’s most prominent religious weekly, the Independent, and, like many evangelicals opposed to slavery, switched back and forth from the dangers of slavery to the dangers of Catholicism. In one 1859 address Thompson noted that “Freedom is grappling with Slavery,” even as he worried that “Romanism is taking advantage of our religious freedom to oust religious instruction from common schools….”

    That American Catholics wanted to set up separate schools only added to the abolitionists’ fears that those schools would be used to disseminate pro-slavery propaganda.

    You have the typical attitude of the modern man who is ignorant of history that because religious sects do not have serious schisms today that they must not have previously had serious issues in the past.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “There was no permanence to immigration policy. There were only laws that for the first several decades had little relevance to the development of the young American nation.”

    The immigration policy was permanent in how Congress established the criteria. Those standards, of course, were altered in reaction to the composition of the U.S. changed. The 1790 law was in anticipation of a potential influx of newcomers other than by natural birth increase. Five million came in 60 years. In the 1840’s and 1850’s, there was a threat to the political and social order to our nation, one that people feared if not addressed would replace what was deemed “wholesome and good”. By the 1880’s, significant pressure was ramped up by nativists who were concerned about the pro-labor papal socialist anarchists from Eastern and Southern Europe.

    “Their northern cities were filling up with many foreigners with alien habits who were not easy to assimilate.”

    So were your own ancestors part of this “foreign intrusion”?

    “The Know Nothings were a northern progressive group…”

    A national radical group.

    “The nation became increasingly more restrictionist from 1882, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, until 1924, when the Immigration Act was signed.”

    Again, out of fear that tens of thousands of slopeheads (their words, not mine) would take over California and eventually the West Coast.

    “The difference between immigration to the U.S. in the 1820s and in the 1850s is a factor of nearly 29. You should not sloppily put those two decades in the same era of U.S. immigration history. They don’t belong together.”

    I am citing a forty year time frame by which 5 million came to our shores.

    “Why does my background matter? We are talking about the 19th and early 20th centuries, not the present day."

    It does matter especially if your ancestors were one of those “undesirable” groups.

    “You are making historical claims you can’t support.”

    I have made the argument, you simply disagree.

    “No, the WASPs feared erosion of their cultural, social and political power. But they did not fear becoming the new Native Americans. They did not fear being swallowed up by a larger demographic entity.:”

    To the contrary…

    https://www.posterazzi.com/anti-immigrants-cartoon-nthe-last-yankee-a-lone-yankee-standing-tall-is-regarded-with-curiosity-by-a-throng-of-immigrants-in-the-city-american-cartoon-1888-poster-print-by-granger-collection-item-vargrc0065031/

    “You must understand that the impetus for abolishing slavery, both in America and in Europe, found its fullest expression among Protestants, not Catholics.”

    Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. Pope Pius VII demanded the Congress of Vienna to suppress the slave trade. In the Bull of Canonization of Peter Claver, Pope Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" of the slave traders. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade in In supremo apostolatus.

    "You used “replacement” with the first example being Native Americans who were wholly replaced by new European populations."

    Let's be precise, I then stated the British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundated our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. There is a historical pattern of replacement.

    "Right, and why would there be any “citizen pressure” to change immigration laws when immigration to the U.S., for all intents and purposes, did not exist?"

    Immigration did exist. Five million came here over a long period of time. Then--BAM--Catholic Irish and Germans came a-knockin'. Starting in 1875, a series of restrictions on immigration were enacted--bans on criminals, people with contagious diseases, polygamists, anarchists, beggars and importers of prostitutes. Other restrictions targeted the rising number of Asian immigrants, first limiting migration from China and later banning immigration from most Asian countries.

    "But there was no replacement."

    The British were replaced by the non-British. Americans of Western European stock were replaced by Eastern Europeans. White (Europeans) are on the verge of being replaced by non-whites.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  204. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “The law allowed for immigration. That’s all you can say.”

    With that law making immigration policy a permanent fixture in our history by way of developing policies centering around it.

    “The sequence of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and then the War of 1812 kept almost all immigrants away from the U.S. for decades.”

    To the contrary, as I noted previously, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe from 1815-1860. That hardly constitutes “kept almost all immigrants away”.

    “They weren’t missed, either. The U.S. birth rate was so high that the U.S. population exploded, anyway. The average American woman at the time had around six or seven babies, most of whom made it to adulthood.”

    OK.

    “Yes, they were undesirable. Their politics were radical. Their habits were considered dirty and alien.”

    To WASPS. Are they also undesirable to you? Pray tell, what is your ethnic background(s)? When did your ancestors come to the States (provided you are an American)? Now, assuming the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians were "undesirable" and "radical", how in the world did they eventually become one of u.s.? Magic dirt?

    “But quotas were not enacted out of a fear of replacement. There weren’t enough Jews and Irish Catholics in the world to replace Protestant Americans at the time.”

    If those groups continued to come in at what was viewed as alarming rates, WASPs clearly feared they would be replaced as the dominant political and societal influence. Thus, measures were undertaken to stem that tide.

    “Catholic immigrants before the Civil War were usually Democrats who supported slavery, since the Church had sanctioned the institution.”

    You mean those Catholic immigrants who sought to own slaves. For some defenders of slavery, not merely the Bible but also Christian tradition supported their position, and they mined the past for examples of Christian slaveholding. On the other hand, both white and black antislavery authors used religious history to bolster their cases against the " peculiar institution".

    “It got the point in New York City during the Civil War that there were draft riots made up mostly of Irish immigrants who didn’t want to fight for freeing the black man. You don’t understand why Protestants in the north might be upset by this?”

    The reason being the Irish immigrants believed they were not part and parcel to the factors that led to the Civil War, so why should they be forced right off the boat to America to be drafted into the Union Army.

    "Jewish, Irish and Italian immigrants were always stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party (and sometimes of communist, socialist and anarchist parties). It took nearly a century for white Catholics to break away from the Democratic Party and vote Republican. Jews still haven’t managed to break away. You don’t see why Protestant Republicans might not want to see their rival party gain strength through immigration?"

    Indeed, and replace the WASP ways of life.

    “Laws are created for the present, and therefore subject to immediate change depending on the whims of ever-changing groups of lawmakers.”

    Laws are created due to past conditions and are implemented to address patent wrongs that the general public seeks to correct. These laws are subject to change due to citizen pressure.

    “The 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the 1795 Naturalization Act which in turn was replaced by the 1798 Naturalization Act and so on. There was nothing permanent about it.”

    What is permanent is that immigration laws existed, with policies crafted that reflected that particular law, and eventually due to political and social changes in our society, the law was changed.

    “Young Americans in 1830 and 1965 were unlikely to even know any foreign-born persons unless they were their friends’ parents or grandparents or they lived in one of the half-dozen largest coastal urban centers.”

    Just because this particular group did not encounter foreign born people in their daily lives does not mean immigration was not a fixture in the overall American society. Five million came here from Europe. They settled in urban areas, or moved into the interior for land. Assuredly, there was contact between immigrants and native born peoples. To what extent and how frequent depended on locality. After 1850, this trend accelerated.

    “But we weren’t talking about immigration being a factor; we were talking about your notion of “replacement” being something inherent in American history.”

    Which has been a fixture in our past, present, and future.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Pincher Martin

    Indeed, and replace the WASP ways of life.

    You used “replacement” with the first example being Native Americans who were wholly replaced by new European populations. That was your original example, and it was wholly dishonest in describing the later impact of immigration on U.S. history.

    Laws are created due to past conditions and are implemented to address patent wrongs that the general public seeks to correct. These laws are subject to change due to citizen pressure.

    Right, and why would there be any “citizen pressure” to change immigration laws when immigration to the U.S., for all intents and purposes, did not exist?

    Just because this particular group did not encounter foreign born people in their daily lives does not mean immigration was not a fixture in the overall American society. Five million came here from Europe. They settled in urban areas, or moved into the interior for land. Assuredly, there was contact between immigrants and native born peoples. To what extent and how frequent depended on locality. After 1850, this trend accelerated.

    But there was no replacement. And immigration laws were changed to make sure that the impact of the new populations were limited.

  205. @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    With that law making immigration policy a permanent fixture in our history by way of developing policies centering around it.
     
    There was no permanence to immigration policy. There were only laws that for the first several decades had little relevance to the development of the young American nation. The Americans who filled out the Northwest Territory and the Louisiana Purchase, for example, were not naturalized immigrants, but native-born Americans.

    There was no pressure to change immigration laws because why would anyone bother to change something that mattered so little? A few thousand immigrants a year (~6K) were easily swallowed up by the permanent demographic boom going on in the U.S. (200K to 300K annually). The U.S. Congress contented itself with making citizenship restrictions a little tougher, but there was no political pressure to do anything else.

    The moment immigration became more impactful to the nation after 1840, however, it also became a matter for serious political debate. U.S. population growth was still mostly driven by native-born Americans, but immigration was no longer something Americans could ignore. Their northern cities were filling up with many foreigners with alien habits who were not easy to assimilate.

    Had the issues which led to the Civil War not intervened the Know Nothings almost certainly would've helped change immigration policy. The Know Nothings were a northern progressive group, but on immigration policy they most likely would've found allies among the south if slavery hadn't dominated national discourse at the time.

    As it was, the restrictionist movement took a break during the Civil War and Reconstruction only to come back with renewed strength in the late 1870s when Chinese immigration out west became the primary issue. The nation became increasingly more restrictionist from 1882, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, until 1924, when the Immigration Act was signed.


    To the contrary, as I noted previously, more than 5 million immigrants arrived in America from Europe from 1815-1860. That hardly constitutes “kept almost all immigrants away”.
     
    Your time period (1815-1860) is not a natural demarcation for describing different periods in U.S. immigration history. For example, immigration from 1815 to 1830 was flat; it more naturally fits with the 1790 to 1815 period.

    The 1830s were a transition period with a growing number of immigrants, but still manageable numbers. Only in the 1840s did immigration really pick up.

    Here is how one Wikipedia article estimates the number of immigrants to the U.S. per decade.

    1790 - 60,000

    1800 - 60,000

    1810 - 60,000

    1820 - 60,000

    1830 - 143,000

    1840 - 599,000

    1850 - 1,713,000

    The difference between immigration to the U.S. in the 1820s and in the 1850s is a factor of nearly 29. You should not sloppily put those two decades in the same era of U.S. immigration history. They don't belong together.


    To WASPS. Are they also undesirable to you? Pray tell, what is your ethnic background(s)? When did your ancestors come to the States (provided you are an American)?
     
    Why does my background matter? We are talking about the 19th and early 20th centuries, not the present day. You are making historical claims you can't support.

    The U.S. was a culturally WASP country for most of its history. There's a reason it took until 1928 for the first Catholic (Al Smith) to make a serious run at president and until 1960 for one to win the presidency.


    Now, assuming the Irish, Germans, Poles, and Italians were “undesirable” and “radical”, how in the world did they eventually become one of u.s.? Magic dirt?
     
    They became Americans because the issues that mattered earlier in U.S. history which separated some immigrant groups from native-born Americans no longer mattered in the late 20th century. Slavery was defeated. Religious identity became less important to most Americans. Public schools began blending out the differences between most whites.

    Your mistake is to assume those issues never did matter and never should've mattered. But that's just anachronistic thinking on your part.


    If those groups continued to come in at what was viewed as alarming rates, WASPs clearly feared they would be replaced as the dominant political and societal influence. Thus, measures were undertaken to stem that tide.
     
    No, the WASPs feared erosion of their cultural, social and political power. But they did not fear becoming the new Native Americans. They did not fear being swallowed up by a larger demographic entity.

    That's your mistake.


    You mean those Catholic immigrants who sought to own slaves.
     
    No, that's not what I mean. I mean that Catholics in general, whether they owned slaves or not, were more philosophically open to the idea of slavery in the mid-19th century than Protestant northerners because their religious pontiff in the Vatican did not condemn the practice.

    You must understand that the impetus for abolishing slavery, both in America and in Europe, found its fullest expression among Protestants, not Catholics.

    So northern abolitionists were rightly suspicious of the growing Catholic presence in the north. They believed that Catholics at the polls were not adverse to supporting the south's right to their peculiar institution. And, indeed, that is how it played out, both before the Civil War and after. Even as late as the 1930s, FDR's New Deal coalition was built mainly on the votes of southern whites who supported Jim Crow and immigrant groups in the north (Jews, Irish Catholics, and Italian Catholics).

    Here is how Catholicism and American Freedom: A History put it:


    Yet a powerful strain of explicit anti-Catholicism did shape the antislavery movement. Comparisons of Catholicism and slavery were not new—the earl of Shaftesbury declared in 1679, “Popery and Slavery, like two sisters, go hand in hand, sometimes one goes first, sometimes the other, in a door, but the other is always following close at hand”—but the intensity of the nineteenth-century American slavery debate and the rapid growth of a Catholic Church unwilling to condemn slavery made it newly compelling.

    By the late 1840s antislavery activists frequently denounced slavery and Catholicism as parallel despotic systems, opposed to education, free speech, and political liberty in predictable synchronicity. Protestants who tolerated slavery betrayed their principles, abolitionists believed, while Catholics who tolerated slavery applied them. Catholic leaders in Italy forbade distribution of the Bible to their people, just as southern slaveholders stopped the distribution of the Bible to slaves. Catholics relied upon oral instruction in catechism classes, just as slaveholders used oral instruction to prevent slave literacy. Slaveholders exerted unlimited control over female slaves, just as priests allegedly exercised sexual and emotional power over female penitents in the confessional. Slave quarters were likened to the “dungeons of the Popish Inquisition.” Popular exposés of women (allegedly) attempting to flee convents bore a startling resemblance to narratives describing efforts of slaves to flee the South.

    The list of anti-Catholic abolitionists in the first stages of the American movement is impressive. The first abolitionist martyr, Elijah Lovejoy, murdered in 1836 for his opposition to slavery, spent much of 1835 warning of the Catholic menace. George Bourne became, simultaneously, a leading antislavery and anti-Catholic agitator, writing attacks on Romanism and scurrilous convent narratives even as he became a crucial influence on Garrison’s Liberator. The abolitionist Angelina Grimké noted, “The Catholics are universally condemned, for denying the Bible to the common people, but, slaveholders must not blame them, for they are doing the very same thing, and for the very same reason, neither of these systems can bear the light which bursts from the pages of that Holy Book.”
     

    You've heard of Harriett Beecher Stowe and Frederick Douglass, right?

    Widespread antislavery sentiment in the 1850s often included an anti-Catholic undercurrent, as suggested by the careers of a wide range of American antislavery activists, including Harriet Beecher Stowe, her brother Edward Beecher, Frederick Douglass, Joseph Thompson, and George Cheever. The anti-Catholicism of the Beecher family began with father Lyman’s warnings about papal advances in the West during the 1830s, and extended to daughter Harriet’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. (In the novel Uncle Tom conspicuously escorts Catholic Eva to Methodist meetings, liberating her from the religious and political decadence of the Catholic, slave-owning St. Clare family.) Harriet’s brother Edward Beecher also attacked slavery, even as he published an 1855 manifesto on the papal conspiracy.

    Frederick Douglass, too, displayed a casual anti-Catholicism, attacking the “cunning illusions” of Catholic leaders. Thompson and Cheever became editors for the country’s most prominent religious weekly, the Independent, and, like many evangelicals opposed to slavery, switched back and forth from the dangers of slavery to the dangers of Catholicism. In one 1859 address Thompson noted that “Freedom is grappling with Slavery,” even as he worried that “Romanism is taking advantage of our religious freedom to oust religious instruction from common schools….”
     

    That American Catholics wanted to set up separate schools only added to the abolitionists' fears that those schools would be used to disseminate pro-slavery propaganda.

    You have the typical attitude of the modern man who is ignorant of history that because religious sects do not have serious schisms today that they must not have previously had serious issues in the past.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “There was no permanence to immigration policy. There were only laws that for the first several decades had little relevance to the development of the young American nation.”

    The immigration policy was permanent in how Congress established the criteria. Those standards, of course, were altered in reaction to the composition of the U.S. changed. The 1790 law was in anticipation of a potential influx of newcomers other than by natural birth increase. Five million came in 60 years. In the 1840’s and 1850’s, there was a threat to the political and social order to our nation, one that people feared if not addressed would replace what was deemed “wholesome and good”. By the 1880’s, significant pressure was ramped up by nativists who were concerned about the pro-labor papal socialist anarchists from Eastern and Southern Europe.

    “Their northern cities were filling up with many foreigners with alien habits who were not easy to assimilate.”

    So were your own ancestors part of this “foreign intrusion”?

    “The Know Nothings were a northern progressive group…”

    A national radical group.

    “The nation became increasingly more restrictionist from 1882, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, until 1924, when the Immigration Act was signed.”

    Again, out of fear that tens of thousands of slopeheads (their words, not mine) would take over California and eventually the West Coast.

    “The difference between immigration to the U.S. in the 1820s and in the 1850s is a factor of nearly 29. You should not sloppily put those two decades in the same era of U.S. immigration history. They don’t belong together.”

    I am citing a forty year time frame by which 5 million came to our shores.

    “Why does my background matter? We are talking about the 19th and early 20th centuries, not the present day.”

    It does matter especially if your ancestors were one of those “undesirable” groups.

    “You are making historical claims you can’t support.”

    I have made the argument, you simply disagree.

    “No, the WASPs feared erosion of their cultural, social and political power. But they did not fear becoming the new Native Americans. They did not fear being swallowed up by a larger demographic entity.:”

    To the contrary…

    https://www.posterazzi.com/anti-immigrants-cartoon-nthe-last-yankee-a-lone-yankee-standing-tall-is-regarded-with-curiosity-by-a-throng-of-immigrants-in-the-city-american-cartoon-1888-poster-print-by-granger-collection-item-vargrc0065031/

    “You must understand that the impetus for abolishing slavery, both in America and in Europe, found its fullest expression among Protestants, not Catholics.”

    Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. Pope Pius VII demanded the Congress of Vienna to suppress the slave trade. In the Bull of Canonization of Peter Claver, Pope Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” of the slave traders. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade in In supremo apostolatus.

    “You used “replacement” with the first example being Native Americans who were wholly replaced by new European populations.”

    Let’s be precise, I then stated the British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundated our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. There is a historical pattern of replacement.

    “Right, and why would there be any “citizen pressure” to change immigration laws when immigration to the U.S., for all intents and purposes, did not exist?”

    Immigration did exist. Five million came here over a long period of time. Then–BAM–Catholic Irish and Germans came a-knockin’. Starting in 1875, a series of restrictions on immigration were enacted–bans on criminals, people with contagious diseases, polygamists, anarchists, beggars and importers of prostitutes. Other restrictions targeted the rising number of Asian immigrants, first limiting migration from China and later banning immigration from most Asian countries.

    “But there was no replacement.”

    The British were replaced by the non-British. Americans of Western European stock were replaced by Eastern Europeans. White (Europeans) are on the verge of being replaced by non-whites.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    The immigration policy was permanent in how Congress established the criteria.
     
    That's wrong, as I've already explained to you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was replaced by the Nationalization Act of 1795 and that in turn was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798, and so on.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 required two years of residency in the U.S. before an immigrant could apply for citizenship. Five years later, the residency was changed to five years' residency. By 1798, the residency requirement had lengthened to fourteen years.

    Here is how Wikipedia describes the 1798 Naturalization Act:


    Although the law was passed under the guise of protecting national security, most historians conclude it was really intended to decrease the number of citizens, and thus voters, who disagreed with the Federalist Party.[1] At the time, most immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the political rivals of the Federalists. It had only limited effect, however, as many immigrants rushed to become naturalized before the Act went into effect, and states could at the time make their own more lenient naturalization laws.[2]
     
    Alas for the Federalists, they were soon to be politically dominated by the Democratic-Republicans. The Naturalization Act of 1802 restored the residency requirements of the Naturalization Act of 1795 by returning to the five-year residency requirement.

    But all of these Naturalization Acts were passed in a context of negligible immigration flows to the United States. One set of political elites might do battle over immigration with another set of political elites for some marginal political advantage, but there's little evidence the American people were highly concerned with the issue until the 1840s when immigration levels started to impact their lives and local politics.


    So were your own ancestors part of this “foreign intrusion”?
     
    Some of them might have been. I have German-American Catholics in my maternal line whose presence in the United States dates back to the mid-1850s.

    But who cares?


    It does matter especially if your ancestors were one of those “undesirable” groups.
     
    No, it really doesn't.

    [The Know Nothings were] A national radical group.
     
    No, by modern standards, they were progressives - and almost all of them were in the north. They believed in labor rights, women's suffrage, more government spending on welfare, and the regulation of industry. Most of them were also eventually subsumed into the Republican Party because of their opposition to slavery.

    In the south, the Know Nothings (American Party) were associated with pro-Unionism. They were against the pro-slavery and pro-states' rights arguments of their fellow southerners. Those arguments were increasingly unpopular in the south. One historian wrote: "The southerners who supported the Know-Nothings did so, for the most part, because they thought the Democrats who favored the expansion of slavery might break up the Union."

    So those southern Know Nothings in the antebellum period were not motivated by anti-Catholicism or anti-immigration in the south.


    I am citing a forty year time frame by which 5 million came to our shores.
     
    Your timeframe was misleading. (And it was forty-five years not, forty years. 1860 - 1815 = 45)

    From 1815 to 1830, and perhaps as late as 1840, immigration levels were quite low. It was only after 1840 that immigration to the U.S. really picked up.

    It's not a coincidence that this was also when immigration first became a major political issue in the U.S.


    I have made the argument, you simply disagree.
     
    You've made a bad argument. It's not one based on historical facts. It's based on your emotional claims about the past.

    To the contrary…

    https://www.posterazzi.com/anti-immigrants-cartoon-nthe-last-yankee-a-lone-yankee-standing-tall-is-regarded-with-curiosity-by-a-throng-of-immigrants-in-the-city-american-cartoon-1888-poster-print-by-granger-collection-item-vargrc0065031/
     

    It's a cartoon, and one which doesn't prove your point.

    Of course some U.S. cities - most notably New York and Boston - were heavily impacted by immigration, but these were localities, not the country.

    Your cartoon even surrounds the Yankee with at least two Chinese immigrants, but the Chinese were already being excluded in 1888. There was no chance they were going to replace the Yankee. There numbers were already declining due to the lack of Chinese-American women.


    Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. Pope Pius VII demanded the Congress of Vienna to suppress the slave trade. In the Bull of Canonization of Peter Claver, Pope Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” of the slave traders. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade in In supremo apostolatus.
     
    All those papal bulls and general Popish anti-slavery sentiments were isolated and contextualized. Not one of them provided Catholics with an abolition movement worth a damn.

    It's telling that the first two Catholic countries to abolish slavery were Revolutionary France, when a measure was passed by the anti-Catholic Jacobins, and in Haiti among the black former slaves, who revolted against their white French masters. Napoleon would later overturn the Jacobin measure to free the slaves in French colonies.

    In Latin America, the movement to abolish slavery came not from the church, but from native-led national revolutionary movements to overthrow Spanish colonial rule.

    But in the United States, where our discussion is focused, Catholics were generally NOT against slavery.

    Here's how Catholicism and American Freedom: A History puts it:


    In contrast to Protestant voters divided among the political parties, Catholics from all ethnic backgrounds favored the Democrats, and scholarly scrutiny of nineteenth-century voting behavior has conclusively identified religion as central to voter choice. Irish Catholics became more fervently Democratic during the 1850s, a fact emphasized by Republicans who noted that only white southerners voted Democratic with any comparable regularity. (The Chicago Tribune referred to the “Catholicized Slaveocratic party” and the “Union between Irish priests and bishops and the leaders of the Democracy.”) One Michigan study estimates that 95 percent of Irish Catholics supported the Democrats between 1854 and 1860.

    German Catholics also supported Democrats more frequently than German Protestants or German radicals did, although the pattern varied by state. The German Catholic press contained frequent denunciations of what Milwaukee’s Der Seebote called “the infernal ingredients of this loathsome Republican monstrosity”—or, as Der Seebote put it, “Temperance men, abolitionists, haters of foreigners, sacrilegious despoilers of churches, killers of Catholics.”

    Tellingly, some of those German Catholics who did join the Republican Party were more liberal Catholics, even Catholics involved in disputes with church authorities. In Osage County, Missouri, Dr. Bernhard Bruns became a leading Radical Republican in the 1860s, following his involvement in several ecclesiastical controversies. Johann B. Stallo, alternately described as a freethinker and a Catholic, defended parish trustees of Cincinnati’s Holy Trinity Church in a legal squabble with the local archbishop, and later later served as a Republican delegate to the 1860 convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln.

    Most Republican leaders in the late 1850s focused on the fear of an expanding slave power, and Lincoln himself made no anti-Catholic comments during either his 1858 senatorial race or his 1860 presidential campaign. But genuine Republican opposition to nativism, which might alienate German Protestants, did not preclude opposition to Catholicism at the state and local levels. As Bishop John Timon of Buffalo warned one correspondent, “There seems to be an anti-Catholic twang in much of what they write and say. A moderate anti-Catholic party with a concealed warfare would do us much more harm than the brutal force and open warfare of the KN [Know-Nothings].”

     

    What about in the south? How did pro-slavery southerners react to Catholics as sectional tensions rose?

    More influential southerners moved in the opposite direction [from Northerners], and the brief tenure of the southern Know-Nothing, or American, Party in the mid-1850s provided leading southerners an opportunity to express their admiration for Catholics unwilling to support immediate slave emancipation. Ex-President John Tyler congratulated Catholic priests for setting “an example of non-interference in politics which furnishes an example most worthy of imitation on the part of the clergy of the other sects at the North.” Georgia’s Senator Alexander Stephens, in an address widely reprinted in Catholic newspapers, made this announcement in 1855:

    But I think of all the Christian denominations in the United States the Catholics are the last that Southern people should join in attempting to put under the ban of civil proscription. For as a church they have never warred against us or our peculiar institutions. No man can say as much of the New England Baptists, Presbyterians or Methodists: the long role of abolition petitions with which Congress has been so much excited and agitated for years past come not from the Catholics; their pulpits in the North are not desecrated every Sabbath with anathemas against slavery.
     
    Southern intellectuals went even further. One writer for the Southern Quarterly Review cited Jaime Balmes in defense of gradual emancipation and against the current “insane appetite for universal and unrestricted freedom.” Others reevaluated the individualism associated with the Protestant principle of private judgment. “We quarrel not with the reformation of Luther and Calvin,” said one De Bow’s Review contributor in 1860, but with “the ‘right of private judgment’ engrated on it by infidels and fanatics…. Finally the conservatives have been roused into action. In religion, the admiration generally expressed for the Catholic church as a political institution … is a most important point, and symptom of a salutary reaction.”

    Precisely because defenders of slavery defended the idea of an organic, less individualist society, important southern intellectuals such as Thomas Dew, Henry Hughes, George Frederick Holmes, and George Fitzhugh found Catholicism alluring. Dew regretted the effect of Catholic authoritarianism on free inquiry, but he also admired Catholicism’s ability to avoid the “feebleness and anarchy which would have resulted from schism.” Hughes became enamored of corporatist thought, and Holmes flirted with conversion to Catholicism, admired Aristotelian defenses of slavery, and worried that the “rejection of spiritual authority” lay at the root of social problems. Fitzhugh admired the Catholic refusal to accept divorce and remarriage and believed that Catholicism had provided a salutary check on laissez-faire economics during the medieval period. “We have no quarrel with the Reformation,” he announced in 1857, but then proceeded to a detailed attack on the excesses of private judgment. Sadly, he concluded, northerners opposed to slavery “did nothing more than carry into practice the right of private judgment, liberty of speech, freedom of the press and of religion.”
     

    So even as abolitionist northerners were growing more anti-Catholic, pro-slavery southerners were discovering the virtues of the Catholic creed.

    Let’s be precise, I then stated the British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundated our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. There is a historical pattern of replacement.
     
    There was no "replacement." There was immigration. And your original example was Native Americans, the only ones who truly were replaced by white colonizers.

    It's only been in the last couple of decades where replacement looks like a reasonable possibility in the near future, with European whites not breeding and nonwhites filling up the land.

    But that was not the historical pattern set by previous U.S. immigration patterns. Nor did previous generations of protestant whites feel they were being replaced. They were far more bothered by other political problems created by immigration. As Samuel Huntington noted, even as late as 1990, the descendants of *English settlers* were still 50% of the U.S. population.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  206. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “There was no permanence to immigration policy. There were only laws that for the first several decades had little relevance to the development of the young American nation.”

    The immigration policy was permanent in how Congress established the criteria. Those standards, of course, were altered in reaction to the composition of the U.S. changed. The 1790 law was in anticipation of a potential influx of newcomers other than by natural birth increase. Five million came in 60 years. In the 1840’s and 1850’s, there was a threat to the political and social order to our nation, one that people feared if not addressed would replace what was deemed “wholesome and good”. By the 1880’s, significant pressure was ramped up by nativists who were concerned about the pro-labor papal socialist anarchists from Eastern and Southern Europe.

    “Their northern cities were filling up with many foreigners with alien habits who were not easy to assimilate.”

    So were your own ancestors part of this “foreign intrusion”?

    “The Know Nothings were a northern progressive group…”

    A national radical group.

    “The nation became increasingly more restrictionist from 1882, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, until 1924, when the Immigration Act was signed.”

    Again, out of fear that tens of thousands of slopeheads (their words, not mine) would take over California and eventually the West Coast.

    “The difference between immigration to the U.S. in the 1820s and in the 1850s is a factor of nearly 29. You should not sloppily put those two decades in the same era of U.S. immigration history. They don’t belong together.”

    I am citing a forty year time frame by which 5 million came to our shores.

    “Why does my background matter? We are talking about the 19th and early 20th centuries, not the present day."

    It does matter especially if your ancestors were one of those “undesirable” groups.

    “You are making historical claims you can’t support.”

    I have made the argument, you simply disagree.

    “No, the WASPs feared erosion of their cultural, social and political power. But they did not fear becoming the new Native Americans. They did not fear being swallowed up by a larger demographic entity.:”

    To the contrary…

    https://www.posterazzi.com/anti-immigrants-cartoon-nthe-last-yankee-a-lone-yankee-standing-tall-is-regarded-with-curiosity-by-a-throng-of-immigrants-in-the-city-american-cartoon-1888-poster-print-by-granger-collection-item-vargrc0065031/

    “You must understand that the impetus for abolishing slavery, both in America and in Europe, found its fullest expression among Protestants, not Catholics.”

    Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. Pope Pius VII demanded the Congress of Vienna to suppress the slave trade. In the Bull of Canonization of Peter Claver, Pope Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" of the slave traders. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade in In supremo apostolatus.

    "You used “replacement” with the first example being Native Americans who were wholly replaced by new European populations."

    Let's be precise, I then stated the British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundated our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. There is a historical pattern of replacement.

    "Right, and why would there be any “citizen pressure” to change immigration laws when immigration to the U.S., for all intents and purposes, did not exist?"

    Immigration did exist. Five million came here over a long period of time. Then--BAM--Catholic Irish and Germans came a-knockin'. Starting in 1875, a series of restrictions on immigration were enacted--bans on criminals, people with contagious diseases, polygamists, anarchists, beggars and importers of prostitutes. Other restrictions targeted the rising number of Asian immigrants, first limiting migration from China and later banning immigration from most Asian countries.

    "But there was no replacement."

    The British were replaced by the non-British. Americans of Western European stock were replaced by Eastern Europeans. White (Europeans) are on the verge of being replaced by non-whites.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    The immigration policy was permanent in how Congress established the criteria.

    That’s wrong, as I’ve already explained to you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was replaced by the Nationalization Act of 1795 and that in turn was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798, and so on.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 required two years of residency in the U.S. before an immigrant could apply for citizenship. Five years later, the residency was changed to five years’ residency. By 1798, the residency requirement had lengthened to fourteen years.

    Here is how Wikipedia describes the 1798 Naturalization Act:

    Although the law was passed under the guise of protecting national security, most historians conclude it was really intended to decrease the number of citizens, and thus voters, who disagreed with the Federalist Party.[1] At the time, most immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the political rivals of the Federalists. It had only limited effect, however, as many immigrants rushed to become naturalized before the Act went into effect, and states could at the time make their own more lenient naturalization laws.[2]

    Alas for the Federalists, they were soon to be politically dominated by the Democratic-Republicans. The Naturalization Act of 1802 restored the residency requirements of the Naturalization Act of 1795 by returning to the five-year residency requirement.

    But all of these Naturalization Acts were passed in a context of negligible immigration flows to the United States. One set of political elites might do battle over immigration with another set of political elites for some marginal political advantage, but there’s little evidence the American people were highly concerned with the issue until the 1840s when immigration levels started to impact their lives and local politics.

    So were your own ancestors part of this “foreign intrusion”?

    Some of them might have been. I have German-American Catholics in my maternal line whose presence in the United States dates back to the mid-1850s.

    But who cares?

    It does matter especially if your ancestors were one of those “undesirable” groups.

    No, it really doesn’t.

    [The Know Nothings were] A national radical group.

    No, by modern standards, they were progressives – and almost all of them were in the north. They believed in labor rights, women’s suffrage, more government spending on welfare, and the regulation of industry. Most of them were also eventually subsumed into the Republican Party because of their opposition to slavery.

    In the south, the Know Nothings (American Party) were associated with pro-Unionism. They were against the pro-slavery and pro-states’ rights arguments of their fellow southerners. Those arguments were increasingly unpopular in the south. One historian wrote: “The southerners who supported the Know-Nothings did so, for the most part, because they thought the Democrats who favored the expansion of slavery might break up the Union.”

    So those southern Know Nothings in the antebellum period were not motivated by anti-Catholicism or anti-immigration in the south.

    I am citing a forty year time frame by which 5 million came to our shores.

    Your timeframe was misleading. (And it was forty-five years not, forty years. 1860 – 1815 = 45)

    From 1815 to 1830, and perhaps as late as 1840, immigration levels were quite low. It was only after 1840 that immigration to the U.S. really picked up.

    It’s not a coincidence that this was also when immigration first became a major political issue in the U.S.

    I have made the argument, you simply disagree.

    You’ve made a bad argument. It’s not one based on historical facts. It’s based on your emotional claims about the past.

    To the contrary…

    https://www.posterazzi.com/anti-immigrants-cartoon-nthe-last-yankee-a-lone-yankee-standing-tall-is-regarded-with-curiosity-by-a-throng-of-immigrants-in-the-city-american-cartoon-1888-poster-print-by-granger-collection-item-vargrc0065031/

    It’s a cartoon, and one which doesn’t prove your point.

    Of course some U.S. cities – most notably New York and Boston – were heavily impacted by immigration, but these were localities, not the country.

    Your cartoon even surrounds the Yankee with at least two Chinese immigrants, but the Chinese were already being excluded in 1888. There was no chance they were going to replace the Yankee. There numbers were already declining due to the lack of Chinese-American women.

    Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. Pope Pius VII demanded the Congress of Vienna to suppress the slave trade. In the Bull of Canonization of Peter Claver, Pope Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” of the slave traders. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade in In supremo apostolatus.

    All those papal bulls and general Popish anti-slavery sentiments were isolated and contextualized. Not one of them provided Catholics with an abolition movement worth a damn.

    It’s telling that the first two Catholic countries to abolish slavery were Revolutionary France, when a measure was passed by the anti-Catholic Jacobins, and in Haiti among the black former slaves, who revolted against their white French masters. Napoleon would later overturn the Jacobin measure to free the slaves in French colonies.

    In Latin America, the movement to abolish slavery came not from the church, but from native-led national revolutionary movements to overthrow Spanish colonial rule.

    But in the United States, where our discussion is focused, Catholics were generally NOT against slavery.

    Here’s how Catholicism and American Freedom: A History puts it:

    In contrast to Protestant voters divided among the political parties, Catholics from all ethnic backgrounds favored the Democrats, and scholarly scrutiny of nineteenth-century voting behavior has conclusively identified religion as central to voter choice. Irish Catholics became more fervently Democratic during the 1850s, a fact emphasized by Republicans who noted that only white southerners voted Democratic with any comparable regularity. (The Chicago Tribune referred to the “Catholicized Slaveocratic party” and the “Union between Irish priests and bishops and the leaders of the Democracy.”) One Michigan study estimates that 95 percent of Irish Catholics supported the Democrats between 1854 and 1860.

    German Catholics also supported Democrats more frequently than German Protestants or German radicals did, although the pattern varied by state. The German Catholic press contained frequent denunciations of what Milwaukee’s Der Seebote called “the infernal ingredients of this loathsome Republican monstrosity”—or, as Der Seebote put it, “Temperance men, abolitionists, haters of foreigners, sacrilegious despoilers of churches, killers of Catholics.”

    Tellingly, some of those German Catholics who did join the Republican Party were more liberal Catholics, even Catholics involved in disputes with church authorities. In Osage County, Missouri, Dr. Bernhard Bruns became a leading Radical Republican in the 1860s, following his involvement in several ecclesiastical controversies. Johann B. Stallo, alternately described as a freethinker and a Catholic, defended parish trustees of Cincinnati’s Holy Trinity Church in a legal squabble with the local archbishop, and later later served as a Republican delegate to the 1860 convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln.

    Most Republican leaders in the late 1850s focused on the fear of an expanding slave power, and Lincoln himself made no anti-Catholic comments during either his 1858 senatorial race or his 1860 presidential campaign. But genuine Republican opposition to nativism, which might alienate German Protestants, did not preclude opposition to Catholicism at the state and local levels. As Bishop John Timon of Buffalo warned one correspondent, “There seems to be an anti-Catholic twang in much of what they write and say. A moderate anti-Catholic party with a concealed warfare would do us much more harm than the brutal force and open warfare of the KN [Know-Nothings].”

    What about in the south? How did pro-slavery southerners react to Catholics as sectional tensions rose?

    More influential southerners moved in the opposite direction [from Northerners], and the brief tenure of the southern Know-Nothing, or American, Party in the mid-1850s provided leading southerners an opportunity to express their admiration for Catholics unwilling to support immediate slave emancipation. Ex-President John Tyler congratulated Catholic priests for setting “an example of non-interference in politics which furnishes an example most worthy of imitation on the part of the clergy of the other sects at the North.” Georgia’s Senator Alexander Stephens, in an address widely reprinted in Catholic newspapers, made this announcement in 1855:

    But I think of all the Christian denominations in the United States the Catholics are the last that Southern people should join in attempting to put under the ban of civil proscription. For as a church they have never warred against us or our peculiar institutions. No man can say as much of the New England Baptists, Presbyterians or Methodists: the long role of abolition petitions with which Congress has been so much excited and agitated for years past come not from the Catholics; their pulpits in the North are not desecrated every Sabbath with anathemas against slavery.

    Southern intellectuals went even further. One writer for the Southern Quarterly Review cited Jaime Balmes in defense of gradual emancipation and against the current “insane appetite for universal and unrestricted freedom.” Others reevaluated the individualism associated with the Protestant principle of private judgment. “We quarrel not with the reformation of Luther and Calvin,” said one De Bow’s Review contributor in 1860, but with “the ‘right of private judgment’ engrated on it by infidels and fanatics…. Finally the conservatives have been roused into action. In religion, the admiration generally expressed for the Catholic church as a political institution … is a most important point, and symptom of a salutary reaction.”

    Precisely because defenders of slavery defended the idea of an organic, less individualist society, important southern intellectuals such as Thomas Dew, Henry Hughes, George Frederick Holmes, and George Fitzhugh found Catholicism alluring. Dew regretted the effect of Catholic authoritarianism on free inquiry, but he also admired Catholicism’s ability to avoid the “feebleness and anarchy which would have resulted from schism.” Hughes became enamored of corporatist thought, and Holmes flirted with conversion to Catholicism, admired Aristotelian defenses of slavery, and worried that the “rejection of spiritual authority” lay at the root of social problems. Fitzhugh admired the Catholic refusal to accept divorce and remarriage and believed that Catholicism had provided a salutary check on laissez-faire economics during the medieval period. “We have no quarrel with the Reformation,” he announced in 1857, but then proceeded to a detailed attack on the excesses of private judgment. Sadly, he concluded, northerners opposed to slavery “did nothing more than carry into practice the right of private judgment, liberty of speech, freedom of the press and of religion.”

    So even as abolitionist northerners were growing more anti-Catholic, pro-slavery southerners were discovering the virtues of the Catholic creed.

    Let’s be precise, I then stated the British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundated our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. There is a historical pattern of replacement.

    There was no “replacement.” There was immigration. And your original example was Native Americans, the only ones who truly were replaced by white colonizers.

    It’s only been in the last couple of decades where replacement looks like a reasonable possibility in the near future, with European whites not breeding and nonwhites filling up the land.

    But that was not the historical pattern set by previous U.S. immigration patterns. Nor did previous generations of protestant whites feel they were being replaced. They were far more bothered by other political problems created by immigration. As Samuel Huntington noted, even as late as 1990, the descendants of *English settlers* were still 50% of the U.S. population.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    "That’s wrong, as I’ve already explained to you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was replaced by the Nationalization Act of 1795 and that in turn was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798, and so on."

    Correct. Congress was in charge of immigration. It established immigration policy. It was permanent in how Congress, not any other entity, established the criteria.

    "But all of these Naturalization Acts were passed in a context of negligible immigration flows to the United States."

    And in anticipation when there would be an influx of people, which at the time was relegated to Europeans. Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s.

    "but there’s little evidence the American people were highly concerned with the issue until the 1840s when immigration levels started to impact their lives and local politics."

    Especially when there was a palpable fear that a particular way of life would be threatened, and if nothing done to stem the tide, could be replaced.

    "I have German-American Catholics in my maternal line whose presence in the United States dates back to the mid-1850s. But who cares?"

    You assuredly benefit today. Your ancestors were considered by nativists other than capable of immersing themselves into the American body politic and social fabric. Why? Genetic inferiority. By extension, their progeny would also fit this description. So, I imagine you would contest this designation?

    "No, by modern standards, they were progressives..."

    In the context of the time period, the Know-Nothing Party were radical in touting the beliefs you mentioned and was nationalist in nature.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/immigrants-conspiracies-and-secret-society-launched-american-nativism-180961915/


    On February 24, 1855, [William] Poole was drinking at a New York City saloon when he came face to face with John Morrissey, an Irish boxer. The two exchanged insults and both pulled out guns. But before the fight could turn violent, police arrived to break it up. Later that night, though, Poole returned to the hall and grappled with Morrissey's men, including Lewis Baker, a Welsh-born immigrant, who shot Poole in the chest at close range. Although Poole survived for nearly two weeks, he died on March 8. The last words he uttered pierced the hearts of the country’s Know Nothings: “Goodbye boys, I die a true American.”
     
    "From 1815 to 1830, and perhaps as late as 1840, immigration levels were quite low. It was only after 1840 that immigration to the U.S. really picked up."

    From 1820 to 1845, anywhere from 10,000 to 1000,000 immigrants entered the U.S. each year. Then, as a consequence of economic instability in Germany and a potato famine in Ireland, those figures turned from a trickle into a tsunami. Between 1845 and 1854, 2.9 million immigrants poured into the country, and many of them were of Catholic faith. Suddenly, more than half the residents of New York City were born abroad, and Irish immigrants comprised 70 percent of charity recipients.

    "You’ve made a bad argument. It’s not one based on historical facts. It’s based on your emotional claims about the past."

    Not quite.

    "It’s a cartoon, and one which doesn’t prove your point."

    It's a political cartoon that thoroughly demonstrates the mentality of a good deal of people who were deathly concerned about being replaced by "foreign intruders". Here is another example that shows clearly the sentiments of "true Americans".

    https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/anti-immigrant-cartoon-2/

    "Your cartoon even surrounds the Yankee with at least two Chinese immigrants, but the Chinese were already being excluded in 1888. There was no chance they were going to replace the Yankee".

    As a collective effort, i.e. different groups of "aliens", absolutely.

    "All those papal bulls and general Popish anti-slavery sentiments were isolated and contextualized. Not one of them provided Catholics with an abolition movement worth a damn."

    It clearly demonstrates a concerted Catholic effort by Vatican leadership to condemn the peculiar institution. Bear in mind there was a considerable amount of Irish Catholic opposition to slavery...

    https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/58920/58646

    For decades, prominent Irish Americans had been expressing opposition to slavery in one manner or another. George Bryan, a Presbyterian immigrant from Dublin, helped frame Pennsylvania’s 1780 Gradual Abolition Act. Thomas Emmet, a New York attorney and former secretary of the United Irishmen, devoted much of his legal practice to defending escaped slaves. Charles Carroll, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and Philadelphia publisher Mathew Carey were both active in the American Colonization Society, which sought to send free African Americans and newly manumitted slaves to colonies in western Africa. John Carroll, America’s first Catholic bishop and cousin of Charles Carroll, freed his slaves before his death in 1815.

    Furthermore, ordinary Irish Americans appear to have been well disposed to free blacks. In northern cities, Irish Americans often lived side by side with African Americans with little difficulty into the 1830s. By the 1840s, however, America’s political landscape had changed dramatically and Irish American views on race and slavery had shifted along with those of the rest of the country.

    ...

    Thus by the 1840s, slavery had become an extremely contentious issue and racial tensions had intensified. Irish Americans, for their part, gener- ally sided against both abolitionists and free African Americans. O’Connell was deeply troubled by this shift in America. Motivated by humanitarian principles and by his religious beliefs, O’Connell had been an abolitionist since 1824 and did not want to compromise on this issue.

    As a member of Parliament, he had played a key role in emancipating the slaves of the British West Indies in 1833 and he was determined that America would follow Britain’s example. In February 1838 five Irish Americans from Philadelphia wrote to O’Connell imploring him to temper his attacks on American slavery. O’Connell sent them back a sharp rejoinder. In August he was the keynote speaker at an English rally celebrating the end of slavery in the West Indies.

    During his speech he dismissed George Washington as a slaveholding hypocrite and then launched into an attack on Andrew Stevenson, a Virginia slaveholder who was then serving as ambassador to the Court of St. James. Denouncing Stevenson as a “slave breeder,” O’Connell wondered why “America would send here a man who trafficks in blood.”27 Stevenson was so outraged that he considered challenging O’Connell to a duel. American abolitionists, meanwhile, were thrilled by O’Connell’s boldness. Elizur Wright of the AAS commended O’Connell for the “rebuke you have dealt to American Slavery in the matter of Mr. Stevenson.”

    He then assured O’Connell that he “could do great service to the slave” by sending an “address to the Irish portion of our population, giving plainly your views on slavery. They will listen to you.”
     
    "There was no “replacement.” There was immigration. And your original example was Native Americans, the only ones who truly were replaced by white colonizers."

    Again, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.

    "It’s only been in the last couple of decades where replacement looks like a reasonable possibility in the near future..."

    Replacement of "real" or "true" Americans, friend?

    "with European whites not breeding and nonwhites filling up the land."

    The same fears that nativists had with your German Catholic ancestors. You have to go back.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Pincher Martin

  207. @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    The immigration policy was permanent in how Congress established the criteria.
     
    That's wrong, as I've already explained to you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was replaced by the Nationalization Act of 1795 and that in turn was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798, and so on.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 required two years of residency in the U.S. before an immigrant could apply for citizenship. Five years later, the residency was changed to five years' residency. By 1798, the residency requirement had lengthened to fourteen years.

    Here is how Wikipedia describes the 1798 Naturalization Act:


    Although the law was passed under the guise of protecting national security, most historians conclude it was really intended to decrease the number of citizens, and thus voters, who disagreed with the Federalist Party.[1] At the time, most immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the political rivals of the Federalists. It had only limited effect, however, as many immigrants rushed to become naturalized before the Act went into effect, and states could at the time make their own more lenient naturalization laws.[2]
     
    Alas for the Federalists, they were soon to be politically dominated by the Democratic-Republicans. The Naturalization Act of 1802 restored the residency requirements of the Naturalization Act of 1795 by returning to the five-year residency requirement.

    But all of these Naturalization Acts were passed in a context of negligible immigration flows to the United States. One set of political elites might do battle over immigration with another set of political elites for some marginal political advantage, but there's little evidence the American people were highly concerned with the issue until the 1840s when immigration levels started to impact their lives and local politics.


    So were your own ancestors part of this “foreign intrusion”?
     
    Some of them might have been. I have German-American Catholics in my maternal line whose presence in the United States dates back to the mid-1850s.

    But who cares?


    It does matter especially if your ancestors were one of those “undesirable” groups.
     
    No, it really doesn't.

    [The Know Nothings were] A national radical group.
     
    No, by modern standards, they were progressives - and almost all of them were in the north. They believed in labor rights, women's suffrage, more government spending on welfare, and the regulation of industry. Most of them were also eventually subsumed into the Republican Party because of their opposition to slavery.

    In the south, the Know Nothings (American Party) were associated with pro-Unionism. They were against the pro-slavery and pro-states' rights arguments of their fellow southerners. Those arguments were increasingly unpopular in the south. One historian wrote: "The southerners who supported the Know-Nothings did so, for the most part, because they thought the Democrats who favored the expansion of slavery might break up the Union."

    So those southern Know Nothings in the antebellum period were not motivated by anti-Catholicism or anti-immigration in the south.


    I am citing a forty year time frame by which 5 million came to our shores.
     
    Your timeframe was misleading. (And it was forty-five years not, forty years. 1860 - 1815 = 45)

    From 1815 to 1830, and perhaps as late as 1840, immigration levels were quite low. It was only after 1840 that immigration to the U.S. really picked up.

    It's not a coincidence that this was also when immigration first became a major political issue in the U.S.


    I have made the argument, you simply disagree.
     
    You've made a bad argument. It's not one based on historical facts. It's based on your emotional claims about the past.

    To the contrary…

    https://www.posterazzi.com/anti-immigrants-cartoon-nthe-last-yankee-a-lone-yankee-standing-tall-is-regarded-with-curiosity-by-a-throng-of-immigrants-in-the-city-american-cartoon-1888-poster-print-by-granger-collection-item-vargrc0065031/
     

    It's a cartoon, and one which doesn't prove your point.

    Of course some U.S. cities - most notably New York and Boston - were heavily impacted by immigration, but these were localities, not the country.

    Your cartoon even surrounds the Yankee with at least two Chinese immigrants, but the Chinese were already being excluded in 1888. There was no chance they were going to replace the Yankee. There numbers were already declining due to the lack of Chinese-American women.


    Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. Pope Pius VII demanded the Congress of Vienna to suppress the slave trade. In the Bull of Canonization of Peter Claver, Pope Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” of the slave traders. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade in In supremo apostolatus.
     
    All those papal bulls and general Popish anti-slavery sentiments were isolated and contextualized. Not one of them provided Catholics with an abolition movement worth a damn.

    It's telling that the first two Catholic countries to abolish slavery were Revolutionary France, when a measure was passed by the anti-Catholic Jacobins, and in Haiti among the black former slaves, who revolted against their white French masters. Napoleon would later overturn the Jacobin measure to free the slaves in French colonies.

    In Latin America, the movement to abolish slavery came not from the church, but from native-led national revolutionary movements to overthrow Spanish colonial rule.

    But in the United States, where our discussion is focused, Catholics were generally NOT against slavery.

    Here's how Catholicism and American Freedom: A History puts it:


    In contrast to Protestant voters divided among the political parties, Catholics from all ethnic backgrounds favored the Democrats, and scholarly scrutiny of nineteenth-century voting behavior has conclusively identified religion as central to voter choice. Irish Catholics became more fervently Democratic during the 1850s, a fact emphasized by Republicans who noted that only white southerners voted Democratic with any comparable regularity. (The Chicago Tribune referred to the “Catholicized Slaveocratic party” and the “Union between Irish priests and bishops and the leaders of the Democracy.”) One Michigan study estimates that 95 percent of Irish Catholics supported the Democrats between 1854 and 1860.

    German Catholics also supported Democrats more frequently than German Protestants or German radicals did, although the pattern varied by state. The German Catholic press contained frequent denunciations of what Milwaukee’s Der Seebote called “the infernal ingredients of this loathsome Republican monstrosity”—or, as Der Seebote put it, “Temperance men, abolitionists, haters of foreigners, sacrilegious despoilers of churches, killers of Catholics.”

    Tellingly, some of those German Catholics who did join the Republican Party were more liberal Catholics, even Catholics involved in disputes with church authorities. In Osage County, Missouri, Dr. Bernhard Bruns became a leading Radical Republican in the 1860s, following his involvement in several ecclesiastical controversies. Johann B. Stallo, alternately described as a freethinker and a Catholic, defended parish trustees of Cincinnati’s Holy Trinity Church in a legal squabble with the local archbishop, and later later served as a Republican delegate to the 1860 convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln.

    Most Republican leaders in the late 1850s focused on the fear of an expanding slave power, and Lincoln himself made no anti-Catholic comments during either his 1858 senatorial race or his 1860 presidential campaign. But genuine Republican opposition to nativism, which might alienate German Protestants, did not preclude opposition to Catholicism at the state and local levels. As Bishop John Timon of Buffalo warned one correspondent, “There seems to be an anti-Catholic twang in much of what they write and say. A moderate anti-Catholic party with a concealed warfare would do us much more harm than the brutal force and open warfare of the KN [Know-Nothings].”

     

    What about in the south? How did pro-slavery southerners react to Catholics as sectional tensions rose?

    More influential southerners moved in the opposite direction [from Northerners], and the brief tenure of the southern Know-Nothing, or American, Party in the mid-1850s provided leading southerners an opportunity to express their admiration for Catholics unwilling to support immediate slave emancipation. Ex-President John Tyler congratulated Catholic priests for setting “an example of non-interference in politics which furnishes an example most worthy of imitation on the part of the clergy of the other sects at the North.” Georgia’s Senator Alexander Stephens, in an address widely reprinted in Catholic newspapers, made this announcement in 1855:

    But I think of all the Christian denominations in the United States the Catholics are the last that Southern people should join in attempting to put under the ban of civil proscription. For as a church they have never warred against us or our peculiar institutions. No man can say as much of the New England Baptists, Presbyterians or Methodists: the long role of abolition petitions with which Congress has been so much excited and agitated for years past come not from the Catholics; their pulpits in the North are not desecrated every Sabbath with anathemas against slavery.
     
    Southern intellectuals went even further. One writer for the Southern Quarterly Review cited Jaime Balmes in defense of gradual emancipation and against the current “insane appetite for universal and unrestricted freedom.” Others reevaluated the individualism associated with the Protestant principle of private judgment. “We quarrel not with the reformation of Luther and Calvin,” said one De Bow’s Review contributor in 1860, but with “the ‘right of private judgment’ engrated on it by infidels and fanatics…. Finally the conservatives have been roused into action. In religion, the admiration generally expressed for the Catholic church as a political institution … is a most important point, and symptom of a salutary reaction.”

    Precisely because defenders of slavery defended the idea of an organic, less individualist society, important southern intellectuals such as Thomas Dew, Henry Hughes, George Frederick Holmes, and George Fitzhugh found Catholicism alluring. Dew regretted the effect of Catholic authoritarianism on free inquiry, but he also admired Catholicism’s ability to avoid the “feebleness and anarchy which would have resulted from schism.” Hughes became enamored of corporatist thought, and Holmes flirted with conversion to Catholicism, admired Aristotelian defenses of slavery, and worried that the “rejection of spiritual authority” lay at the root of social problems. Fitzhugh admired the Catholic refusal to accept divorce and remarriage and believed that Catholicism had provided a salutary check on laissez-faire economics during the medieval period. “We have no quarrel with the Reformation,” he announced in 1857, but then proceeded to a detailed attack on the excesses of private judgment. Sadly, he concluded, northerners opposed to slavery “did nothing more than carry into practice the right of private judgment, liberty of speech, freedom of the press and of religion.”
     

    So even as abolitionist northerners were growing more anti-Catholic, pro-slavery southerners were discovering the virtues of the Catholic creed.

    Let’s be precise, I then stated the British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundated our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. There is a historical pattern of replacement.
     
    There was no "replacement." There was immigration. And your original example was Native Americans, the only ones who truly were replaced by white colonizers.

    It's only been in the last couple of decades where replacement looks like a reasonable possibility in the near future, with European whites not breeding and nonwhites filling up the land.

    But that was not the historical pattern set by previous U.S. immigration patterns. Nor did previous generations of protestant whites feel they were being replaced. They were far more bothered by other political problems created by immigration. As Samuel Huntington noted, even as late as 1990, the descendants of *English settlers* were still 50% of the U.S. population.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “That’s wrong, as I’ve already explained to you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was replaced by the Nationalization Act of 1795 and that in turn was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798, and so on.”

    Correct. Congress was in charge of immigration. It established immigration policy. It was permanent in how Congress, not any other entity, established the criteria.

    “But all of these Naturalization Acts were passed in a context of negligible immigration flows to the United States.”

    And in anticipation when there would be an influx of people, which at the time was relegated to Europeans. Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s.

    “but there’s little evidence the American people were highly concerned with the issue until the 1840s when immigration levels started to impact their lives and local politics.”

    Especially when there was a palpable fear that a particular way of life would be threatened, and if nothing done to stem the tide, could be replaced.

    “I have German-American Catholics in my maternal line whose presence in the United States dates back to the mid-1850s. But who cares?”

    You assuredly benefit today. Your ancestors were considered by nativists other than capable of immersing themselves into the American body politic and social fabric. Why? Genetic inferiority. By extension, their progeny would also fit this description. So, I imagine you would contest this designation?

    “No, by modern standards, they were progressives…”

    In the context of the time period, the Know-Nothing Party were radical in touting the beliefs you mentioned and was nationalist in nature.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/immigrants-conspiracies-and-secret-society-launched-american-nativism-180961915/

    On February 24, 1855, [William] Poole was drinking at a New York City saloon when he came face to face with John Morrissey, an Irish boxer. The two exchanged insults and both pulled out guns. But before the fight could turn violent, police arrived to break it up. Later that night, though, Poole returned to the hall and grappled with Morrissey’s men, including Lewis Baker, a Welsh-born immigrant, who shot Poole in the chest at close range. Although Poole survived for nearly two weeks, he died on March 8. The last words he uttered pierced the hearts of the country’s Know Nothings: “Goodbye boys, I die a true American.”

    “From 1815 to 1830, and perhaps as late as 1840, immigration levels were quite low. It was only after 1840 that immigration to the U.S. really picked up.”

    From 1820 to 1845, anywhere from 10,000 to 1000,000 immigrants entered the U.S. each year. Then, as a consequence of economic instability in Germany and a potato famine in Ireland, those figures turned from a trickle into a tsunami. Between 1845 and 1854, 2.9 million immigrants poured into the country, and many of them were of Catholic faith. Suddenly, more than half the residents of New York City were born abroad, and Irish immigrants comprised 70 percent of charity recipients.

    “You’ve made a bad argument. It’s not one based on historical facts. It’s based on your emotional claims about the past.”

    Not quite.

    “It’s a cartoon, and one which doesn’t prove your point.”

    It’s a political cartoon that thoroughly demonstrates the mentality of a good deal of people who were deathly concerned about being replaced by “foreign intruders”. Here is another example that shows clearly the sentiments of “true Americans”.

    https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/anti-immigrant-cartoon-2/

    “Your cartoon even surrounds the Yankee with at least two Chinese immigrants, but the Chinese were already being excluded in 1888. There was no chance they were going to replace the Yankee”.

    As a collective effort, i.e. different groups of “aliens”, absolutely.

    “All those papal bulls and general Popish anti-slavery sentiments were isolated and contextualized. Not one of them provided Catholics with an abolition movement worth a damn.”

    It clearly demonstrates a concerted Catholic effort by Vatican leadership to condemn the peculiar institution. Bear in mind there was a considerable amount of Irish Catholic opposition to slavery…

    https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/58920/58646

    For decades, prominent Irish Americans had been expressing opposition to slavery in one manner or another. George Bryan, a Presbyterian immigrant from Dublin, helped frame Pennsylvania’s 1780 Gradual Abolition Act. Thomas Emmet, a New York attorney and former secretary of the United Irishmen, devoted much of his legal practice to defending escaped slaves. Charles Carroll, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and Philadelphia publisher Mathew Carey were both active in the American Colonization Society, which sought to send free African Americans and newly manumitted slaves to colonies in western Africa. John Carroll, America’s first Catholic bishop and cousin of Charles Carroll, freed his slaves before his death in 1815.

    Furthermore, ordinary Irish Americans appear to have been well disposed to free blacks. In northern cities, Irish Americans often lived side by side with African Americans with little difficulty into the 1830s. By the 1840s, however, America’s political landscape had changed dramatically and Irish American views on race and slavery had shifted along with those of the rest of the country.

    Thus by the 1840s, slavery had become an extremely contentious issue and racial tensions had intensified. Irish Americans, for their part, gener- ally sided against both abolitionists and free African Americans. O’Connell was deeply troubled by this shift in America. Motivated by humanitarian principles and by his religious beliefs, O’Connell had been an abolitionist since 1824 and did not want to compromise on this issue.

    As a member of Parliament, he had played a key role in emancipating the slaves of the British West Indies in 1833 and he was determined that America would follow Britain’s example. In February 1838 five Irish Americans from Philadelphia wrote to O’Connell imploring him to temper his attacks on American slavery. O’Connell sent them back a sharp rejoinder. In August he was the keynote speaker at an English rally celebrating the end of slavery in the West Indies.

    During his speech he dismissed George Washington as a slaveholding hypocrite and then launched into an attack on Andrew Stevenson, a Virginia slaveholder who was then serving as ambassador to the Court of St. James. Denouncing Stevenson as a “slave breeder,” O’Connell wondered why “America would send here a man who trafficks in blood.”27 Stevenson was so outraged that he considered challenging O’Connell to a duel. American abolitionists, meanwhile, were thrilled by O’Connell’s boldness. Elizur Wright of the AAS commended O’Connell for the “rebuke you have dealt to American Slavery in the matter of Mr. Stevenson.”

    He then assured O’Connell that he “could do great service to the slave” by sending an “address to the Irish portion of our population, giving plainly your views on slavery. They will listen to you.”

    “There was no “replacement.” There was immigration. And your original example was Native Americans, the only ones who truly were replaced by white colonizers.”

    Again, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.

    “It’s only been in the last couple of decades where replacement looks like a reasonable possibility in the near future…”

    Replacement of “real” or “true” Americans, friend?

    “with European whites not breeding and nonwhites filling up the land.”

    The same fears that nativists had with your German Catholic ancestors. You have to go back.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    Congress was in charge of immigration. It established immigration policy. It was permanent in how Congress, not any other entity, established the criteria.... And in anticipation when there would be an influx of people, which at the time was relegated to Europeans. Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s.
     
    The point is that the open immigration policy was not "permanent," as you earlier tried to claim. It was established by Congress and could be changed by Congress for any reason whatsoever, including the vicissitudes of American public opinion.

    You also ignore that the Federalists tightened up the residency requirements of the Naturalization Act to prevent the Democratic-Republicans from enlisting more citizens. That change was purely political. It was not driven by popular sentiment.

    I could have also mentioned the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which allowed President Adams to imprison and deport pretty much any non-citizen he wished.


    Especially when there was a palpable fear that a particular way of life would be threatened, and if nothing done to stem the tide, could be replaced.
     
    Replacement had nothing to do with it. Even by the Civil War, around 90% of the country was still Protestant and American-born.

    I already showed you what was at stake. Catholic immigrants to the north were generally pro-slavery and considered less supportive of liberty. In the antebellum period, this growing Catholic immigrant population was considered a dangerous political trend for abolitionists fighting what was for them the political battle of their lifetimes. Slavery had to be defeated. And Catholics could not be counted on as allies in that fight.

    After the Civil War was over and slavery defeated, anti-Catholic sentiment eased a great deal. The Know Nothings were no longer a political force. There was still anti-Catholic sentiment, of course, but it was not as politically powerful as it had been before the war. Why? Because the greatest fear of northerners - that Catholics would aid the "Slave Power" in the south - no longer mattered.

    This puts the lie to your claim that the great American fear at the time was population replacement instead of, as I claim, losing political battles that were considered of major importance at the time, but have since been long forgotten.


    You assuredly benefit today. Your ancestors were considered by nativists other than capable of immersing themselves into the American body politic and social fabric. Why? Genetic inferiority. By extension, their progeny would also fit this description. So, I imagine you would contest this designation?
     
    My God, you are really off-base here.

    First, "genetic inferiority" in the mid-19th century? Are you kidding me? Do you really believe the Know Nothings made a single genetic argument in the antebellum period? Fifty years before the word "gene" was even coined?

    And, second, you think "genetic inferiority" *in any guise* was an argument used against German immigrants at a time when the various German people led the world in science, music, and math?

    Are you even remotely aware of what the German people accomplished in the 19th century? Beethoven. Wagner. Gauss. Planck. Rontgen. Cantor. Hertz. Riemann. Helmholtz. Jacobi. Brahms. Schubert.

    I assure you that educated Americans at the time were not as ignorant as you are of German genius, since the Prussian educational system of the time would soon become a model for America's educational system in many parts of the country. Johns Hopkins University, for example, was founded in the mid-1870s based on the Prussian research university.


    In the context of the time period, the Know-Nothing Party were radical in touting the beliefs you mentioned and was nationalist in nature.
     
    Nationalism would not have been an insult to any American at the time other than perhaps most southerners. But I do love hearing you say that the Know Nothings' beliefs in "labor rights, women’s suffrage, more government spending on welfare, and the regulation of industry" made them "radical" rather than "progressive."

    From 1820 to 1845, anywhere from 10,000 to 1000,000 immigrants entered the U.S. each year.
     
    Once again, you misleadingly use a timeframe (1820 to 1845) that crosses over both a period of very low immigration and a period of very high immigration.

    Between 1845 and 1854, 2.9 million immigrants poured into the country, and many of them were of Catholic faith. Suddenly, more than half the residents of New York City were born abroad, and Irish immigrants comprised 70 percent of charity recipients.
     
    Yes, and it's not a coincidence that the Know Nothings did very well politically during this era.

    But the party disappeared after the Civil War. What happened? Did the fear of replacement go away even though Catholic immigrants continued to arrive in America? No, that explanation has no power. What happened was that the largest political problem associated with Catholic immigrants - slavery - was no longer a problem. Anti-Catholic bias remained, but at a much reduced political level.


    It’s a political cartoon that thoroughly demonstrates the mentality of a good deal of people who were deathly concerned about being replaced by “foreign intruders”.
     
    It's just a caricature with no explanatory power at all.

    One would think that if you have a serious case for replacement that you could actually find many sources quoting Americans of that day complaining that they were being replaced instead of complaining about the political or cultural problems associated with the immigrants.


    It clearly demonstrates a concerted Catholic effort by Vatican leadership to condemn the peculiar institution. Bear in mind there was a considerable amount of Irish Catholic opposition to slavery…
     
    There was no "concerted Catholic effort" to abolish slavery. You mentioned the names of a few Popes spread out over more than two hundred years. How is that "concerted"?

    By the time of the U.S. Civil War, several Catholic countries, including one of the largest (Brazil), had slaves. So while the Catholic Church made no effort to defend slavery, neither did it work in a "concerted" effort to end it. The abolition movement in early-19th century Europe and the United States was nearly entirely made up of English-speaking Protestants. They led the effort to first ban the slave trade and then end slavery.


    https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/58920/58646
     
    But Daniel O'Connell was an Irish national leader. He was not a Catholic religious leader nor an American. And as your own link explains, "Irish-Americans in the 1840s generally sided against both abolitionists and free African-Americans." O'Connell went against that grain, but then again, as I said, he was neither American nor a religious leader.

    And if you read more into your article, you'll come across this:


    Some Irish American newspapers also highlighted the heterodox theological views of Garrison and other prominent abolitionists. They made much of Garrison’s opposition to any type of clergy and his unwillingness to treat Sunday as the sabbath. These editors could not understand why a staunch Catholic like O’Connell would want to associate himself in any way with the infidels and atheists in the American abolition movement.60

    O’Connell, no doubt stunned by the intensity of the Irish American reaction to the address, toned down his criticisms of American slavery in the spring and summer of 1842. At a Repeal meeting in May, he distanced himself from Garrison’s religious beliefs and stressed that Irish Americans need not associate themselves with any particular group of abolitionists in order to fight slavery.61 Garrison and his supporters, in turn, were deeply disappointed by these remarks. Wendell Phillips wrote to R. D. Webb expressing his fear that O’Connell’s lips had been “clogged with gold” from Repeal associations in New Orleans and other southern cities.62
     

    U.S. abolitionists like Garrison had hoped to use O'Connell's popularity among the Irish diaspora to pry Irish-American voters away from the slave-supporting Democratic Party. No such luck.

    To O'Connell's credit, he continued speaking out against American slavery, even when it interfered with his primary political aim of Repeal. But...


    ...no Irish Americans raised their voices with his [O'Connell's] at that time or in the years following. It would not be until 1863 that a prominent Irish American would dare challenge the pact between Irish Catholics and the Democrats. In that year, in the midst of the Civil War and in the wake of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Archbishop John Purcell of Cincinnati declared that he was voting Republican because of slavery, which was “an unchristian evil, opposed to the freedom of mankind.”
     
    In other words, your example of O'Connell in the article you link proves nothing other than some Irish Catholics were vehemently against slavery.

    Again, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.
     
    It's sad to see you are unable to learn from history. But then some people want to believe some ideas so badly that no proof to the contrary will ever change their minds.

    Replacement of “real” or “true” Americans, friend?
     
    Replacement of those people who founded the Republic, sets its laws and institutions into motion, and guided it through its most productive and impressive history.

    The same fears that nativists had with your German Catholic ancestors. You have to go back.
     
    You keep stating this line - as if repetition will make it come true - but you are still unable to prove it.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus

    BTW, I loved reading that article on Daniel O'Connell. It was both first-rate history and interesting.

    Too bad it didn't prove what you were hoping it proved.

  208. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    "That’s wrong, as I’ve already explained to you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was replaced by the Nationalization Act of 1795 and that in turn was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798, and so on."

    Correct. Congress was in charge of immigration. It established immigration policy. It was permanent in how Congress, not any other entity, established the criteria.

    "But all of these Naturalization Acts were passed in a context of negligible immigration flows to the United States."

    And in anticipation when there would be an influx of people, which at the time was relegated to Europeans. Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s.

    "but there’s little evidence the American people were highly concerned with the issue until the 1840s when immigration levels started to impact their lives and local politics."

    Especially when there was a palpable fear that a particular way of life would be threatened, and if nothing done to stem the tide, could be replaced.

    "I have German-American Catholics in my maternal line whose presence in the United States dates back to the mid-1850s. But who cares?"

    You assuredly benefit today. Your ancestors were considered by nativists other than capable of immersing themselves into the American body politic and social fabric. Why? Genetic inferiority. By extension, their progeny would also fit this description. So, I imagine you would contest this designation?

    "No, by modern standards, they were progressives..."

    In the context of the time period, the Know-Nothing Party were radical in touting the beliefs you mentioned and was nationalist in nature.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/immigrants-conspiracies-and-secret-society-launched-american-nativism-180961915/


    On February 24, 1855, [William] Poole was drinking at a New York City saloon when he came face to face with John Morrissey, an Irish boxer. The two exchanged insults and both pulled out guns. But before the fight could turn violent, police arrived to break it up. Later that night, though, Poole returned to the hall and grappled with Morrissey's men, including Lewis Baker, a Welsh-born immigrant, who shot Poole in the chest at close range. Although Poole survived for nearly two weeks, he died on March 8. The last words he uttered pierced the hearts of the country’s Know Nothings: “Goodbye boys, I die a true American.”
     
    "From 1815 to 1830, and perhaps as late as 1840, immigration levels were quite low. It was only after 1840 that immigration to the U.S. really picked up."

    From 1820 to 1845, anywhere from 10,000 to 1000,000 immigrants entered the U.S. each year. Then, as a consequence of economic instability in Germany and a potato famine in Ireland, those figures turned from a trickle into a tsunami. Between 1845 and 1854, 2.9 million immigrants poured into the country, and many of them were of Catholic faith. Suddenly, more than half the residents of New York City were born abroad, and Irish immigrants comprised 70 percent of charity recipients.

    "You’ve made a bad argument. It’s not one based on historical facts. It’s based on your emotional claims about the past."

    Not quite.

    "It’s a cartoon, and one which doesn’t prove your point."

    It's a political cartoon that thoroughly demonstrates the mentality of a good deal of people who were deathly concerned about being replaced by "foreign intruders". Here is another example that shows clearly the sentiments of "true Americans".

    https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/anti-immigrant-cartoon-2/

    "Your cartoon even surrounds the Yankee with at least two Chinese immigrants, but the Chinese were already being excluded in 1888. There was no chance they were going to replace the Yankee".

    As a collective effort, i.e. different groups of "aliens", absolutely.

    "All those papal bulls and general Popish anti-slavery sentiments were isolated and contextualized. Not one of them provided Catholics with an abolition movement worth a damn."

    It clearly demonstrates a concerted Catholic effort by Vatican leadership to condemn the peculiar institution. Bear in mind there was a considerable amount of Irish Catholic opposition to slavery...

    https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/58920/58646

    For decades, prominent Irish Americans had been expressing opposition to slavery in one manner or another. George Bryan, a Presbyterian immigrant from Dublin, helped frame Pennsylvania’s 1780 Gradual Abolition Act. Thomas Emmet, a New York attorney and former secretary of the United Irishmen, devoted much of his legal practice to defending escaped slaves. Charles Carroll, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and Philadelphia publisher Mathew Carey were both active in the American Colonization Society, which sought to send free African Americans and newly manumitted slaves to colonies in western Africa. John Carroll, America’s first Catholic bishop and cousin of Charles Carroll, freed his slaves before his death in 1815.

    Furthermore, ordinary Irish Americans appear to have been well disposed to free blacks. In northern cities, Irish Americans often lived side by side with African Americans with little difficulty into the 1830s. By the 1840s, however, America’s political landscape had changed dramatically and Irish American views on race and slavery had shifted along with those of the rest of the country.

    ...

    Thus by the 1840s, slavery had become an extremely contentious issue and racial tensions had intensified. Irish Americans, for their part, gener- ally sided against both abolitionists and free African Americans. O’Connell was deeply troubled by this shift in America. Motivated by humanitarian principles and by his religious beliefs, O’Connell had been an abolitionist since 1824 and did not want to compromise on this issue.

    As a member of Parliament, he had played a key role in emancipating the slaves of the British West Indies in 1833 and he was determined that America would follow Britain’s example. In February 1838 five Irish Americans from Philadelphia wrote to O’Connell imploring him to temper his attacks on American slavery. O’Connell sent them back a sharp rejoinder. In August he was the keynote speaker at an English rally celebrating the end of slavery in the West Indies.

    During his speech he dismissed George Washington as a slaveholding hypocrite and then launched into an attack on Andrew Stevenson, a Virginia slaveholder who was then serving as ambassador to the Court of St. James. Denouncing Stevenson as a “slave breeder,” O’Connell wondered why “America would send here a man who trafficks in blood.”27 Stevenson was so outraged that he considered challenging O’Connell to a duel. American abolitionists, meanwhile, were thrilled by O’Connell’s boldness. Elizur Wright of the AAS commended O’Connell for the “rebuke you have dealt to American Slavery in the matter of Mr. Stevenson.”

    He then assured O’Connell that he “could do great service to the slave” by sending an “address to the Irish portion of our population, giving plainly your views on slavery. They will listen to you.”
     
    "There was no “replacement.” There was immigration. And your original example was Native Americans, the only ones who truly were replaced by white colonizers."

    Again, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.

    "It’s only been in the last couple of decades where replacement looks like a reasonable possibility in the near future..."

    Replacement of "real" or "true" Americans, friend?

    "with European whites not breeding and nonwhites filling up the land."

    The same fears that nativists had with your German Catholic ancestors. You have to go back.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Pincher Martin

    Congress was in charge of immigration. It established immigration policy. It was permanent in how Congress, not any other entity, established the criteria…. And in anticipation when there would be an influx of people, which at the time was relegated to Europeans. Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s.

    The point is that the open immigration policy was not “permanent,” as you earlier tried to claim. It was established by Congress and could be changed by Congress for any reason whatsoever, including the vicissitudes of American public opinion.

    You also ignore that the Federalists tightened up the residency requirements of the Naturalization Act to prevent the Democratic-Republicans from enlisting more citizens. That change was purely political. It was not driven by popular sentiment.

    I could have also mentioned the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which allowed President Adams to imprison and deport pretty much any non-citizen he wished.

    Especially when there was a palpable fear that a particular way of life would be threatened, and if nothing done to stem the tide, could be replaced.

    Replacement had nothing to do with it. Even by the Civil War, around 90% of the country was still Protestant and American-born.

    I already showed you what was at stake. Catholic immigrants to the north were generally pro-slavery and considered less supportive of liberty. In the antebellum period, this growing Catholic immigrant population was considered a dangerous political trend for abolitionists fighting what was for them the political battle of their lifetimes. Slavery had to be defeated. And Catholics could not be counted on as allies in that fight.

    After the Civil War was over and slavery defeated, anti-Catholic sentiment eased a great deal. The Know Nothings were no longer a political force. There was still anti-Catholic sentiment, of course, but it was not as politically powerful as it had been before the war. Why? Because the greatest fear of northerners – that Catholics would aid the “Slave Power” in the south – no longer mattered.

    This puts the lie to your claim that the great American fear at the time was population replacement instead of, as I claim, losing political battles that were considered of major importance at the time, but have since been long forgotten.

    You assuredly benefit today. Your ancestors were considered by nativists other than capable of immersing themselves into the American body politic and social fabric. Why? Genetic inferiority. By extension, their progeny would also fit this description. So, I imagine you would contest this designation?

    My God, you are really off-base here.

    First, “genetic inferiority” in the mid-19th century? Are you kidding me? Do you really believe the Know Nothings made a single genetic argument in the antebellum period? Fifty years before the word “gene” was even coined?

    And, second, you think “genetic inferiority” *in any guise* was an argument used against German immigrants at a time when the various German people led the world in science, music, and math?

    Are you even remotely aware of what the German people accomplished in the 19th century? Beethoven. Wagner. Gauss. Planck. Rontgen. Cantor. Hertz. Riemann. Helmholtz. Jacobi. Brahms. Schubert.

    I assure you that educated Americans at the time were not as ignorant as you are of German genius, since the Prussian educational system of the time would soon become a model for America’s educational system in many parts of the country. Johns Hopkins University, for example, was founded in the mid-1870s based on the Prussian research university.

    In the context of the time period, the Know-Nothing Party were radical in touting the beliefs you mentioned and was nationalist in nature.

    Nationalism would not have been an insult to any American at the time other than perhaps most southerners. But I do love hearing you say that the Know Nothings’ beliefs in “labor rights, women’s suffrage, more government spending on welfare, and the regulation of industry” made them “radical” rather than “progressive.”

    From 1820 to 1845, anywhere from 10,000 to 1000,000 immigrants entered the U.S. each year.

    Once again, you misleadingly use a timeframe (1820 to 1845) that crosses over both a period of very low immigration and a period of very high immigration.

    Between 1845 and 1854, 2.9 million immigrants poured into the country, and many of them were of Catholic faith. Suddenly, more than half the residents of New York City were born abroad, and Irish immigrants comprised 70 percent of charity recipients.

    Yes, and it’s not a coincidence that the Know Nothings did very well politically during this era.

    But the party disappeared after the Civil War. What happened? Did the fear of replacement go away even though Catholic immigrants continued to arrive in America? No, that explanation has no power. What happened was that the largest political problem associated with Catholic immigrants – slavery – was no longer a problem. Anti-Catholic bias remained, but at a much reduced political level.

    It’s a political cartoon that thoroughly demonstrates the mentality of a good deal of people who were deathly concerned about being replaced by “foreign intruders”.

    It’s just a caricature with no explanatory power at all.

    One would think that if you have a serious case for replacement that you could actually find many sources quoting Americans of that day complaining that they were being replaced instead of complaining about the political or cultural problems associated with the immigrants.

    It clearly demonstrates a concerted Catholic effort by Vatican leadership to condemn the peculiar institution. Bear in mind there was a considerable amount of Irish Catholic opposition to slavery…

    There was no “concerted Catholic effort” to abolish slavery. You mentioned the names of a few Popes spread out over more than two hundred years. How is that “concerted”?

    By the time of the U.S. Civil War, several Catholic countries, including one of the largest (Brazil), had slaves. So while the Catholic Church made no effort to defend slavery, neither did it work in a “concerted” effort to end it. The abolition movement in early-19th century Europe and the United States was nearly entirely made up of English-speaking Protestants. They led the effort to first ban the slave trade and then end slavery.

    https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/58920/58646

    But Daniel O’Connell was an Irish national leader. He was not a Catholic religious leader nor an American. And as your own link explains, “Irish-Americans in the 1840s generally sided against both abolitionists and free African-Americans.” O’Connell went against that grain, but then again, as I said, he was neither American nor a religious leader.

    And if you read more into your article, you’ll come across this:

    Some Irish American newspapers also highlighted the heterodox theological views of Garrison and other prominent abolitionists. They made much of Garrison’s opposition to any type of clergy and his unwillingness to treat Sunday as the sabbath. These editors could not understand why a staunch Catholic like O’Connell would want to associate himself in any way with the infidels and atheists in the American abolition movement.60

    O’Connell, no doubt stunned by the intensity of the Irish American reaction to the address, toned down his criticisms of American slavery in the spring and summer of 1842. At a Repeal meeting in May, he distanced himself from Garrison’s religious beliefs and stressed that Irish Americans need not associate themselves with any particular group of abolitionists in order to fight slavery.61 Garrison and his supporters, in turn, were deeply disappointed by these remarks. Wendell Phillips wrote to R. D. Webb expressing his fear that O’Connell’s lips had been “clogged with gold” from Repeal associations in New Orleans and other southern cities.62

    U.S. abolitionists like Garrison had hoped to use O’Connell’s popularity among the Irish diaspora to pry Irish-American voters away from the slave-supporting Democratic Party. No such luck.

    To O’Connell’s credit, he continued speaking out against American slavery, even when it interfered with his primary political aim of Repeal. But…

    …no Irish Americans raised their voices with his [O’Connell’s] at that time or in the years following. It would not be until 1863 that a prominent Irish American would dare challenge the pact between Irish Catholics and the Democrats. In that year, in the midst of the Civil War and in the wake of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Archbishop John Purcell of Cincinnati declared that he was voting Republican because of slavery, which was “an unchristian evil, opposed to the freedom of mankind.”

    In other words, your example of O’Connell in the article you link proves nothing other than some Irish Catholics were vehemently against slavery.

    Again, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.

    It’s sad to see you are unable to learn from history. But then some people want to believe some ideas so badly that no proof to the contrary will ever change their minds.

    Replacement of “real” or “true” Americans, friend?

    Replacement of those people who founded the Republic, sets its laws and institutions into motion, and guided it through its most productive and impressive history.

    The same fears that nativists had with your German Catholic ancestors. You have to go back.

    You keep stating this line – as if repetition will make it come true – but you are still unable to prove it.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “The point is that the open immigration policy was not “permanent,” as you earlier tried to claim. It was established by Congress and could be changed by Congress for any reason whatsoever, including the vicissitudes of American public opinion.”

    Right, it was permanent from the standpoint that Congress created a legal mechanism by which immigration policy would be set. The criteria indeed changed, as I agreed earlier, to reflect the attitude of the times. However, what was perpetual is the role of the federal government in this process.

    “You also ignore that the Federalists tightened up the residency requirements of the Naturalization Act to prevent the Democratic-Republicans from enlisting more citizens. That change was purely political. It was not driven by popular sentiment.”

    Let us be nuanced here—political, as demanded by their supporters. Alexander Hamilton’s reflected the concern of his fellow Federalists when he wrote, “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family”.

    In other words, if the law allowed hordes of foreigners who espoused “alien principles”, the values of the Republic’s would be in mortal danger of being replaced by something other than envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Hamilton observed that “foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners” In essence, not “real republicanism” (his phrase, not mine).

    William Cobbett (his Federalist journalist pseudonym was Peter Porcupine) contended that the United Irishmen, an Irish patriotic society, was a Trojan horse for revolutionary France, infiltrating  “dark and desperate, unnatural and bloodthirsty ruffians” into the United  States in order to foment “rebellion and bloodshed here”. Imagine hordes of wild Irishmen running amok in America. That image conjured up in the minds of the Federalists disrupted social change. In other words, if there were not barriers put in place, this and other groups would replace "real" and "true" Americans.

    “Slavery had to be defeated. And Catholics could not be counted on as allies in that fight.”

    You mean Catholics who were fervent pro-slavery could not be counted on. The source I provided shows distinctly of concerted efforts by Catholics to combat slavery. It is other than surprising that as the Irish ramped up their immigration to the U.S., they as a group became more concerned on how to economically set up shop rather than devote hard time to social issues.

    “There was still anti-Catholic sentiment, of course, but it was not as politically powerful as it had been before the war. Why? Because the greatest fear of northerners – that Catholics would aid the “Slave Power” in the south – no longer mattered.”

    That fear still lingered, it was just that there were more pressing issues (e.g. Reconstruction, “taming” the frontier). And that fear reared its ugly head again in full throat when Italian and Polish Catholics entered our shores in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    “First, “genetic inferiority” in the mid-19th century? Are you kidding me? Do you really believe the Know Nothings made a single genetic argument in the antebellum period? Fifty years before the word “gene” was even coined?”

    Nativists were making the argument that certain ethnic groups were inherently inferior, as evident by the political cartoons of the time period that showed a subhuman quality possessed by incoming groups (the Irish, the Chinese). Their “position” would be taken a step further by the new crop of nativists in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir%3A101344/datastream/PDF/view

    “Are you even remotely aware of what the German people accomplished in the 19th century? Beethoven. Wagner. Gauss. Planck. Rontgen. Cantor. Hertz. Riemann. Helmholtz. Jacobi. Brahms. Schubert.”

    Absolutely. I am not making the argument that Germans were overall an inferior bunch, that was the position taken by nativists. You regrettably left German-American Carl Schurz off your list.

    “But I do love hearing you say that the Know Nothings’ beliefs in “labor rights, women’s suffrage, more government spending on welfare, and the regulation of industry” made them “radical” rather than “progressive.””

    Again, in the context of the time frame, such ideas were radical. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

    “One would think that if you have a serious case for replacement that you could actually find many sources quoting Americans of that day complaining that they were being replaced instead of complaining about the political or cultural problems associated with the immigrants.”

    The political cartoons clearly show the sentiments by those Americans who feared their beloved way of life would be replaced by foreign entities who carried with them alien traditions.

    “But the party disappeared after the Civil War. What happened? Did the fear of replacement go away even though Catholic immigrants continued to arrive in America?”

    The fear of replacement subsided until the next round of immigration. It is a cycle.

    “O’Connell, no doubt stunned by the intensity of the Irish American reaction to the address, toned down his criticisms of American slavery in the spring and summer of 1842.”

    Regardless if he muted his voice on the topic, his rhetoric had resulted in a high volume of American Catholics opposing slavery.

    “Replacement of those people who founded the Republic, sets its laws and institutions into motion, and guided it through its most productive and impressive history.”

    So, are they, and only they, the “real” or “true” Americans?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  209. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    "That’s wrong, as I’ve already explained to you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was replaced by the Nationalization Act of 1795 and that in turn was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798, and so on."

    Correct. Congress was in charge of immigration. It established immigration policy. It was permanent in how Congress, not any other entity, established the criteria.

    "But all of these Naturalization Acts were passed in a context of negligible immigration flows to the United States."

    And in anticipation when there would be an influx of people, which at the time was relegated to Europeans. Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s.

    "but there’s little evidence the American people were highly concerned with the issue until the 1840s when immigration levels started to impact their lives and local politics."

    Especially when there was a palpable fear that a particular way of life would be threatened, and if nothing done to stem the tide, could be replaced.

    "I have German-American Catholics in my maternal line whose presence in the United States dates back to the mid-1850s. But who cares?"

    You assuredly benefit today. Your ancestors were considered by nativists other than capable of immersing themselves into the American body politic and social fabric. Why? Genetic inferiority. By extension, their progeny would also fit this description. So, I imagine you would contest this designation?

    "No, by modern standards, they were progressives..."

    In the context of the time period, the Know-Nothing Party were radical in touting the beliefs you mentioned and was nationalist in nature.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/immigrants-conspiracies-and-secret-society-launched-american-nativism-180961915/


    On February 24, 1855, [William] Poole was drinking at a New York City saloon when he came face to face with John Morrissey, an Irish boxer. The two exchanged insults and both pulled out guns. But before the fight could turn violent, police arrived to break it up. Later that night, though, Poole returned to the hall and grappled with Morrissey's men, including Lewis Baker, a Welsh-born immigrant, who shot Poole in the chest at close range. Although Poole survived for nearly two weeks, he died on March 8. The last words he uttered pierced the hearts of the country’s Know Nothings: “Goodbye boys, I die a true American.”
     
    "From 1815 to 1830, and perhaps as late as 1840, immigration levels were quite low. It was only after 1840 that immigration to the U.S. really picked up."

    From 1820 to 1845, anywhere from 10,000 to 1000,000 immigrants entered the U.S. each year. Then, as a consequence of economic instability in Germany and a potato famine in Ireland, those figures turned from a trickle into a tsunami. Between 1845 and 1854, 2.9 million immigrants poured into the country, and many of them were of Catholic faith. Suddenly, more than half the residents of New York City were born abroad, and Irish immigrants comprised 70 percent of charity recipients.

    "You’ve made a bad argument. It’s not one based on historical facts. It’s based on your emotional claims about the past."

    Not quite.

    "It’s a cartoon, and one which doesn’t prove your point."

    It's a political cartoon that thoroughly demonstrates the mentality of a good deal of people who were deathly concerned about being replaced by "foreign intruders". Here is another example that shows clearly the sentiments of "true Americans".

    https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/anti-immigrant-cartoon-2/

    "Your cartoon even surrounds the Yankee with at least two Chinese immigrants, but the Chinese were already being excluded in 1888. There was no chance they were going to replace the Yankee".

    As a collective effort, i.e. different groups of "aliens", absolutely.

    "All those papal bulls and general Popish anti-slavery sentiments were isolated and contextualized. Not one of them provided Catholics with an abolition movement worth a damn."

    It clearly demonstrates a concerted Catholic effort by Vatican leadership to condemn the peculiar institution. Bear in mind there was a considerable amount of Irish Catholic opposition to slavery...

    https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/58920/58646

    For decades, prominent Irish Americans had been expressing opposition to slavery in one manner or another. George Bryan, a Presbyterian immigrant from Dublin, helped frame Pennsylvania’s 1780 Gradual Abolition Act. Thomas Emmet, a New York attorney and former secretary of the United Irishmen, devoted much of his legal practice to defending escaped slaves. Charles Carroll, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and Philadelphia publisher Mathew Carey were both active in the American Colonization Society, which sought to send free African Americans and newly manumitted slaves to colonies in western Africa. John Carroll, America’s first Catholic bishop and cousin of Charles Carroll, freed his slaves before his death in 1815.

    Furthermore, ordinary Irish Americans appear to have been well disposed to free blacks. In northern cities, Irish Americans often lived side by side with African Americans with little difficulty into the 1830s. By the 1840s, however, America’s political landscape had changed dramatically and Irish American views on race and slavery had shifted along with those of the rest of the country.

    ...

    Thus by the 1840s, slavery had become an extremely contentious issue and racial tensions had intensified. Irish Americans, for their part, gener- ally sided against both abolitionists and free African Americans. O’Connell was deeply troubled by this shift in America. Motivated by humanitarian principles and by his religious beliefs, O’Connell had been an abolitionist since 1824 and did not want to compromise on this issue.

    As a member of Parliament, he had played a key role in emancipating the slaves of the British West Indies in 1833 and he was determined that America would follow Britain’s example. In February 1838 five Irish Americans from Philadelphia wrote to O’Connell imploring him to temper his attacks on American slavery. O’Connell sent them back a sharp rejoinder. In August he was the keynote speaker at an English rally celebrating the end of slavery in the West Indies.

    During his speech he dismissed George Washington as a slaveholding hypocrite and then launched into an attack on Andrew Stevenson, a Virginia slaveholder who was then serving as ambassador to the Court of St. James. Denouncing Stevenson as a “slave breeder,” O’Connell wondered why “America would send here a man who trafficks in blood.”27 Stevenson was so outraged that he considered challenging O’Connell to a duel. American abolitionists, meanwhile, were thrilled by O’Connell’s boldness. Elizur Wright of the AAS commended O’Connell for the “rebuke you have dealt to American Slavery in the matter of Mr. Stevenson.”

    He then assured O’Connell that he “could do great service to the slave” by sending an “address to the Irish portion of our population, giving plainly your views on slavery. They will listen to you.”
     
    "There was no “replacement.” There was immigration. And your original example was Native Americans, the only ones who truly were replaced by white colonizers."

    Again, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.

    "It’s only been in the last couple of decades where replacement looks like a reasonable possibility in the near future..."

    Replacement of "real" or "true" Americans, friend?

    "with European whites not breeding and nonwhites filling up the land."

    The same fears that nativists had with your German Catholic ancestors. You have to go back.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Pincher Martin

    BTW, I loved reading that article on Daniel O’Connell. It was both first-rate history and interesting.

    Too bad it didn’t prove what you were hoping it proved.

  210. @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    Congress was in charge of immigration. It established immigration policy. It was permanent in how Congress, not any other entity, established the criteria.... And in anticipation when there would be an influx of people, which at the time was relegated to Europeans. Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s.
     
    The point is that the open immigration policy was not "permanent," as you earlier tried to claim. It was established by Congress and could be changed by Congress for any reason whatsoever, including the vicissitudes of American public opinion.

    You also ignore that the Federalists tightened up the residency requirements of the Naturalization Act to prevent the Democratic-Republicans from enlisting more citizens. That change was purely political. It was not driven by popular sentiment.

    I could have also mentioned the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which allowed President Adams to imprison and deport pretty much any non-citizen he wished.


    Especially when there was a palpable fear that a particular way of life would be threatened, and if nothing done to stem the tide, could be replaced.
     
    Replacement had nothing to do with it. Even by the Civil War, around 90% of the country was still Protestant and American-born.

    I already showed you what was at stake. Catholic immigrants to the north were generally pro-slavery and considered less supportive of liberty. In the antebellum period, this growing Catholic immigrant population was considered a dangerous political trend for abolitionists fighting what was for them the political battle of their lifetimes. Slavery had to be defeated. And Catholics could not be counted on as allies in that fight.

    After the Civil War was over and slavery defeated, anti-Catholic sentiment eased a great deal. The Know Nothings were no longer a political force. There was still anti-Catholic sentiment, of course, but it was not as politically powerful as it had been before the war. Why? Because the greatest fear of northerners - that Catholics would aid the "Slave Power" in the south - no longer mattered.

    This puts the lie to your claim that the great American fear at the time was population replacement instead of, as I claim, losing political battles that were considered of major importance at the time, but have since been long forgotten.


    You assuredly benefit today. Your ancestors were considered by nativists other than capable of immersing themselves into the American body politic and social fabric. Why? Genetic inferiority. By extension, their progeny would also fit this description. So, I imagine you would contest this designation?
     
    My God, you are really off-base here.

    First, "genetic inferiority" in the mid-19th century? Are you kidding me? Do you really believe the Know Nothings made a single genetic argument in the antebellum period? Fifty years before the word "gene" was even coined?

    And, second, you think "genetic inferiority" *in any guise* was an argument used against German immigrants at a time when the various German people led the world in science, music, and math?

    Are you even remotely aware of what the German people accomplished in the 19th century? Beethoven. Wagner. Gauss. Planck. Rontgen. Cantor. Hertz. Riemann. Helmholtz. Jacobi. Brahms. Schubert.

    I assure you that educated Americans at the time were not as ignorant as you are of German genius, since the Prussian educational system of the time would soon become a model for America's educational system in many parts of the country. Johns Hopkins University, for example, was founded in the mid-1870s based on the Prussian research university.


    In the context of the time period, the Know-Nothing Party were radical in touting the beliefs you mentioned and was nationalist in nature.
     
    Nationalism would not have been an insult to any American at the time other than perhaps most southerners. But I do love hearing you say that the Know Nothings' beliefs in "labor rights, women’s suffrage, more government spending on welfare, and the regulation of industry" made them "radical" rather than "progressive."

    From 1820 to 1845, anywhere from 10,000 to 1000,000 immigrants entered the U.S. each year.
     
    Once again, you misleadingly use a timeframe (1820 to 1845) that crosses over both a period of very low immigration and a period of very high immigration.

    Between 1845 and 1854, 2.9 million immigrants poured into the country, and many of them were of Catholic faith. Suddenly, more than half the residents of New York City were born abroad, and Irish immigrants comprised 70 percent of charity recipients.
     
    Yes, and it's not a coincidence that the Know Nothings did very well politically during this era.

    But the party disappeared after the Civil War. What happened? Did the fear of replacement go away even though Catholic immigrants continued to arrive in America? No, that explanation has no power. What happened was that the largest political problem associated with Catholic immigrants - slavery - was no longer a problem. Anti-Catholic bias remained, but at a much reduced political level.


    It’s a political cartoon that thoroughly demonstrates the mentality of a good deal of people who were deathly concerned about being replaced by “foreign intruders”.
     
    It's just a caricature with no explanatory power at all.

    One would think that if you have a serious case for replacement that you could actually find many sources quoting Americans of that day complaining that they were being replaced instead of complaining about the political or cultural problems associated with the immigrants.


    It clearly demonstrates a concerted Catholic effort by Vatican leadership to condemn the peculiar institution. Bear in mind there was a considerable amount of Irish Catholic opposition to slavery…
     
    There was no "concerted Catholic effort" to abolish slavery. You mentioned the names of a few Popes spread out over more than two hundred years. How is that "concerted"?

    By the time of the U.S. Civil War, several Catholic countries, including one of the largest (Brazil), had slaves. So while the Catholic Church made no effort to defend slavery, neither did it work in a "concerted" effort to end it. The abolition movement in early-19th century Europe and the United States was nearly entirely made up of English-speaking Protestants. They led the effort to first ban the slave trade and then end slavery.


    https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/58920/58646
     
    But Daniel O'Connell was an Irish national leader. He was not a Catholic religious leader nor an American. And as your own link explains, "Irish-Americans in the 1840s generally sided against both abolitionists and free African-Americans." O'Connell went against that grain, but then again, as I said, he was neither American nor a religious leader.

    And if you read more into your article, you'll come across this:


    Some Irish American newspapers also highlighted the heterodox theological views of Garrison and other prominent abolitionists. They made much of Garrison’s opposition to any type of clergy and his unwillingness to treat Sunday as the sabbath. These editors could not understand why a staunch Catholic like O’Connell would want to associate himself in any way with the infidels and atheists in the American abolition movement.60

    O’Connell, no doubt stunned by the intensity of the Irish American reaction to the address, toned down his criticisms of American slavery in the spring and summer of 1842. At a Repeal meeting in May, he distanced himself from Garrison’s religious beliefs and stressed that Irish Americans need not associate themselves with any particular group of abolitionists in order to fight slavery.61 Garrison and his supporters, in turn, were deeply disappointed by these remarks. Wendell Phillips wrote to R. D. Webb expressing his fear that O’Connell’s lips had been “clogged with gold” from Repeal associations in New Orleans and other southern cities.62
     

    U.S. abolitionists like Garrison had hoped to use O'Connell's popularity among the Irish diaspora to pry Irish-American voters away from the slave-supporting Democratic Party. No such luck.

    To O'Connell's credit, he continued speaking out against American slavery, even when it interfered with his primary political aim of Repeal. But...


    ...no Irish Americans raised their voices with his [O'Connell's] at that time or in the years following. It would not be until 1863 that a prominent Irish American would dare challenge the pact between Irish Catholics and the Democrats. In that year, in the midst of the Civil War and in the wake of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Archbishop John Purcell of Cincinnati declared that he was voting Republican because of slavery, which was “an unchristian evil, opposed to the freedom of mankind.”
     
    In other words, your example of O'Connell in the article you link proves nothing other than some Irish Catholics were vehemently against slavery.

    Again, we have already know about the “replacement” of peoples in our great land. It’s a pattern—indigenous replaced by British, then overtaken by Western Europeans, then the Italians, Slavs, and Poles inundate our shores, followed by the recent influx of Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. But that’s who we are as a people.
     
    It's sad to see you are unable to learn from history. But then some people want to believe some ideas so badly that no proof to the contrary will ever change their minds.

    Replacement of “real” or “true” Americans, friend?
     
    Replacement of those people who founded the Republic, sets its laws and institutions into motion, and guided it through its most productive and impressive history.

    The same fears that nativists had with your German Catholic ancestors. You have to go back.
     
    You keep stating this line - as if repetition will make it come true - but you are still unable to prove it.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The point is that the open immigration policy was not “permanent,” as you earlier tried to claim. It was established by Congress and could be changed by Congress for any reason whatsoever, including the vicissitudes of American public opinion.”

    Right, it was permanent from the standpoint that Congress created a legal mechanism by which immigration policy would be set. The criteria indeed changed, as I agreed earlier, to reflect the attitude of the times. However, what was perpetual is the role of the federal government in this process.

    “You also ignore that the Federalists tightened up the residency requirements of the Naturalization Act to prevent the Democratic-Republicans from enlisting more citizens. That change was purely political. It was not driven by popular sentiment.”

    Let us be nuanced here—political, as demanded by their supporters. Alexander Hamilton’s reflected the concern of his fellow Federalists when he wrote, “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family”.

    In other words, if the law allowed hordes of foreigners who espoused “alien principles”, the values of the Republic’s would be in mortal danger of being replaced by something other than envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Hamilton observed that “foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners” In essence, not “real republicanism” (his phrase, not mine).

    William Cobbett (his Federalist journalist pseudonym was Peter Porcupine) contended that the United Irishmen, an Irish patriotic society, was a Trojan horse for revolutionary France, infiltrating  “dark and desperate, unnatural and bloodthirsty ruffians” into the United  States in order to foment “rebellion and bloodshed here”. Imagine hordes of wild Irishmen running amok in America. That image conjured up in the minds of the Federalists disrupted social change. In other words, if there were not barriers put in place, this and other groups would replace “real” and “true” Americans.

    “Slavery had to be defeated. And Catholics could not be counted on as allies in that fight.”

    You mean Catholics who were fervent pro-slavery could not be counted on. The source I provided shows distinctly of concerted efforts by Catholics to combat slavery. It is other than surprising that as the Irish ramped up their immigration to the U.S., they as a group became more concerned on how to economically set up shop rather than devote hard time to social issues.

    “There was still anti-Catholic sentiment, of course, but it was not as politically powerful as it had been before the war. Why? Because the greatest fear of northerners – that Catholics would aid the “Slave Power” in the south – no longer mattered.”

    That fear still lingered, it was just that there were more pressing issues (e.g. Reconstruction, “taming” the frontier). And that fear reared its ugly head again in full throat when Italian and Polish Catholics entered our shores in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    “First, “genetic inferiority” in the mid-19th century? Are you kidding me? Do you really believe the Know Nothings made a single genetic argument in the antebellum period? Fifty years before the word “gene” was even coined?”

    Nativists were making the argument that certain ethnic groups were inherently inferior, as evident by the political cartoons of the time period that showed a subhuman quality possessed by incoming groups (the Irish, the Chinese). Their “position” would be taken a step further by the new crop of nativists in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir%3A101344/datastream/PDF/view

    “Are you even remotely aware of what the German people accomplished in the 19th century? Beethoven. Wagner. Gauss. Planck. Rontgen. Cantor. Hertz. Riemann. Helmholtz. Jacobi. Brahms. Schubert.”

    Absolutely. I am not making the argument that Germans were overall an inferior bunch, that was the position taken by nativists. You regrettably left German-American Carl Schurz off your list.

    “But I do love hearing you say that the Know Nothings’ beliefs in “labor rights, women’s suffrage, more government spending on welfare, and the regulation of industry” made them “radical” rather than “progressive.””

    Again, in the context of the time frame, such ideas were radical. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

    “One would think that if you have a serious case for replacement that you could actually find many sources quoting Americans of that day complaining that they were being replaced instead of complaining about the political or cultural problems associated with the immigrants.”

    The political cartoons clearly show the sentiments by those Americans who feared their beloved way of life would be replaced by foreign entities who carried with them alien traditions.

    “But the party disappeared after the Civil War. What happened? Did the fear of replacement go away even though Catholic immigrants continued to arrive in America?”

    The fear of replacement subsided until the next round of immigration. It is a cycle.

    “O’Connell, no doubt stunned by the intensity of the Irish American reaction to the address, toned down his criticisms of American slavery in the spring and summer of 1842.”

    Regardless if he muted his voice on the topic, his rhetoric had resulted in a high volume of American Catholics opposing slavery.

    “Replacement of those people who founded the Republic, sets its laws and institutions into motion, and guided it through its most productive and impressive history.”

    So, are they, and only they, the “real” or “true” Americans?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    Right, it was permanent from the standpoint that Congress created a legal mechanism by which immigration policy would be set. The criteria indeed changed, as I agreed earlier, to reflect the attitude of the times. However, what was perpetual is the role of the federal government in this process.
     
    Nobody disputes that Congress sets the laws and the executive administers them. But what you contended in your first responses to me was that the open immigration policy, as set by the 1790 Naturalization Act, was "permanent." That's wrong.

    Let us be nuanced here—political, as demanded by their supporters.
     
    I'm not sure how much public demand there was for it. The smarter Federalists feared losing political power to sympathizers of the French Revolution. They did not fear the "other." They did not fear "replacement" in the sense they worried that people who were physically or culturally different from them would overwhelm their numbers. Their concern was political. I've seen no evidence that the mass of American people who supported the Federalists were vexed by immigration. It was an elite preoccupation, as your quotes show.

    Please note that Alexander Hamilton himself was not born in the American colonies. His real concern was that the votes of newly-naturalized Republican sympathizers would break the political deadlock between Federalists and Republicans in favor of the latter.

    In any case, the Federalists did lose power, and yet immigration to the U.S. still did not grow for the next several decades. The French Revolution ate its own. Napoleon would then keep the Europeans busy for nearly two decades. The demographic impact of revolution and war on Europe would ease the need for immigration to the Americas until the 1830s.


    You mean Catholics who were fervent pro-slavery could not be counted on.
     
    No, I mean that Catholics voted for the pro-slavery Democrats regardless of their feelings about slavery.

    A vote for a party that's pro-slavery could be made for local reasons. Perhaps because that's the way Tammany Hall told them to vote. Patronage was how New York local politics bound immigrants to the Democratic Party (just as it does today). Those local Democratic machines existed in most east coast cities.

    The Catholic Church did not provide strong guidance against slavery. In the absence of strong religious leadership on the issue, I doubt many Catholic immigrants cared much about slavery one way or the other. So they voted for the party of the slave power because that's who buttered their bread.


    The source I provided shows distinctly of concerted efforts by Catholics to combat slavery.
     
    Your source does not show that. Did you not read my rebuttal?

    Nativists were making the argument that certain ethnic groups were inherently inferior, as evident by the political cartoons of the time period that showed a subhuman quality possessed by incoming groups (the Irish, the Chinese). Their “position” would be taken a step further by the new crop of nativists in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.
     
    Oh, please, no more cartoons.

    "Genetic inferiority" has a specific meaning that was completely absent in the American politics of the mid-19th century. "Inherently inferior" loses any such biological connotation the moment it becomes a dispute between religious sects.


    Again, in the context of the time frame, such ideas were radical. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.
     
    Then why did they win so many offices in that era if their non-immigration ideas were so radical? The Know Nothings held so many offices in state and federal government in the late 1840s and early 1850s that I doubt any other "radical" political group in US history has held as many at any one time. During one term, they held nearly one-fifth of all the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    What you're suggesting is that the Know Nothing's immigration ideas were so popular at the time that their "radical" non-immigration policy ideas might've held them back.


    The political cartoons clearly show the sentiments by those Americans who feared their beloved way of life would be replaced by foreign entities who carried with them alien traditions.
     
    So ... you have no direct quotes about replacement? Do you not have a single quote from the Know Nothings about replacement?

    The fear of replacement subsided until the next round of immigration.
     
    There was no next round of immigration. After the Civil War was over, Catholic immigration to the U.S. picked up right where it left off. It became more German in composition, and then more Italian and Polish, than it had been Irish before the war, but there was no let up to it. Catholics continued to emigrate to the U.S. in huge numbers.

    But the Know Nothings did not regroup. Why? Because the main political issue against Catholics before the war was no longer relevant. The Slave Power had been defeated.

    So why did immigration restriction of Europeans become relevant again starting in the late 19th and early 20th century? Because radical European political ideas began making their way to America along with the immigrants. Eastern Europeans and southern Europeans started bringing anarchism, socialism, and other bad ideas to America. Terrorism began, with many of the terrorists born in Europe: Emma Goldman (Russian Jew) and Alexander Berkman (Russian Jew) tried to kill Henry Clay Frick. Johann Most (Bavarian atheist) and August Spies (German socialist) were behind the Haymarket bombings. Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian anarchists. Alexander Bittelman (Russian Jew) was one of the founders of the U.S. communist party. The followers of Luigi Galleini (Italian anarchist) were behind the anarchist bombings that began in 1914 and culminated with the 1920 Wall Street bombing.

    So once again Americans turned against immigration, this time with effectiveness. But the fear motivating their actions was NOT replacement; they feared the radical political ideas and violence these foreigners were promoting. When Eugene Debs ran for president in 1920, he received only three percent of the vote, but he received 38% of three Jewish vote. The Jewish-American support for a socialist president in 1920 was 12 times higher than it was among other Americans.

    And, no, these people were not radicalized by their experience in the United States.n They were not radicalized by anti-semitism or anti-Catholicism. They were radicalized in Europe and then brought their radical ideas to America. Their biographies make this clear. Many of the most radical newspapers in the U.S. in the early 20th century were written in Yiddish, German or Italian.


    Regardless if he muted his voice on the topic, his rhetoric had resulted in a high volume of American Catholics opposing slavery.
     
    No, it didn't. And your own source makes that clear. Let me quote again the relevant section to you:

    …no Irish Americans raised their voices with his [O’Connell’s] at that time or in the years following. It would not be until 1863 that a prominent Irish American would dare challenge the pact between Irish Catholics and the Democrats. In that year, in the midst of the Civil War and in the wake of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Archbishop John Purcell of Cincinnati declared that he was voting Republican because of slavery, which was “an unchristian evil, opposed to the freedom of mankind.”
     
    That is *your own source* telling you that O'Connell's strong and uncompromising rhetoric against slavery before the Civil War was ineffective among Irish-Americans.

    So, are they, and only they, the “real” or “true” Americans?
     
    No, but they're the ones who made it work and prosper. And we have no idea what replacing them will bring, but so far it's off to a rocky start. Replace the historical demographic bedrock of Englishmen with Haitians or Mestizos or even the Spaniards, and this country is not nearly as great.

    So be careful what you wish for.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  211. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “The point is that the open immigration policy was not “permanent,” as you earlier tried to claim. It was established by Congress and could be changed by Congress for any reason whatsoever, including the vicissitudes of American public opinion.”

    Right, it was permanent from the standpoint that Congress created a legal mechanism by which immigration policy would be set. The criteria indeed changed, as I agreed earlier, to reflect the attitude of the times. However, what was perpetual is the role of the federal government in this process.

    “You also ignore that the Federalists tightened up the residency requirements of the Naturalization Act to prevent the Democratic-Republicans from enlisting more citizens. That change was purely political. It was not driven by popular sentiment.”

    Let us be nuanced here—political, as demanded by their supporters. Alexander Hamilton’s reflected the concern of his fellow Federalists when he wrote, “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family”.

    In other words, if the law allowed hordes of foreigners who espoused “alien principles”, the values of the Republic’s would be in mortal danger of being replaced by something other than envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Hamilton observed that “foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners” In essence, not “real republicanism” (his phrase, not mine).

    William Cobbett (his Federalist journalist pseudonym was Peter Porcupine) contended that the United Irishmen, an Irish patriotic society, was a Trojan horse for revolutionary France, infiltrating  “dark and desperate, unnatural and bloodthirsty ruffians” into the United  States in order to foment “rebellion and bloodshed here”. Imagine hordes of wild Irishmen running amok in America. That image conjured up in the minds of the Federalists disrupted social change. In other words, if there were not barriers put in place, this and other groups would replace "real" and "true" Americans.

    “Slavery had to be defeated. And Catholics could not be counted on as allies in that fight.”

    You mean Catholics who were fervent pro-slavery could not be counted on. The source I provided shows distinctly of concerted efforts by Catholics to combat slavery. It is other than surprising that as the Irish ramped up their immigration to the U.S., they as a group became more concerned on how to economically set up shop rather than devote hard time to social issues.

    “There was still anti-Catholic sentiment, of course, but it was not as politically powerful as it had been before the war. Why? Because the greatest fear of northerners – that Catholics would aid the “Slave Power” in the south – no longer mattered.”

    That fear still lingered, it was just that there were more pressing issues (e.g. Reconstruction, “taming” the frontier). And that fear reared its ugly head again in full throat when Italian and Polish Catholics entered our shores in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    “First, “genetic inferiority” in the mid-19th century? Are you kidding me? Do you really believe the Know Nothings made a single genetic argument in the antebellum period? Fifty years before the word “gene” was even coined?”

    Nativists were making the argument that certain ethnic groups were inherently inferior, as evident by the political cartoons of the time period that showed a subhuman quality possessed by incoming groups (the Irish, the Chinese). Their “position” would be taken a step further by the new crop of nativists in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir%3A101344/datastream/PDF/view

    “Are you even remotely aware of what the German people accomplished in the 19th century? Beethoven. Wagner. Gauss. Planck. Rontgen. Cantor. Hertz. Riemann. Helmholtz. Jacobi. Brahms. Schubert.”

    Absolutely. I am not making the argument that Germans were overall an inferior bunch, that was the position taken by nativists. You regrettably left German-American Carl Schurz off your list.

    “But I do love hearing you say that the Know Nothings’ beliefs in “labor rights, women’s suffrage, more government spending on welfare, and the regulation of industry” made them “radical” rather than “progressive.””

    Again, in the context of the time frame, such ideas were radical. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

    “One would think that if you have a serious case for replacement that you could actually find many sources quoting Americans of that day complaining that they were being replaced instead of complaining about the political or cultural problems associated with the immigrants.”

    The political cartoons clearly show the sentiments by those Americans who feared their beloved way of life would be replaced by foreign entities who carried with them alien traditions.

    “But the party disappeared after the Civil War. What happened? Did the fear of replacement go away even though Catholic immigrants continued to arrive in America?”

    The fear of replacement subsided until the next round of immigration. It is a cycle.

    “O’Connell, no doubt stunned by the intensity of the Irish American reaction to the address, toned down his criticisms of American slavery in the spring and summer of 1842.”

    Regardless if he muted his voice on the topic, his rhetoric had resulted in a high volume of American Catholics opposing slavery.

    “Replacement of those people who founded the Republic, sets its laws and institutions into motion, and guided it through its most productive and impressive history.”

    So, are they, and only they, the “real” or “true” Americans?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Right, it was permanent from the standpoint that Congress created a legal mechanism by which immigration policy would be set. The criteria indeed changed, as I agreed earlier, to reflect the attitude of the times. However, what was perpetual is the role of the federal government in this process.

    Nobody disputes that Congress sets the laws and the executive administers them. But what you contended in your first responses to me was that the open immigration policy, as set by the 1790 Naturalization Act, was “permanent.” That’s wrong.

    Let us be nuanced here—political, as demanded by their supporters.

    I’m not sure how much public demand there was for it. The smarter Federalists feared losing political power to sympathizers of the French Revolution. They did not fear the “other.” They did not fear “replacement” in the sense they worried that people who were physically or culturally different from them would overwhelm their numbers. Their concern was political. I’ve seen no evidence that the mass of American people who supported the Federalists were vexed by immigration. It was an elite preoccupation, as your quotes show.

    Please note that Alexander Hamilton himself was not born in the American colonies. His real concern was that the votes of newly-naturalized Republican sympathizers would break the political deadlock between Federalists and Republicans in favor of the latter.

    In any case, the Federalists did lose power, and yet immigration to the U.S. still did not grow for the next several decades. The French Revolution ate its own. Napoleon would then keep the Europeans busy for nearly two decades. The demographic impact of revolution and war on Europe would ease the need for immigration to the Americas until the 1830s.

    You mean Catholics who were fervent pro-slavery could not be counted on.

    No, I mean that Catholics voted for the pro-slavery Democrats regardless of their feelings about slavery.

    A vote for a party that’s pro-slavery could be made for local reasons. Perhaps because that’s the way Tammany Hall told them to vote. Patronage was how New York local politics bound immigrants to the Democratic Party (just as it does today). Those local Democratic machines existed in most east coast cities.

    The Catholic Church did not provide strong guidance against slavery. In the absence of strong religious leadership on the issue, I doubt many Catholic immigrants cared much about slavery one way or the other. So they voted for the party of the slave power because that’s who buttered their bread.

    The source I provided shows distinctly of concerted efforts by Catholics to combat slavery.

    Your source does not show that. Did you not read my rebuttal?

    Nativists were making the argument that certain ethnic groups were inherently inferior, as evident by the political cartoons of the time period that showed a subhuman quality possessed by incoming groups (the Irish, the Chinese). Their “position” would be taken a step further by the new crop of nativists in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    Oh, please, no more cartoons.

    “Genetic inferiority” has a specific meaning that was completely absent in the American politics of the mid-19th century. “Inherently inferior” loses any such biological connotation the moment it becomes a dispute between religious sects.

    Again, in the context of the time frame, such ideas were radical. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

    Then why did they win so many offices in that era if their non-immigration ideas were so radical? The Know Nothings held so many offices in state and federal government in the late 1840s and early 1850s that I doubt any other “radical” political group in US history has held as many at any one time. During one term, they held nearly one-fifth of all the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    What you’re suggesting is that the Know Nothing’s immigration ideas were so popular at the time that their “radical” non-immigration policy ideas might’ve held them back.

    The political cartoons clearly show the sentiments by those Americans who feared their beloved way of life would be replaced by foreign entities who carried with them alien traditions.

    So … you have no direct quotes about replacement? Do you not have a single quote from the Know Nothings about replacement?

    The fear of replacement subsided until the next round of immigration.

    There was no next round of immigration. After the Civil War was over, Catholic immigration to the U.S. picked up right where it left off. It became more German in composition, and then more Italian and Polish, than it had been Irish before the war, but there was no let up to it. Catholics continued to emigrate to the U.S. in huge numbers.

    But the Know Nothings did not regroup. Why? Because the main political issue against Catholics before the war was no longer relevant. The Slave Power had been defeated.

    So why did immigration restriction of Europeans become relevant again starting in the late 19th and early 20th century? Because radical European political ideas began making their way to America along with the immigrants. Eastern Europeans and southern Europeans started bringing anarchism, socialism, and other bad ideas to America. Terrorism began, with many of the terrorists born in Europe: Emma Goldman (Russian Jew) and Alexander Berkman (Russian Jew) tried to kill Henry Clay Frick. Johann Most (Bavarian atheist) and August Spies (German socialist) were behind the Haymarket bombings. Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian anarchists. Alexander Bittelman (Russian Jew) was one of the founders of the U.S. communist party. The followers of Luigi Galleini (Italian anarchist) were behind the anarchist bombings that began in 1914 and culminated with the 1920 Wall Street bombing.

    So once again Americans turned against immigration, this time with effectiveness. But the fear motivating their actions was NOT replacement; they feared the radical political ideas and violence these foreigners were promoting. When Eugene Debs ran for president in 1920, he received only three percent of the vote, but he received 38% of three Jewish vote. The Jewish-American support for a socialist president in 1920 was 12 times higher than it was among other Americans.

    And, no, these people were not radicalized by their experience in the United States.n They were not radicalized by anti-semitism or anti-Catholicism. They were radicalized in Europe and then brought their radical ideas to America. Their biographies make this clear. Many of the most radical newspapers in the U.S. in the early 20th century were written in Yiddish, German or Italian.

    Regardless if he muted his voice on the topic, his rhetoric had resulted in a high volume of American Catholics opposing slavery.

    No, it didn’t. And your own source makes that clear. Let me quote again the relevant section to you:

    …no Irish Americans raised their voices with his [O’Connell’s] at that time or in the years following. It would not be until 1863 that a prominent Irish American would dare challenge the pact between Irish Catholics and the Democrats. In that year, in the midst of the Civil War and in the wake of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Archbishop John Purcell of Cincinnati declared that he was voting Republican because of slavery, which was “an unchristian evil, opposed to the freedom of mankind.”

    That is *your own source* telling you that O’Connell’s strong and uncompromising rhetoric against slavery before the Civil War was ineffective among Irish-Americans.

    So, are they, and only they, the “real” or “true” Americans?

    No, but they’re the ones who made it work and prosper. And we have no idea what replacing them will bring, but so far it’s off to a rocky start. Replace the historical demographic bedrock of Englishmen with Haitians or Mestizos or even the Spaniards, and this country is not nearly as great.

    So be careful what you wish for.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    I already my point about the permanence of immigration policy, and I am no longer going to belabor it. Feel free to disagree.

    “Grass roots” Federalist supporters clearly understood the ramifications of immigration policiees. Although Alexander Hamilton was himself an immigrant, he was adamantly opposed immigration. Although the incoming president had once opposed unlimited immigration, Jefferson viewed it as a way to secure the future replacement of the Federalists. The character of the social fabric of the nation would be torn asunder, as non-British immigrants would bring in their “alien ways”. Writing as “Lucius Crassus”, Alexander Hamilton argued: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.” The Federalist “fear of the other” was based on the views of their supporters, whether it the elites or common folk, that should increasing numbers of their political rivals gain traction, their way of life would be replaced.

    “Oh, please, no more cartoons. “Genetic inferiority” has a specific meaning that was completely absent in the American politics of the mid-19th century. “Inherently inferior” loses any such biological connotation the moment it becomes a dispute between religious sects.”

    No, you are dead wrong here. Political cartoons of the time period demonstrate how various ethnicities were viewed as a “biological pecking order”.

    https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/image/anti-chinese-wall-cartoon

    In the new Irish exiles of the 1840’s, Protestants in general saw a papal plot at work. According to “Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia”, they feared the pope and his army would land in the United States, overthrow the government, establish a new Vatican, and impose the Catholic canon as the law of the land. Protestants viewed Irish Catholics as inhumane and unrefined brutes. Magazines such as Punch portrayed the Irish as having "bestial, ape-like or demonic features and the Irishman, was invariably given a long or prognathous jaw, the stigmata to the phrenologists of a lower evolutionary order, degeneracy, or criminality”, which clearly indicates biological underpinnings for their reaction. When Social Darwinisitic principles took root in the U.S. by the 1880’s, past justifications of "savage peoples” became even more pronounced.

    “Then why did they win so many offices in that era if their non-immigration ideas were so radical?”

    Because one issue dominated the minds of voters at that time—immigration. No different than in other eras, where voters who may be diametrically opposed to other planks of a political party, but one plank resonates with them.

    “What you’re suggesting is that the Know Nothing’s immigration ideas were so popular at the time that their “radical” non -immigration policy ideas might’ve held them back.”

    YOU made that suggestion, not I.

    “So … you have no direct quotes about replacement? Do you not have a single quote from the Know Nothings about replacement?”

    It is more than just “direct quotes”. Rather, it is the overall actions taken by Know-Nothings that set the stage for various periods in our history regarding replacement rhetoric.

    https://harvardpolitics.com/know-nothing-party-cautionary-tale/

    “There was no next round of immigration.”

    The next round was from 1890-1920, when Eastern-Southern Europeans arrived in great numbers.

    “But the Know Nothings did not regroup. Why? Because the main political issue against Catholics before the war was no longer relevant”

    Yet, their remnants reformulated into nativist groups of the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    “So why did immigration restriction of Europeans become relevant again starting in the late 19th and early 20th century?”

    Because of a next round of immigration, with nativists making sweeping generalizations that most Russians, Italians, and Jews were dangerous radicals hell-bent on destroying American institutions and replacing them with their own institutions.

    “That is *your own source* telling you that O’Connell’s strong and uncompromising rhetoric against slavery before the Civil War was ineffective among Irish-Americans.”

    Among the newly arriving Irish in the 1840’s and 1850’s, yes. While native-born Catholics and immigrant Catholics were generally pro-slavery, there had been a significant group of Catholics, at the behest of papal proclamations as I noted, which opposed slavery. Their efforts failed to make traction with the newly arriving Catholics, who were subjected to intensifying nativist rhetoric and actions. The Know-Nothings and their advocates considered Catholic immigrants a dangerous political and social rival to their institutions, with an underlying fear that their principles and ideals would be replaced unless drastic measures were implemented. While the Know-Nothing Party disintegrated in large part over a deep split over the issue of slavery, their sentiments remained in the consciousness of “true” and “real” Americans, who were once again rallied to the forefront when dangerous newcomers, chiefly Italians, Slavs, Poles, and Jews, began to “invade” our shores in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    “No, but they’re the ones who made it work and prosper. And we have no idea what replacing them will bring, but so far it’s off to a rocky start.”

    Actually, all immigrants, as well as those forced to “pick cotton”, have made it work and prosper.

    “Replace the historical demographic bedrock of Englishmen with Haitians or Mestizos or even the Spaniards, and this country is not nearly as great.”

    You’re entitled to your own opinion. Pray tell, weren’t your own ancestors non-English, and were deemed “inferior” and “incapable” of assimilation by nativists? So, again I asked, what changed, “magic dirt”? Perhaps the irony and hypocrisy escapes you...

    Feel free to have the last word, if you may. I am moving on from this conversation, as I have made my points known—which you disagree—and it seems we are at loggerheads.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  212. @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    Right, it was permanent from the standpoint that Congress created a legal mechanism by which immigration policy would be set. The criteria indeed changed, as I agreed earlier, to reflect the attitude of the times. However, what was perpetual is the role of the federal government in this process.
     
    Nobody disputes that Congress sets the laws and the executive administers them. But what you contended in your first responses to me was that the open immigration policy, as set by the 1790 Naturalization Act, was "permanent." That's wrong.

    Let us be nuanced here—political, as demanded by their supporters.
     
    I'm not sure how much public demand there was for it. The smarter Federalists feared losing political power to sympathizers of the French Revolution. They did not fear the "other." They did not fear "replacement" in the sense they worried that people who were physically or culturally different from them would overwhelm their numbers. Their concern was political. I've seen no evidence that the mass of American people who supported the Federalists were vexed by immigration. It was an elite preoccupation, as your quotes show.

    Please note that Alexander Hamilton himself was not born in the American colonies. His real concern was that the votes of newly-naturalized Republican sympathizers would break the political deadlock between Federalists and Republicans in favor of the latter.

    In any case, the Federalists did lose power, and yet immigration to the U.S. still did not grow for the next several decades. The French Revolution ate its own. Napoleon would then keep the Europeans busy for nearly two decades. The demographic impact of revolution and war on Europe would ease the need for immigration to the Americas until the 1830s.


    You mean Catholics who were fervent pro-slavery could not be counted on.
     
    No, I mean that Catholics voted for the pro-slavery Democrats regardless of their feelings about slavery.

    A vote for a party that's pro-slavery could be made for local reasons. Perhaps because that's the way Tammany Hall told them to vote. Patronage was how New York local politics bound immigrants to the Democratic Party (just as it does today). Those local Democratic machines existed in most east coast cities.

    The Catholic Church did not provide strong guidance against slavery. In the absence of strong religious leadership on the issue, I doubt many Catholic immigrants cared much about slavery one way or the other. So they voted for the party of the slave power because that's who buttered their bread.


    The source I provided shows distinctly of concerted efforts by Catholics to combat slavery.
     
    Your source does not show that. Did you not read my rebuttal?

    Nativists were making the argument that certain ethnic groups were inherently inferior, as evident by the political cartoons of the time period that showed a subhuman quality possessed by incoming groups (the Irish, the Chinese). Their “position” would be taken a step further by the new crop of nativists in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.
     
    Oh, please, no more cartoons.

    "Genetic inferiority" has a specific meaning that was completely absent in the American politics of the mid-19th century. "Inherently inferior" loses any such biological connotation the moment it becomes a dispute between religious sects.


    Again, in the context of the time frame, such ideas were radical. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.
     
    Then why did they win so many offices in that era if their non-immigration ideas were so radical? The Know Nothings held so many offices in state and federal government in the late 1840s and early 1850s that I doubt any other "radical" political group in US history has held as many at any one time. During one term, they held nearly one-fifth of all the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    What you're suggesting is that the Know Nothing's immigration ideas were so popular at the time that their "radical" non-immigration policy ideas might've held them back.


    The political cartoons clearly show the sentiments by those Americans who feared their beloved way of life would be replaced by foreign entities who carried with them alien traditions.
     
    So ... you have no direct quotes about replacement? Do you not have a single quote from the Know Nothings about replacement?

    The fear of replacement subsided until the next round of immigration.
     
    There was no next round of immigration. After the Civil War was over, Catholic immigration to the U.S. picked up right where it left off. It became more German in composition, and then more Italian and Polish, than it had been Irish before the war, but there was no let up to it. Catholics continued to emigrate to the U.S. in huge numbers.

    But the Know Nothings did not regroup. Why? Because the main political issue against Catholics before the war was no longer relevant. The Slave Power had been defeated.

    So why did immigration restriction of Europeans become relevant again starting in the late 19th and early 20th century? Because radical European political ideas began making their way to America along with the immigrants. Eastern Europeans and southern Europeans started bringing anarchism, socialism, and other bad ideas to America. Terrorism began, with many of the terrorists born in Europe: Emma Goldman (Russian Jew) and Alexander Berkman (Russian Jew) tried to kill Henry Clay Frick. Johann Most (Bavarian atheist) and August Spies (German socialist) were behind the Haymarket bombings. Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian anarchists. Alexander Bittelman (Russian Jew) was one of the founders of the U.S. communist party. The followers of Luigi Galleini (Italian anarchist) were behind the anarchist bombings that began in 1914 and culminated with the 1920 Wall Street bombing.

    So once again Americans turned against immigration, this time with effectiveness. But the fear motivating their actions was NOT replacement; they feared the radical political ideas and violence these foreigners were promoting. When Eugene Debs ran for president in 1920, he received only three percent of the vote, but he received 38% of three Jewish vote. The Jewish-American support for a socialist president in 1920 was 12 times higher than it was among other Americans.

    And, no, these people were not radicalized by their experience in the United States.n They were not radicalized by anti-semitism or anti-Catholicism. They were radicalized in Europe and then brought their radical ideas to America. Their biographies make this clear. Many of the most radical newspapers in the U.S. in the early 20th century were written in Yiddish, German or Italian.


    Regardless if he muted his voice on the topic, his rhetoric had resulted in a high volume of American Catholics opposing slavery.
     
    No, it didn't. And your own source makes that clear. Let me quote again the relevant section to you:

    …no Irish Americans raised their voices with his [O’Connell’s] at that time or in the years following. It would not be until 1863 that a prominent Irish American would dare challenge the pact between Irish Catholics and the Democrats. In that year, in the midst of the Civil War and in the wake of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Archbishop John Purcell of Cincinnati declared that he was voting Republican because of slavery, which was “an unchristian evil, opposed to the freedom of mankind.”
     
    That is *your own source* telling you that O'Connell's strong and uncompromising rhetoric against slavery before the Civil War was ineffective among Irish-Americans.

    So, are they, and only they, the “real” or “true” Americans?
     
    No, but they're the ones who made it work and prosper. And we have no idea what replacing them will bring, but so far it's off to a rocky start. Replace the historical demographic bedrock of Englishmen with Haitians or Mestizos or even the Spaniards, and this country is not nearly as great.

    So be careful what you wish for.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    I already my point about the permanence of immigration policy, and I am no longer going to belabor it. Feel free to disagree.

    “Grass roots” Federalist supporters clearly understood the ramifications of immigration policiees. Although Alexander Hamilton was himself an immigrant, he was adamantly opposed immigration. Although the incoming president had once opposed unlimited immigration, Jefferson viewed it as a way to secure the future replacement of the Federalists. The character of the social fabric of the nation would be torn asunder, as non-British immigrants would bring in their “alien ways”. Writing as “Lucius Crassus”, Alexander Hamilton argued: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.” The Federalist “fear of the other” was based on the views of their supporters, whether it the elites or common folk, that should increasing numbers of their political rivals gain traction, their way of life would be replaced.

    “Oh, please, no more cartoons. “Genetic inferiority” has a specific meaning that was completely absent in the American politics of the mid-19th century. “Inherently inferior” loses any such biological connotation the moment it becomes a dispute between religious sects.”

    No, you are dead wrong here. Political cartoons of the time period demonstrate how various ethnicities were viewed as a “biological pecking order”.

    https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/image/anti-chinese-wall-cartoon

    In the new Irish exiles of the 1840’s, Protestants in general saw a papal plot at work. According to “Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia”, they feared the pope and his army would land in the United States, overthrow the government, establish a new Vatican, and impose the Catholic canon as the law of the land. Protestants viewed Irish Catholics as inhumane and unrefined brutes. Magazines such as Punch portrayed the Irish as having “bestial, ape-like or demonic features and the Irishman, was invariably given a long or prognathous jaw, the stigmata to the phrenologists of a lower evolutionary order, degeneracy, or criminality”, which clearly indicates biological underpinnings for their reaction. When Social Darwinisitic principles took root in the U.S. by the 1880’s, past justifications of “savage peoples” became even more pronounced.

    “Then why did they win so many offices in that era if their non-immigration ideas were so radical?”

    Because one issue dominated the minds of voters at that time—immigration. No different than in other eras, where voters who may be diametrically opposed to other planks of a political party, but one plank resonates with them.

    “What you’re suggesting is that the Know Nothing’s immigration ideas were so popular at the time that their “radical” non -immigration policy ideas might’ve held them back.”

    YOU made that suggestion, not I.

    “So … you have no direct quotes about replacement? Do you not have a single quote from the Know Nothings about replacement?”

    It is more than just “direct quotes”. Rather, it is the overall actions taken by Know-Nothings that set the stage for various periods in our history regarding replacement rhetoric.

    https://harvardpolitics.com/know-nothing-party-cautionary-tale/

    “There was no next round of immigration.”

    The next round was from 1890-1920, when Eastern-Southern Europeans arrived in great numbers.

    “But the Know Nothings did not regroup. Why? Because the main political issue against Catholics before the war was no longer relevant”

    Yet, their remnants reformulated into nativist groups of the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    “So why did immigration restriction of Europeans become relevant again starting in the late 19th and early 20th century?”

    Because of a next round of immigration, with nativists making sweeping generalizations that most Russians, Italians, and Jews were dangerous radicals hell-bent on destroying American institutions and replacing them with their own institutions.

    “That is *your own source* telling you that O’Connell’s strong and uncompromising rhetoric against slavery before the Civil War was ineffective among Irish-Americans.”

    Among the newly arriving Irish in the 1840’s and 1850’s, yes. While native-born Catholics and immigrant Catholics were generally pro-slavery, there had been a significant group of Catholics, at the behest of papal proclamations as I noted, which opposed slavery. Their efforts failed to make traction with the newly arriving Catholics, who were subjected to intensifying nativist rhetoric and actions. The Know-Nothings and their advocates considered Catholic immigrants a dangerous political and social rival to their institutions, with an underlying fear that their principles and ideals would be replaced unless drastic measures were implemented. While the Know-Nothing Party disintegrated in large part over a deep split over the issue of slavery, their sentiments remained in the consciousness of “true” and “real” Americans, who were once again rallied to the forefront when dangerous newcomers, chiefly Italians, Slavs, Poles, and Jews, began to “invade” our shores in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    “No, but they’re the ones who made it work and prosper. And we have no idea what replacing them will bring, but so far it’s off to a rocky start.”

    Actually, all immigrants, as well as those forced to “pick cotton”, have made it work and prosper.

    “Replace the historical demographic bedrock of Englishmen with Haitians or Mestizos or even the Spaniards, and this country is not nearly as great.”

    You’re entitled to your own opinion. Pray tell, weren’t your own ancestors non-English, and were deemed “inferior” and “incapable” of assimilation by nativists? So, again I asked, what changed, “magic dirt”? Perhaps the irony and hypocrisy escapes you…

    Feel free to have the last word, if you may. I am moving on from this conversation, as I have made my points known—which you disagree—and it seems we are at loggerheads.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus


    “Grass roots” Federalist supporters clearly understood the ramifications of immigration policies. Although Alexander Hamilton was himself an immigrant, he was adamantly opposed immigration. Although the incoming president had once opposed unlimited immigration, Jefferson viewed it as a way to secure the future replacement of the Federalists.
     
    You've shown no evidence "grass roots Federalist supporters" understood the import of immigration. You've quoted a couple of *elite* Federalists. That proves nothing about how the issue played among the demos.

    In any case, the point is moot. Whatever Jefferson or Hamilton's feelings on immigration, the issue ceased to matter once Jefferson took office. Immigration for all intents and purposes essentially stopped.


    The Federalist “fear of the other” was based on the views of their supporters, whether it the elites or common folk, that should increasing numbers of their political rivals gain traction, their way of life would be replaced.
     
    You're just playing definitional games because you've lost the argument. Demographic replacement, which is real, usually permanent and has happened often in both prehistory and history, is not the same as losing a political battle over immigration.

    The Federalists lost not because they were replaced, but because the Democratic-Republicans beat them politically. Indeed, Jefferson as president adopted many Federalist ideas. Immigration was not among them, but even on that issue the ghost of the Federalist Party won out over the next several decades because events in Europe caused immigration to the U.S. to slow to a trickle.


    No, you are dead wrong here. Political cartoons of the time period demonstrate how various ethnicities were viewed as a “biological pecking order”.
     
    We were discussing the Know Nothings, a political party that targeted the Catholic immigration of the 1840s and 1850s, and you refer to a cartoon of the 1880s as your proof that they were motivated by "inherent inferiority"?

    You do realize, I hope, that the 1880s was not the 1850s. You do realize that the Know Nothings were an anti-slavery party whose members were eventually swallowed up by the new Republican Party. You do realize that *biological* arguments about racial pecking orders were an artifact of the late nineteenth century more than the early nineteenth century for the simple reason that Charles Darwin's On the Origin of the Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871), and Herbert Spencer's Principles of Biology (1864), which coined the popular term "the survival of the fittest," took time to filter out to the broader informed American public.

    But before the American public became aware of those pseudo-biological arguments in the second half of the 19th century, almost all arguments made about slavery in the American public debate were theological, not biological. Preachers and priests made them, not biologists and anthropologists. A Catholic was not considered "inherently inferior." His creed was considered morally lacking, a relic of an unenlightened time. Similarly, Catholics did not believe Protestant abolitionists "inherently inferior." They considered them dangerously radical and naive.


    In the new Irish exiles of the 1840’s, Protestants in general saw a papal plot at work. According to “Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia”, they feared the pope and his army would land in the United States, overthrow the government, establish a new Vatican, and impose the Catholic canon as the law of the land. Protestants viewed Irish Catholics as inhumane and unrefined brutes. Magazines such as Punch portrayed the Irish as having “bestial, ape-like or demonic features and the Irishman, was invariably given a long or prognathous jaw, the stigmata to the phrenologists of a lower evolutionary order, degeneracy, or criminality”, which clearly indicates biological underpinnings for their reaction. When Social Darwinisitic principles took root in the U.S. by the 1880’s, past justifications of “savage peoples” became even more pronounced.
     
    Not against Catholics they didn't. The rhetoric against Catholics in the early 1850s was much more pronounced and politically successful than it was in the 1880s. When the Republicans ran against Grover Cleveland in 1884 as the candidate of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" they lost. Cleveland made sure the public knew about the anti-Catholic slur. He publicized it. It cost the Republicans New York state by a thin margin - and the presidential election with it.

    You keep bouncing around from one argument to the next, from one time period to the next, without the slightest consideration for historical accuracy. The idea that American protestants disliked Catholics because they were considered biologically inferior is just pure silliness.


    Because one issue dominated the minds of voters at that time [1840s and 1850s]—immigration. No different than in other eras, where voters who may be diametrically opposed to other planks of a political party, but one plank resonates with them.
     
    Except that the issue which really dominated the minds of the era was slavery. There wasn't even a close second. Sectional discord over the issue of slavery was _the_ issue at the time.

    YOU made that suggestion, not I.
     
    You made it.

    If you claim that the Know Nothings' platform was extremely radical for their time, and yet they were able to win dozens of state and federal elective offices, then you are suggesting that the main plank of the party - immigration restriction - was even more popular an issue than the political success of the Know Nothings indicated.

    In other words, absent those "radical" ideas, the Know Nothings would've been even more politically successful than they were.


    It is more than just “direct quotes”. Rather, it is the overall actions taken by Know-Nothings that set the stage for various periods in our history regarding replacement rhetoric.
     
    You can't infer a particular motive from a broad action that could have a dozen or more motives unless you find a lot of evidence of that particular motive.

    The next round was from 1890-1920, when Eastern-Southern Europeans arrived in great numbers.
     
    By the early 1870s, immigration had returned to the levels of the 1850s. There was an interruption caused by the Civil War, but not a cycle.

    Despite the quick return of Catholic immigrants to the U.S., the Know Nothings (or some similar anti-Catholic political party) did not make a quick return. That's because the problem of slavery had been solved.


    Yet, their remnants reformulated into nativist groups of the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.
     
    They didn't reformulate. Anti-Catholic bias remained prevalent in American society, but it ceased to have political resonance because there was no issue like slavery to give it resonance. Only with the rise of radical political ideologies did immigration restriction return to American politics, but this time it was focused on political extremism, not Catholics.

    Because of a next round of immigration, with nativists making sweeping generalizations that most Russians, Italians, and Jews were dangerous radicals hell-bent on destroying American institutions and replacing them with their own institutions.
     
    The generalizations were accurate, just as is the generalization today that blacks commit far more murders than whites.

    Obviously, it's not as if every black commit murder or, say, every Jew was an anarchist, but when looking at large communities (or mass immigration) of these populations, the differential impact is profound.


    Among the newly arriving Irish in the 1840’s and 1850’s, yes. While native-born Catholics and immigrant Catholics were generally pro-slavery, there had been a significant group of Catholics, at the behest of papal proclamations as I noted, which opposed slavery. Their efforts failed to make traction with the newly arriving Catholics, who were subjected to intensifying nativist rhetoric and actions.
     
    Nope. The abolitionists made some efforts to crack the Slave Power's hold on Catholic immigrants. In your article on Daniel O'Connell, the work of William Lloyd Garrison was noted. Garrison worked with O'Connell to change the minds of Irish-Americans supporting the Democratic Party, but to no avail.

    The Know-Nothings and their advocates considered Catholic immigrants a dangerous political and social rival to their institutions, with an underlying fear that their principles and ideals would be replaced unless drastic measures were implemented.
     
    There was some of that, but without slavery it wouldn't that mattered.

    You seem to believe that anti-Catholic bias before the Civil War was just some low-brow sentiment among nativists. There was definitely that element. But many of America's most refined intellectuals and deeply educated men were strongly anti-Catholic at the time because they cared so passionately about ending slavery and they saw (correctly) Catholics as a hindrance to that aim.

    I mentioned a few of them before. Here are some new names: Ralph Waldo Emerson, the Catholic convert and intellectual Orestes Brownson, and Theodore Parker.

    After the war was over, that high-brow element disappeared from anti-Catholicism in America.

    Brownson's case is interesting in that he was a Yankee convert to Catholicism.


    Crucially, Brownson’s changing religious stance moved in tandem with his views on political and moral questions. Early in his career Brownson had declared his distaste for slavery, but he attacked abolitionists with greater vigor. In 1845 he described abolitionism as destructive “of the state, of government, of religious institutions, of all social organizations, and of all law but the law of every man unto himself.”32

    Into the 1850s Brownson defended the fugitive slave law requiring northerners to return escaped slaves to their owners—“That law is constitutional, and the Constitution authorizes nothing repugnant to the Divine law”—and he allowed a Boston priest writing for Brownson’s Quarterly Review to contrast favorably the plight of American slaves with that of Hungarian peasants.33

    But as with more strictly religious questions, Brownson’s tone shifted. In the late 1850s he continued to caution against immediate emancipation, but he insisted that southern aggressiveness on the slavery question had become the real problem. “[S]lavery,” he concluded, “is regarded by the civilized world as an odious institution.”34 The majority opinion in the 1857 Dred Scott decision, theoretically permitting slavery in the northern states, appalled him.35

    Many Catholic readers found Brownson’s new sympathy for antislavery positions inexplicable. A Baltimore Catholic journal expressed surprise that “so eminent a controversialist as Dr. Brownson” would align himself with abolitionists who “pronounce the opinion of the Court in Dred Scott to be flat ‘Popery.’”36 Brownson explained to Montalembert, “I have nothing encouraging to write you of my own country. I am under a cloud now because I refuse to defend slavery as a natural right, and have received also my ‘warning’ from a portion of the Catholic public.” Brownson signed the letter, “Yours in the cause of liberty.”37
     

    So even when a U.S. Catholic intellectual tentatively made cause with abolition before the Civil War, he was vilified by his Catholic readers.

    Actually, all immigrants, as well as those forced to “pick cotton”, have made it work and prosper.
     
    Nope. Picking cotton can be done in despotism. Building a free and prosperous country out of the roots of despotism is a real accomplishment.

    You’re entitled to your own opinion. Pray tell, weren’t your own ancestors non-English, and were deemed “inferior” and “incapable” of assimilation by nativists?
     
    This is your own lurid fantasy of oppression that you have created. It didn't exist.

    Feel free to have the last word, if you may. I am moving on from this conversation, as I have made my points known—which you disagree—and it seems we are at loggerheads.
     
    Thanks for the debate. It's been fun.
  213. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    I already my point about the permanence of immigration policy, and I am no longer going to belabor it. Feel free to disagree.

    “Grass roots” Federalist supporters clearly understood the ramifications of immigration policiees. Although Alexander Hamilton was himself an immigrant, he was adamantly opposed immigration. Although the incoming president had once opposed unlimited immigration, Jefferson viewed it as a way to secure the future replacement of the Federalists. The character of the social fabric of the nation would be torn asunder, as non-British immigrants would bring in their “alien ways”. Writing as “Lucius Crassus”, Alexander Hamilton argued: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.” The Federalist “fear of the other” was based on the views of their supporters, whether it the elites or common folk, that should increasing numbers of their political rivals gain traction, their way of life would be replaced.

    “Oh, please, no more cartoons. “Genetic inferiority” has a specific meaning that was completely absent in the American politics of the mid-19th century. “Inherently inferior” loses any such biological connotation the moment it becomes a dispute between religious sects.”

    No, you are dead wrong here. Political cartoons of the time period demonstrate how various ethnicities were viewed as a “biological pecking order”.

    https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/image/anti-chinese-wall-cartoon

    In the new Irish exiles of the 1840’s, Protestants in general saw a papal plot at work. According to “Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia”, they feared the pope and his army would land in the United States, overthrow the government, establish a new Vatican, and impose the Catholic canon as the law of the land. Protestants viewed Irish Catholics as inhumane and unrefined brutes. Magazines such as Punch portrayed the Irish as having "bestial, ape-like or demonic features and the Irishman, was invariably given a long or prognathous jaw, the stigmata to the phrenologists of a lower evolutionary order, degeneracy, or criminality”, which clearly indicates biological underpinnings for their reaction. When Social Darwinisitic principles took root in the U.S. by the 1880’s, past justifications of "savage peoples” became even more pronounced.

    “Then why did they win so many offices in that era if their non-immigration ideas were so radical?”

    Because one issue dominated the minds of voters at that time—immigration. No different than in other eras, where voters who may be diametrically opposed to other planks of a political party, but one plank resonates with them.

    “What you’re suggesting is that the Know Nothing’s immigration ideas were so popular at the time that their “radical” non -immigration policy ideas might’ve held them back.”

    YOU made that suggestion, not I.

    “So … you have no direct quotes about replacement? Do you not have a single quote from the Know Nothings about replacement?”

    It is more than just “direct quotes”. Rather, it is the overall actions taken by Know-Nothings that set the stage for various periods in our history regarding replacement rhetoric.

    https://harvardpolitics.com/know-nothing-party-cautionary-tale/

    “There was no next round of immigration.”

    The next round was from 1890-1920, when Eastern-Southern Europeans arrived in great numbers.

    “But the Know Nothings did not regroup. Why? Because the main political issue against Catholics before the war was no longer relevant”

    Yet, their remnants reformulated into nativist groups of the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    “So why did immigration restriction of Europeans become relevant again starting in the late 19th and early 20th century?”

    Because of a next round of immigration, with nativists making sweeping generalizations that most Russians, Italians, and Jews were dangerous radicals hell-bent on destroying American institutions and replacing them with their own institutions.

    “That is *your own source* telling you that O’Connell’s strong and uncompromising rhetoric against slavery before the Civil War was ineffective among Irish-Americans.”

    Among the newly arriving Irish in the 1840’s and 1850’s, yes. While native-born Catholics and immigrant Catholics were generally pro-slavery, there had been a significant group of Catholics, at the behest of papal proclamations as I noted, which opposed slavery. Their efforts failed to make traction with the newly arriving Catholics, who were subjected to intensifying nativist rhetoric and actions. The Know-Nothings and their advocates considered Catholic immigrants a dangerous political and social rival to their institutions, with an underlying fear that their principles and ideals would be replaced unless drastic measures were implemented. While the Know-Nothing Party disintegrated in large part over a deep split over the issue of slavery, their sentiments remained in the consciousness of “true” and “real” Americans, who were once again rallied to the forefront when dangerous newcomers, chiefly Italians, Slavs, Poles, and Jews, began to “invade” our shores in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    “No, but they’re the ones who made it work and prosper. And we have no idea what replacing them will bring, but so far it’s off to a rocky start.”

    Actually, all immigrants, as well as those forced to “pick cotton”, have made it work and prosper.

    “Replace the historical demographic bedrock of Englishmen with Haitians or Mestizos or even the Spaniards, and this country is not nearly as great.”

    You’re entitled to your own opinion. Pray tell, weren’t your own ancestors non-English, and were deemed “inferior” and “incapable” of assimilation by nativists? So, again I asked, what changed, “magic dirt”? Perhaps the irony and hypocrisy escapes you...

    Feel free to have the last word, if you may. I am moving on from this conversation, as I have made my points known—which you disagree—and it seems we are at loggerheads.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    “Grass roots” Federalist supporters clearly understood the ramifications of immigration policies. Although Alexander Hamilton was himself an immigrant, he was adamantly opposed immigration. Although the incoming president had once opposed unlimited immigration, Jefferson viewed it as a way to secure the future replacement of the Federalists.

    You’ve shown no evidence “grass roots Federalist supporters” understood the import of immigration. You’ve quoted a couple of *elite* Federalists. That proves nothing about how the issue played among the demos.

    In any case, the point is moot. Whatever Jefferson or Hamilton’s feelings on immigration, the issue ceased to matter once Jefferson took office. Immigration for all intents and purposes essentially stopped.

    The Federalist “fear of the other” was based on the views of their supporters, whether it the elites or common folk, that should increasing numbers of their political rivals gain traction, their way of life would be replaced.

    You’re just playing definitional games because you’ve lost the argument. Demographic replacement, which is real, usually permanent and has happened often in both prehistory and history, is not the same as losing a political battle over immigration.

    The Federalists lost not because they were replaced, but because the Democratic-Republicans beat them politically. Indeed, Jefferson as president adopted many Federalist ideas. Immigration was not among them, but even on that issue the ghost of the Federalist Party won out over the next several decades because events in Europe caused immigration to the U.S. to slow to a trickle.

    No, you are dead wrong here. Political cartoons of the time period demonstrate how various ethnicities were viewed as a “biological pecking order”.

    We were discussing the Know Nothings, a political party that targeted the Catholic immigration of the 1840s and 1850s, and you refer to a cartoon of the 1880s as your proof that they were motivated by “inherent inferiority”?

    You do realize, I hope, that the 1880s was not the 1850s. You do realize that the Know Nothings were an anti-slavery party whose members were eventually swallowed up by the new Republican Party. You do realize that *biological* arguments about racial pecking orders were an artifact of the late nineteenth century more than the early nineteenth century for the simple reason that Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871), and Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Biology (1864), which coined the popular term “the survival of the fittest,” took time to filter out to the broader informed American public.

    But before the American public became aware of those pseudo-biological arguments in the second half of the 19th century, almost all arguments made about slavery in the American public debate were theological, not biological. Preachers and priests made them, not biologists and anthropologists. A Catholic was not considered “inherently inferior.” His creed was considered morally lacking, a relic of an unenlightened time. Similarly, Catholics did not believe Protestant abolitionists “inherently inferior.” They considered them dangerously radical and naive.

    In the new Irish exiles of the 1840’s, Protestants in general saw a papal plot at work. According to “Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia”, they feared the pope and his army would land in the United States, overthrow the government, establish a new Vatican, and impose the Catholic canon as the law of the land. Protestants viewed Irish Catholics as inhumane and unrefined brutes. Magazines such as Punch portrayed the Irish as having “bestial, ape-like or demonic features and the Irishman, was invariably given a long or prognathous jaw, the stigmata to the phrenologists of a lower evolutionary order, degeneracy, or criminality”, which clearly indicates biological underpinnings for their reaction. When Social Darwinisitic principles took root in the U.S. by the 1880’s, past justifications of “savage peoples” became even more pronounced.

    Not against Catholics they didn’t. The rhetoric against Catholics in the early 1850s was much more pronounced and politically successful than it was in the 1880s. When the Republicans ran against Grover Cleveland in 1884 as the candidate of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” they lost. Cleveland made sure the public knew about the anti-Catholic slur. He publicized it. It cost the Republicans New York state by a thin margin – and the presidential election with it.

    You keep bouncing around from one argument to the next, from one time period to the next, without the slightest consideration for historical accuracy. The idea that American protestants disliked Catholics because they were considered biologically inferior is just pure silliness.

    Because one issue dominated the minds of voters at that time [1840s and 1850s]—immigration. No different than in other eras, where voters who may be diametrically opposed to other planks of a political party, but one plank resonates with them.

    Except that the issue which really dominated the minds of the era was slavery. There wasn’t even a close second. Sectional discord over the issue of slavery was _the_ issue at the time.

    YOU made that suggestion, not I.

    You made it.

    If you claim that the Know Nothings’ platform was extremely radical for their time, and yet they were able to win dozens of state and federal elective offices, then you are suggesting that the main plank of the party – immigration restriction – was even more popular an issue than the political success of the Know Nothings indicated.

    In other words, absent those “radical” ideas, the Know Nothings would’ve been even more politically successful than they were.

    It is more than just “direct quotes”. Rather, it is the overall actions taken by Know-Nothings that set the stage for various periods in our history regarding replacement rhetoric.

    You can’t infer a particular motive from a broad action that could have a dozen or more motives unless you find a lot of evidence of that particular motive.

    The next round was from 1890-1920, when Eastern-Southern Europeans arrived in great numbers.

    By the early 1870s, immigration had returned to the levels of the 1850s. There was an interruption caused by the Civil War, but not a cycle.

    Despite the quick return of Catholic immigrants to the U.S., the Know Nothings (or some similar anti-Catholic political party) did not make a quick return. That’s because the problem of slavery had been solved.

    Yet, their remnants reformulated into nativist groups of the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    They didn’t reformulate. Anti-Catholic bias remained prevalent in American society, but it ceased to have political resonance because there was no issue like slavery to give it resonance. Only with the rise of radical political ideologies did immigration restriction return to American politics, but this time it was focused on political extremism, not Catholics.

    Because of a next round of immigration, with nativists making sweeping generalizations that most Russians, Italians, and Jews were dangerous radicals hell-bent on destroying American institutions and replacing them with their own institutions.

    The generalizations were accurate, just as is the generalization today that blacks commit far more murders than whites.

    Obviously, it’s not as if every black commit murder or, say, every Jew was an anarchist, but when looking at large communities (or mass immigration) of these populations, the differential impact is profound.

    Among the newly arriving Irish in the 1840’s and 1850’s, yes. While native-born Catholics and immigrant Catholics were generally pro-slavery, there had been a significant group of Catholics, at the behest of papal proclamations as I noted, which opposed slavery. Their efforts failed to make traction with the newly arriving Catholics, who were subjected to intensifying nativist rhetoric and actions.

    Nope. The abolitionists made some efforts to crack the Slave Power’s hold on Catholic immigrants. In your article on Daniel O’Connell, the work of William Lloyd Garrison was noted. Garrison worked with O’Connell to change the minds of Irish-Americans supporting the Democratic Party, but to no avail.

    The Know-Nothings and their advocates considered Catholic immigrants a dangerous political and social rival to their institutions, with an underlying fear that their principles and ideals would be replaced unless drastic measures were implemented.

    There was some of that, but without slavery it wouldn’t that mattered.

    You seem to believe that anti-Catholic bias before the Civil War was just some low-brow sentiment among nativists. There was definitely that element. But many of America’s most refined intellectuals and deeply educated men were strongly anti-Catholic at the time because they cared so passionately about ending slavery and they saw (correctly) Catholics as a hindrance to that aim.

    I mentioned a few of them before. Here are some new names: Ralph Waldo Emerson, the Catholic convert and intellectual Orestes Brownson, and Theodore Parker.

    After the war was over, that high-brow element disappeared from anti-Catholicism in America.

    Brownson’s case is interesting in that he was a Yankee convert to Catholicism.

    Crucially, Brownson’s changing religious stance moved in tandem with his views on political and moral questions. Early in his career Brownson had declared his distaste for slavery, but he attacked abolitionists with greater vigor. In 1845 he described abolitionism as destructive “of the state, of government, of religious institutions, of all social organizations, and of all law but the law of every man unto himself.”32

    Into the 1850s Brownson defended the fugitive slave law requiring northerners to return escaped slaves to their owners—“That law is constitutional, and the Constitution authorizes nothing repugnant to the Divine law”—and he allowed a Boston priest writing for Brownson’s Quarterly Review to contrast favorably the plight of American slaves with that of Hungarian peasants.33

    But as with more strictly religious questions, Brownson’s tone shifted. In the late 1850s he continued to caution against immediate emancipation, but he insisted that southern aggressiveness on the slavery question had become the real problem. “[S]lavery,” he concluded, “is regarded by the civilized world as an odious institution.”34 The majority opinion in the 1857 Dred Scott decision, theoretically permitting slavery in the northern states, appalled him.35

    Many Catholic readers found Brownson’s new sympathy for antislavery positions inexplicable. A Baltimore Catholic journal expressed surprise that “so eminent a controversialist as Dr. Brownson” would align himself with abolitionists who “pronounce the opinion of the Court in Dred Scott to be flat ‘Popery.’”36 Brownson explained to Montalembert, “I have nothing encouraging to write you of my own country. I am under a cloud now because I refuse to defend slavery as a natural right, and have received also my ‘warning’ from a portion of the Catholic public.” Brownson signed the letter, “Yours in the cause of liberty.”37

    So even when a U.S. Catholic intellectual tentatively made cause with abolition before the Civil War, he was vilified by his Catholic readers.

    Actually, all immigrants, as well as those forced to “pick cotton”, have made it work and prosper.

    Nope. Picking cotton can be done in despotism. Building a free and prosperous country out of the roots of despotism is a real accomplishment.

    You’re entitled to your own opinion. Pray tell, weren’t your own ancestors non-English, and were deemed “inferior” and “incapable” of assimilation by nativists?

    This is your own lurid fantasy of oppression that you have created. It didn’t exist.

    Feel free to have the last word, if you may. I am moving on from this conversation, as I have made my points known—which you disagree—and it seems we are at loggerheads.

    Thanks for the debate. It’s been fun.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives