* I read Trump started playing Born in the USA at his rallies to troll Ted Cruz.
Guessing Nikki Haley’s speech weakens Cruz a tad in Iowa.
* It does seem that something interesting is happening in that whites are belatedly entering the identity politics game, albeit in less than explicit terms. Patriotism and American boosterism has for decades been associated as a proxy for core America, which is white. The Obama coalition is fairly obviously constituted of disparate groups united in their opposition to core America, and the provocations have finally become too much to bear. (But were I a Leftist I would be surprised that we had gotten away with so much for so long.) The value of Trump to date seems to have been his ability to break the spell of the Cathedral by sheer force of personality.
* A state is just a family writ large. It is a group of people banding together to protect their interests in a hostile world. While a state may become pathological (even as there are families that are little more than criminal gangs), for now a state is the only known way that people of different families and classes and even ethnic backgrounds can feel like they are on the same team and make sacrifices for the common good.
Tear down the state, and you don’t get nirvana. You get people dividing up by race and family, because if the state does not provide a focus for people’s desire to be part of a larger team, people will find something else to replace it.
We know what the alternative to a state is. It is feudalism and warlordism. It’s really what the current fetish of our elites for tearing down national borders is all about. When the population is a vast impoverished mass of people who are divided by tribe and family, the elites can play divide and conquer, and get abundant cheap labor. Of course a centralized state cannot long survive such a condition, and so things tend to fall apart. But if you are wealthy person this could be very nice – you own all the land on your feudal estate, people work for you for cheap or starve, your word is law because you own everything. Ultimately feudalism is the neoliberal/libertarian dream, and right now that’s where we are headed.
* Perhaps Europe should not have admitted thousands of young, poor, uneducated men who have a special word in their language for gang-raping women in public festivals.
* As the State becomes increasingly corrupt and bankrupt and incapable of providing a civil order, people of necessity will turn to other institutions. The “best and brightest” are no longer going into government; it’s the career choice for mediocrities willing to be cyphers for the real powers that be. I would prefer the most charismatic and accomplished among us belonging to the political elite instead of the current apparatchiks. I consider Trump a healthy phenomenon.
* As the old saying goes ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’. As Germany is the only mass population EU state that is actually solvent – itself a testimony to the reality of the nation state and the importance of shared ethny and shared cultural tradition in crafting a nation with that particular characteristic, as opposed to a geographical space that cannot deliver this outcome – Germany, or its embodiment, Angela Merkel, unfortunately, effectively single handedly runs the 500+ strong EU, never mind the democratically elected national governments or indeed non German Europeans.
The irony is that just a few years back the EU was sold as a device for ‘reining-in’ or ‘containing’ a Germany of two world wars – and 1870 France humiliating notoriety. Now, exactly the opposite has happened. The Bismarckian zollverein has its ultimate expression in the EU.
Curiously, both England and France are as silent as lambs.
England simply just doesn’t want to get involved, well at least it’s not going to get anytime soon a locust load of Schengen ‘migrant’ wogs.
France, strangely, has entered full-milquetoast backseat mode.
* There won’t be a Microsoft Army as the US Military attracts people who are genuinely patriotic, particularly in the tip of the spear, fighting units, and very much of the Spec Ops people. You cannot get people to storm ashore at Tarawa or Iwo Jima with half their buddies dead, floating in the water, by money alone.
While some things have remained the same, the face of modern warfare requires both enormous technical skill and tremendous courage, if anything courage greater than that required during the sword/spear era. The number of ways to die horribly has multiplied beyond belief.
SMALL numbers of mercenaries may be attracted to a corporate setting, but no one wants to die for say, the current (foreign born, Indian) manager of Microsoft. Even less so for Pepsi, Coke, or the anti-charismatic Zuckerberg. Equipping a major military able to project real power even within the US let alone outside it with a logistical chain and all that force is entirely a different order. One that requires a Nation State and the sacrifice that entails.
Far more likely is a revolt among the military by lower ranking combat-experienced officers against the PC driven Pentagon and Joint Chiefs; if pushed too far and too hard. Bradley Mannings are not too formidable in combat.
Re the woman unfortunately murdered in Italy, it was reported that she picked up the Senegalese man in a bar and had consensual sex with him at her apartment. Which fits the Heartiste theory and also Satoshi Kanazawa’s that women, and particularly young women, support massive Immavasion far more than men. White men LOSE in immavasion, lose spectacularly unless they are George Clooney level of wealth, power, fame. Perhaps also Zuckerberg. White women — they win. Kanazawa noted that female support for immavasion dropped off dramatically with the onset of menopause. The support just dropped off a cliff. When White older women figure out that at the most they’ll be washerwomen and the like to immavaders, they suddenly find little to like for immavasion.
But let no one be deceived — most women support Immavasion whole heartedly, the reason being as the unfortunate woman in Italy found out, sex. Which has a downside obviously but women are all about the tingles, as they figure wealth, security, and the like just “happen” by magic dirt. Infantilizing women has had serious consequences — women are not innately incapable of making smart decisions but leaving it to only the smartest and luckiest is a recipe for their own personal disaster and that of the wider society. Its too late when they are either victims or past menopause.
Point being that support for ERASING the nation state is highly focused on women, and to preserve the nation state women’s support must be addressed: White men MUST become nuclear level uncaring jerky a-holes with charisma and threatening violence under the surface; White women must have economic and security knocked out from under them — female dominated professions and occupations must be eviscerated so that beta male support is required not a unnecessary annoyance. White men have to up their game to brutal levels because that is the competition, and White women have to be fearful economically and for their safetey, needing not a pajama boy but a White man not only ready to fight but with a network of friends; the nation state is essentially dead and must be rebuilt from the ground up; on the basis of male-female relationships one couple at a time.
The alternative is a dead, pretty mid thirties blonde artist murdered by the African man she picked up for sex after an argument with her boyfriend. A failure on all counts for society.
* Right, ultimately states, including nation-states, evolved for and from war. Not to serve the interests of their residents, let alone to promote their liberty or give meaning to their lives.
In other words, Douthat has it exactly backwards. Nation-states evolved to become “guarantors of public order and personal liberty, as sources of meaning and memory and solidarity, as engines of common purpose in the service of the common good,” in order to become more effective war making machines, not as ends in themselves.
With the decline of traditional military rivalry and conflict between the major conventional nation-states in the postwar period, the pressure has decreased and the major nation-states have come to look less at other nation-states as their primary threats and have turned to their own citizens, transnational groups, non-state actors, etc. as chief threats.
If an environment of traditional military rivalry and conflict still prevailed among the major nation-states, and the states needed highly disciplined and effective societies with millions of people willing to sacrifice themselves in conventional wars, then states would be far more prudent about letting the traditional methods, institutions, policies, forms of the nation-state from dissolving.
* Whatever else the Donald Trumps, Nigel Farages and Marine Le Pens (and others) have achieved is the beginning — but only the beginning — of a debate on immigration.
Previously, this subject was beyond the pale.
I’m still very cautious about all this. We still haven’t won a single significant victory on this issue and even assuming Trump gets into office — a big if — unlike Farage and Le Pen (and others), I wouldn’t be surprised if he walks back his positions.
Still, at least the cracks are beginning to appear.
* For better or worse, while the white race may be a biological reality, it never has been the primary loyalty/identity group for white people. At least recently, its most bitter wars have been amongst its members. And there aren’t many examples of the “white race” acting together on something.
It is a weak, secondary affiliation at most among the majority of its members. And there aren’t a lot of examples of any race where its members have that as their primary loyalty/affiliation.
East asians are thought of by the crowd here as more tribal than whites. Not a lot of examples of the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese working together. To the extent people people will work together collectively on their kinship, the evidence seems to say that the broadest basis is an ethnic group within a race.
A race is just too diffuse and it does make sense that as relatedness decreases, people feel less relatedness. Your nuclear family inspires the most loyalty, cousins less, but more than 2d cousins, etc. Just not a lot of examples of an entire race consistently acting together because of the conscious identification as members of such.
So for starters, you guys are asking people to sign up for a club the majority have no interest in joining. Actually, you guys aren’t asking, you are proposing forcing this club upon people by using government policy. But at the same time, we see the government becoming increasingly incompetent.
A policy the majority doesn’t seek forced upon them by increasingly hapless organizations? What are the odds of that? Might as well wish for the tooth fairy, it really is just not going to happen. Whether this is Right or Wrong doesn’t even make a difference. You guys need to go back to the drawing board – you’ve got nearly every bit of evidence clearly indicating government mandated racial identification or govenment enforced racial purity is not going to happen and no explanation for how it is going to, against all that evidence, happen now other than, oh, a miracle. That is some awakening as a reaction to upon some finally intolerable events or series of events that has never happened before.
Magical thinking in my view, but that is just my opinion..
However, I truly am interested in hearing how this pan-white solidarity is going to happen, some detailed prospectus. Call it trolling if you will, but if you expect to win people over, seems like a reasonable thing to be able to explain convincingly.
* Nationalism + Humanism (Ataturk’s Turkey) > Imperialism + Chauvinism (Nazism or Japanese militarism)
Nationalism + Humanism (DeGaulle’s France) > Globalism + Narcissism (Zio-Homo-American world domination)
* The prevalence of pirated movies and songs indicates that many people don’t believe in intellectual property rights. These consumers are acting at the individual level so they’re hard to police, but what happens when organized entities, like TV stations, begin airing pirated material? This is when laws and institutions are brought to bear upon the renegade TV stations, or internet sites which aim to profit by streaming pirated movies. What happens to those government institutions if society adopts the position that there is no such thing as intellectual property?
A lot of folks who’ve done well for themselves have done so because of the culture and institutions created by European-derived peoples. What happens to the fabric of society as society is changed by the values of 3rd World immigrants? America has done well because it drew people from Europe and those left behind in Europe also built fine societies for themselves. Now we’re drawing human capital from Somalia but what have Somalis done for themselves in Somalia? America never had Magic Dirt. It was the people who built the nation and informed the institutions and mores of society which allowed us to prosper, just as relatives of those people built up Europe and other relatives built up Australia and Canada and, for Pete’s Sakes, New Zealand too, a speck of land far removed from everywhere.
There was no need for white identity when everyone that counted was white. In a white society the Democrats and Republicans sorted themselves by class and by policy ideas. In a multicultural society the Democrats have assembled the coalition of Non-Whites and the marginalized and the Republicans have responded by doing nothing, just as you noted, not looking to white identity all the while allowing the Democrats to embed their racial spoils system deeper into the fabric of society. Look at how Affirmative Action always plays out – gains for Asians, blacks, Hispanics, Jews have to come at some other group’s expense, it’s a zer0-sum game, and we never hear about Hispanics arguing that their share of university enrollment should be taken from blacks or Asians. Same with the Jews back in the day, they were already over-represented but wanted more. These groups are organized along racial/ethnic lines and so they can be successful against groups who are not organized – all gains for increased minority representation come at the expense of whites who are not organized and this leads to whites being the most under-represented group on Ivy League campuses.
Take the above dynamic and apply it across society. Look at the new SC decision on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing – forced integration if your neighborhood is too white but not the reverse, government isn’t being used to diversify neighborhoods which are too black.
What boils out from your analysis is this question – Is the past prologue? In the past whites didn’t form organizations based on white identity so does that mean that they never will? I suspect that this can’t hold for we’re living in an environment where “All Against White” is a dominant dynamic and the pressure is only going to increase as we move forward. I’ve long expected some pushback and the Trump phenomena seems to be an early response due to his claims about Mexicans and Muslims and the support he’s receiving for those statements.
Look at the Affirmative Action battle in California. Asians stand together against blacks and Hispanics and work to thwart the move to repeal AA prohibitions, likely because they sense that there aren’t enough whites to use as targets to keep the blacks and Hispanics happy and that for blacks and Hispanics to gain there will have to be curtailment of Asian admissions.
* I look at the response to the Fair Housing decision and white people seem to be pretty troubled at the prospect of forced integration, following the same playbook that arose during the School Busing era. In an environment where people can exercise their freedoms, meaning that they can choose to isolate themselves, then they can disavow organized group identity and rely on informal, self-selected and never acknowledged, group environment, hence the expensive white neighborhoods, the good schools, the good work places, etc but once other, organized, groups begin to use government to force their presence on you and by using government getting you to pay for this tactic, then there is no place left to run to. In one online discussion a black correspondent outright declared to me that he desired a society where white flight was made illegal and he didn’t want whites to have the freedom to escape from him. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” is just such a tool. If your neighborhood is too white, then you will be forced to accept glorious diversity and be made to pay for it too. Another tool is Disparate Impact legal doctrine, look at how CA schools must mete out discipline with a conscious eye on racial results – racial parity is more important than an orderly classroom environment and once freedom of association is more thoroughly gutted you will have no safe refuge from this battle.
At that point do you still contend that the majority of whites are still going to disavow an organized white identity?
* I do not recall the Italian immigrants bringing with them customs like Female Genital Mutilation: the Schwarz article referenced above claims that 42,000 — forty two thousand — Britons of Muslim heritage have had that procedure performed — illegally.
And, yes, there are also customs like polygamy, honor killings, and righteous terrorism to consider.
One reason why Italians were able to integrate rapidly is because they were Catholics; that is why there are so many Italian-Irish-Polish-German marriages. Secularism is also a point to consider, since that is what has made possible the 50% intermarriage rate of Jews and non-Jews in recent decades.
So the first question to consider is: Are all these immigrants going to marry out, because unless that happens then you really do have a problem with assimilation. According to Schwarz, the intermarriage rate of South Asians and Muslims in Britain is very low: even after generations.
I would agree that the assimilation of Latins is different; my experience with them is that their culture is very compatible with ours, in fact, from my Latin acquaintances I get the impression that they have a much more traditional view of gender roles and things like honor and responsibility that we find in much of America today. As an old white guy I am grateful.
However, the bigger question is how many and what they are going to immigrate for. Everyone knows that the lack of well paying, family supporting jobs in this country is chronic. Everyone also knows that a lot of people — natives and recent immigrants, legal and illegal — are dependent on that welfare teat. It seems to me that limiting, and enforcing, immigration restrictions is simply prudent.
I personally don’t have any problems with Muslims but if a Muslim comes here he or she has to understand that there’s an expectation that their grandchildren or great grandchildren will be as nominally religious and blended in as everyone else. If they cannot accept that, they shouldn’t come.
