Tag: decline and fall

The rise of the white tribe

David Marcus is about a decade too late, but his observation that the Left and the various non-white American tribes have created a growing white tribal consciousness is correct, even though he foolishly laments it rather than celebrates it:

White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more. This is a remarkably bad idea. The last thing our society needs is for white people to feel more tribal. The result of this tribalism will not be a catharsis of white identity, improving equality for non-whites. It will be resentment towards being the only tribe not given the special treatment bestowed by victimhood.

A big part of the reason white Americans have been willing to go along with policies that are prejudicial on their face, such as affirmative action, is that they do not view themselves as a tribe. Given the inequality of resources favoring whites in our society, it is a good thing that white people view themselves as the ones without an accent. Should that change, white privilege (whatever one views that to be) will not be eviscerated—it will be entrenched.

All of this comes at a time when the last immigrants from the great wave of white immigration from 1850-1920 have died off. In the past, most whites identified with their European ethnicity: Irish, Italian, German, etc. As white people gravitate away from such identities, many see themselves as a neutral, “non racial” population. The Left criticizes this refusal to see themselves as “white,” but it is far preferable to the alternative: an American white population that views itself as a special-interest group.

There is no “white nationalism” in Europe. The EU was an attempt to create a merely continental consciousness – as opposed to the white racial consciousness of the white nationalists – and it has utterly failed. The various European nationalists consider each other allies against the continental globalists and the Arab and African invaders, of course, but there is no confusing the Soldiers of Odin with UKIP or La Lega Nord. Italian nationalism is very different than German or Swedish nationalism.

However, due to the replacement of European identities with a generic American one, combined with the anti-white tribalism of the blacks, Asians, Jews, Mexicans, and other self-identified tribes, a white tribal consciousness has been created. It falls well short of nationalism per se, but it has strong historical roots, as in fact, no other tribe has any historical claim to call itself American.

Let me repeat that: with two partial exceptions, American Indians belonging to Federally-recognized tribes and black slaves, no non-white tribe has any historical claim to be American. Americans are white, and this is a long-established matter of historical and legal record.

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character.

Moreover, this remained the rule of American citizenship for more than half of the country’s history. As the Supreme Court unanimously declared in 1922 in TAKAO OZAWA v. United States, to be American was to be white.

In all of the naturalization acts from 1790 to 1906 the privilege of naturalization was confined to white persons [260 U.S. 178, 193], although the exact wording of the various statutes was not always the same. If Congress in 1906 desired to alter a rule so well and so long established it may be assumed that its purpose would have been definitely disclosed and its legislation to that end put in unmistakable terms….

If it be assumed that the opinion of the framers was that the only persons who would fall outside the designation ‘white’ were Negroes and Indians, this would go no farther than to demonstrate their lack of sufficient information to enable them to foresee precisely who would be excluded by that term in the subsequent administration of the statute. It is not important in construing their words to consider the extent of their ethnological knowledge or whether they thought that under the statute the only persons who would be denied naturalization would be Negroes and Indians. It is sufficient to ascertain whom they intended to include and having ascertained that it follows, as a necessary corollary, that all others are to be excluded.

Now, you can argue “progress” and “things have changed” and “dual nationalities” and so forth. But that way lies incoherence and madness, to say nothing of the obvious fact that what has changed can be changed again. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are not white, your nationality is not American and you are not part of the posterity for whom the Constitution was written. (Of course, if you are a white immigrant, or descendant of immigrants, you are not part of that posterity either.)

You may be a United States citizen, you may be a resident of the United States, and you may be part-American in the sense that many individuals are part-German or part-Dutch, but you are not an American in any legitimate sense of the word, regardless of what ideas and ideals and propositions you happen to hold in your heart at the moment.

You may now commence the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. Do try to keep two things in mind. First, your argument is not with me, it is with history. The facts are what they are. It’s not my problem if you find them uncomfortable. Second, yes, I recognize that I am only part-American and I have absolutely no problem with that.

Tribalism begets tribalism. The rise of white nationalism, and eventually, white separatism, became inevitable once the minority population of the United States rose beyond a modest level. Once whites realize they have become a minority, they will rapidly become every bit as tribal as every other minority competing for wealth and political power. But neither white nationalism nor white separatism are synonymous with white supremacism, and anyone who attempts to equate the former two with the latter is, at best disingenuous.

“When Jethro Exposed the Simulation”

Now THAT was unexpected. Roosh demonstrates a hitherto unsuspected talent for writing science fiction:

“Remember when you spawned Hitler?” Fodos asked.

“Remember?” Ghartek replied. “That was the highlight of my career! But it almost crashed the simulation.”

“What I loved about it is how you weaved Biblical themes into Hitler’s actions. It really scared the Jews.”

“Wait until we give Israel to Iran in the next update. The Persian empire must rise again!” Fodos laughed.

“Hey watch this,” Ghartek said, “I’m going to mess with this guy by vanishing his orange toothbrush.” Ghartek made a couple clicks on his display and then somewhere in Siberia, a man couldn’t find his toothbrush, no matter where he looked.

“He’s checking the door to see if someone came in to steal it.” Ghartek smirked, pleased at his work.

Both Fodos and Ghartek were senior programmers on Bethlabus, a planet where a race of hyper-intelligent species called Homo futurans lived. They shared human genetic ancestry with those living in a simulation that they controlled, though technically the connection was only virtual. Real Homo sapiens died out long ago, following in the footsteps of their Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis ancestors. Futurans created the simulation to better understand their roots and their future, with a goal to prevent their own extinction. The simulation itself was housed on a quantum computer the size of a city block.

While there were dozens of simulations in operation, Simulation Earth was the most interesting. Not only was it the longest, spanning over 5 billion years, but it seemed to mirror what Futurans knew about their own past of spurts and stops in evolution that seemed to be a microcosm of the rise and fall of human empires. Data from the simulation was continually analyzed with reports presented yearly to the public through academic papers and conferences. “If we understand our past, we will safeguard our future,” the motto went.

The most important fact they learned from the simulations is the universal difficulty of intelligent organisms to properly foresee and plan again long-term disasters.  Once a species gets too technologically advanced, their over-confidence in problem solving and fixing the environment actually accelerates their demise instead of retarding it.

Read the whole thing there. It’s better, and more genuinely science fiction, than anything that won a Nebula Award last week.

Spengler abjures neoconnery

Apparently the neocons are about to learn that they were just another short-term vessel for the Israel First, Last, and Always activists; as David Goldberg not only disavows neoconservatism, but also Bill Kristol.

No one in the conservative Commentariat has beaten up on poor Bill Kristol more than I during the past dozen years. I read David Horowitz’ excoriation of Kristol as a “renegade Jew” with chagrin; I respect David Horowitz  — and have spoken at his conferences on several occasions — and I reviewed admiringly his book A Point in Time.

But his choice of words was churlish. Kristol devotes considerable time to Jewish causes and genuinely identifies as a Jew, although his level of religious observance is low (as is David’s). Kristol certainly doesn’t think that he has reneged on his Jewish identity. But he is so absorbed in the cultish self-adoration of the neo-conservative clique, and so insecure about the perception of his manifold policy blunders (for example, his naive endorsement of the Arab Spring as near-equivalent to the American Founding), that his judgment of late has been dreadful. His third-party proposal will go nowhere.

Kristol makes the mistake of thinking that he still matters. The neo-conservatives enforced party discipline in the media and foundations they control with the same inquisitorial zeal that the Left applies to the persecution of conservatives at American universities. They crushed dissent ruthlessly, and declared anathema upon anyone who questioned them.

Now the American people have vomited them out. No candidate who took ownership of the Bush Freedom Agenda got past first base in the Republican primaries.

He’s right to say that Kristol’s sore loser third-party talk will go nowhere. Rupert Murdoch, Sheldon Adelson, and Reince Priebus have made it clear that despite their reservations about him, Donald Trump will be the uncontested representative of the Red Faction. However, despite his endorsement of Donald Trump in preference to Hillary Clinton, Goldberg clearly can’t be trusted to give a damn about Americans or the American national interest.

In addition to floating a trial balloon about the possibility of the Learned Elders of Wye jumping for what he, and they, have proposed as the safe harbor of China from the future wreckage of the USA, Spengler makes it very clear why he prefers Trump to Clinton.

  1. The Clintons are a criminal enterprise
  2. “Trump is more pro-Israel, and that’s a key issue for me.”

You don’t say. Goldberg appears to be getting increasingly delusional of late, as his explanation of why that’s a key issue for him.

“Israel is not only America’s key ally in a dodgy part of the world, but the cornerstone on which the edifice of the American republic was founded in the first place. In a July 2015 essay for the Jewish media, I asked, “Will Israel Save America?” The destiny of Americans — the “almost chosen people,” in Lincoln’s words — is bound up with the destiny of Israel.”

Fascinating, is it not? Goldberg would have us believe that the United States was NOT founded as a Christian, Anglo-American nation on the basis of the Rights of Englishmen, but was instead a proposition republic founded on the cornerstone of Israel. Still think this lunatic has ANY interest whatsoever in anything you recognize as your country, or even Western civilization?

It reminds me of an old Greek saying: whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

It isn’t only Kristol who has made the mistake of thinking he still matters. It is clear that the Alt Right, with its total lack of interest in granting even a modicum of respectability to Holocaustianity and cuckservatism, is driving Israel Firsters like Kristol and Goldberg and Shapiro around the bend. They simply don’t know what to do when pointing-and-shrieking “ANTI-SEMITE” and “Muh Holocaust” and “my granddaddy couldn’t join the golf club” is met with a totally indifferent shrug. We don’t care. Not even a little bit. The existential crisis of the nation is a considerably more important matter than the dramatic histrionics of a lesser minority.

Now, the United States should maintain friendly relations with Israel; it behooves any country to be on the best terms it can be with a nuclear power. And Israel would be a very useful ally in the great clash of Christian and Islamic civilizations, or it least it will be if it ever stops trying to convince, persuade and manipulate Americans into fighting its wars for it, as it should for both its own sake and America’s.

But Israel is not the cornerstone of America and its national priorities are neither primary, secondary, nor even tertiary for Americans.

Nevertheless, Goldberg’s dismissive condemnation of neoconservatism and his recognition that it no longer has any hold on Americans is a welcome indication that things have truly changed, and that Fukuyama’s insane neo-Marxian vision of the worker’s paradise as liberal representative democracy is dead.

Nobody cares anymore

Much to its horror, the GOP establishment has realized that the American people no longer give a quantum of a damn about the conventional political narratives:

In a shocking moment of clarity, that should also send shivers up the spine of the Democratic party, Republican chairman (and implicity voice of ‘the establishment’) Reince Priebus admitted on various Sunday talk-shows that campaign traditions don’t apply to the so-called Teflon Don noting that “the public just wasn’t interested” in his taxes or the various ‘stories’ that the Deep State is throwing at him. “I don’t think the traditional playbook applies.. We’ve been down this road for a year. And it doesn’t apply,” Priebus exclaimed, and why the Clinton campaign is likely scrambling, “He’s rewritten the playbook.”

Summing up the reality of the current situation – with attacks coming at presumotive GOP nominee Trump from all sides – NBC News reports that Priebus said…

“I’ve got to tell you, I think that all these stories that come out – and they come out every couple weeks – people just don’t care.”

TL;DR: Trump, because fuck you!

We really don’t care about his myriad flaws. If Trump stripped naked in front of television cameras at the Washington monument, did a little pole dance, confessed to a daily cocaine-and-call-girl habit, then promised to put every Congressman and Senator on trial, he’d gain five points in the polls. Maybe ten.

We have watched the twin establishments of the bifactional ruling party methodically dismantle everything that the United States of America used to be for the last 24 years or more. They gave us Clinton, then Bush the Younger, and then the parody that is Soetoro/Obama. They could be selling the cure for cancer with one free Victoria’s Secret model in every box and the American public still wouldn’t buy it.

If all Donald Trump does is build a big beautiful wall and start sending Mexicans and Muslims back home, we don’t care if he gilds the White House, puts his logo on it, and turns it into a combination strip joint and head shop.

The country left him

Fred Reed observes that what passes for the United States of America today is not the country he knew:

Mail arrives in my inbox all the time, telling me that by going to Mexico I have sold out, fled, abandoned the United States. I’m a coward and a traitor, just like Lord Haw Haw, and Kim Philby, and probably hate America more than Barack Obama does.

It is is irrational. They think that just because I went to Mexico, I left the US. They don’t understand. I didn’t leave the United States. It left me. It was a bait-and-switch operation. I signed on to one country, and they slipped another in under me….

Now, I used to be fond of the United States. Granted, I wasn’t much
of a patriot. The word nowadays seems to mean one who doesn’t so much
love his country as to dislike other people’s. I figured live and let
live. A lot of other countries struck me as fine places. But America was
my favorite. It just suited me. I liked the people in their wild
variety and the countryside and the music and the brash independence. It
wasn’t perfect. Still, given the sorry baseline for comportment in
human agglomerations, it was about as good as you could get.

I’m still fond of the United States. I just can’t find it.

Change the people, change the nation. That’s the real proposition. The irony, of course, is that the addition of all those people “yearning to breathe free” have turned the USA into a place that is considerably less free than many other countries. The extent to which this has taken place, and the way it was accomplished, is documented in some detail here.

The United States of America is now a triple misnomer. It is not united, the Several States are no longer sovereign states, and genuine Americans are now a minority. It should be no surprise that the country – it cannot be reasonably described as a nation – is no longer recognizable to an oldtimer like Fred.

I seldom get harassed in this way, probably because my story is pretty straightforward. I warned nearly everyone around me for nearly a decade about what was happening to no avail, and was frequently told that if I didn’t like it, I should just leave. So I did.

And nothing I have seen in the 20 years since has made me regret that decision.

Immigration, feminism, and dyscivilization

Stefan Molyneux mentioned some telling statistics concerning the timing of the rapid increase in illegitimate births. This chart shows the percentage of illegitimate births, which have risen by an order of magnitude, from 4 percent in the 1940s and 1950s to 41 percent in 2010.

Notice the giant leap between 1960 and 1970. This cannot be entirely the result of feminism, but is likely a combination of a) the War on Poverty, b) the 1965 Immigration reform act, and c) feminism. The rise in illegitimacy is closely correlated with the changing racial demographics.

 
It is worth noting that the great brown hope of the equalitarians, mixed-race children, tend to be illegitimate and grow up without fathers. That isn’t exactly a sound set of building blocks on which to base a stable society. There hasn’t been a lot of research in this regard, but it is has been reported that 92 percent of biracial children with black fathers are illegitimate; 97 percent when the mothers are white. Even worse, only two percent of black fathers financially support biracial children or their white mothers, whether or not they marry them.
While it is merely anecdotal support for this study, you may recall how I noticed at Paris Disneyland that virtually no mixed-race children had a father with them. I saw many white children with white mothers and fathers, I saw several black children with black mothers and fathers, but with one exception, the mixed-race children were only accompanied by their mothers.

The situation is clearly not sustainable. Society will never be a functional brown equalitarian version of historical white American society. The concept is not even remotely credible given the observable evidence. This multiracial illegitimacy alone is sufficient to indicate why racial segregation is inevitable regardless of how anyone feels about it.

Homogeneous socities arise from heterogeneous societies because the latter are structurally inclined towards collapse. US society simply cannot survive in its current form; the stagnation and decline the USA has experienced to date is only beginning, as the effects of this 50-year destruction of the family are not even close to fully realized yet.

A message for the conservative establishment

Milo thunders like the prophets of yore:

I have a message for the conservative establishment: you fucked up big time… The assorted, well-fed, burbling lunatics, idiots and losers of the conservative media establishment and in conservative circles in general… These useless, fat blubbering losers!

“You conservatives made all the right noises but you have no appetite whatsoever to fix anything. You allowed the Left to continue to gain ground and gain ground and gain ground until a point at which — and I don’t think this is an exaggeration to say — the fabric of western culture is now at risk. From immigration, from multiculturalism, from the lies the Left tells.

Trump and I represent something that scares the Left — the utter, wholesale rejection of political correctness. Total defiance. The idea you don’t back down, you double down. When somebody comes to my event and says they’re offended by a joke, I rack my brain for a more offensive one… Trump does the same thing.

He has shown the one thing that no conservative politician or pundit or anybody really on the political Right in American public life has done for some 30 years. He has shown fearlessness, he’s not afraid of the Left. And that inspires terror in their hearts and I’m the same, I like to think.

Regardless of what you think of Milo, he is absolutely and utterly correct to condemn the craven conservative establishment in this manner. Their spirit of fear is not God-given, and their vaunted ideological principles have proven to be entirely nonexistent.

As my co-author, Red Eagle, conclusively demonstrated in Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, conservatism is not even an ideology per se, but rather, an attitude, or to be less kind, a pose.

The early new rightists were interested in discerning the deeper roots of historical American political thought, and in turning its various strains into a viable, coherent political tradition. Some of them looked so deeply that they found inspiration from decidedly non-American sources, such as British conservative political thought. The latter was a generally elitist tradition, openly contemptuous of American-style independent citizenry and the freewheeling style of American political discourse. Among the leaders of this Anglophile camp was Russell Kirk, who is generally credited with coining the American use of the term conservative as a distinct political label. His most famous work, The Conservative Mind, proved to be quickly and profoundly influential soon after its publication in 1953. Kirk’s book synthesized various ideas from diverse 18th- and 19th-century thinkers, most prominently Edmund Burke, into six canons, or principles, of this new conservatism:

  1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body, of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.
  2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.
  3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a “classless society.”
  4. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked.
  5. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power.
  6. Recognition that change may not be salutory reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations.

Whatever the left may say about them, Kirk’s principles are hardly the stuff of SS rallies. As a set of ideas, they’re not particularly systematic, particularly when compared with more radical philosophies like Marxism and its innumerable offshoots, or at the other extreme, the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. They are arguably more a set of generalized assertions and attitudes rather than principles per se. Even so, they do represent a particular worldview, though it is not the worldview of the Founding Fathers or of the early American political generations. Notice as well that several of these principles are primarily defined by that which they opposed: the dominant left-liberal worldview of the mid-20th century. From their very beginning the principles of conservatism were subordinate and defensive in nature, or less charitably, they were submissive and passive-aggressive in their relation to the left.

Conservatism cannot win. It cannot even conserve. If the West is to survive, it needs to abandon its consistent failures of the past and confidently embrace the pillars of its foundation: Christianity, the European nations, science, and capitalism. Any other strategy will fail. Any man who considers himself a Man of the West would do well to abandon the conservative establishment; it has already abandoned you.

Diversity kills community

The same negative effect of diversity on community discovered – and initially buried – by Robert Putnam in the United States is replicated in the United Kingdom by a study entitled Does Ethnic Diversity Have a Negative Effect on Attitudes towards the Community? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Causal Claims within the Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion Debate:

We observe that as a community becomes more diverse around an individual, they are likely to become less attached to their community. This is a strict test of the causal impact of diversity, minimizing unobserved heterogeneity and eliminating selection bias. Importantly, neither indicator of disadvantage is significantly associated with attachment.

Model 2 shows the same analysis among movers. Diversity is again significant and negative, suggesting that individuals who move from more diverse to less diverse communities are likely to become more attached (and vice versa).

Like calls to like. Most people prefer to live among their own. Segregation is not only the right of free association in action, it is a community imperative. This is further evidence that the increasingly diverse United States will not survive because it cannot survive. It is not a nation.

The death of liberalism

Roger Cohen fails to understand what it was, or why it is dead:

Liberalism is dead. Or at least it is on the ropes. Triumphant a quarter-century ago, when liberal democracy appeared to have prevailed definitively over the totalitarian utopias that exacted such a toll in blood, it is now under siege from without and within.

Nationalism and authoritarianism, reinforced by technology, have come together to exercise new forms of control and manipulation over human beings whose susceptibility to greed, prejudice, ignorance, domination, subservience and fear was not, after all, swept away by the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As Communism fell, and closed societies were forced open, and an age of rapid globalization dawned, and the United States earned the moniker of “hyperpower,” it seemed reasonable to believe, as Francis Fukuyama argued in 1989, that, “The triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism.” Therefore, per Fukuyama, the end point of history had been reached with “the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

This was a rational argument. It made sense. Hundreds of millions of people enslaved within the Soviet imperium had just been freed. They knew — everyone knew — which system worked better. The problem is that the hold of reason in human affairs is always tenuous.

Looking back at human history, the liberal democratic experiment – with its Enlightenment-derived belief in the capacity of individuals possessed of certain inalienable rights to shape their destinies in liberty through the exercise of their will — is but a brief interlude. Far more lasting have been the eras of infallible sovereignty, absolute power derived from God, domination and serfdom, and subjection to what Isaiah Berlin called “the forces of anti-rational mystical bigotry.”

What Cohen thinks is “liberalism” is nothing of the sort. Liberalism wasn’t rational. It wasn’t immune to greed, prejudice, domination, subservience, or fear. Western liberal democracy was, from the very start, a con job; as we have seen everywhere from Colorado to Dublin, from Amsterdam to Wyoming, there is nothing even remotely democratic about it.

Liberalism is dead because liberalism is, and always was, a lie. And across the West, people have learned to stop falling for it simply because their so-called leaders push it on them.

America is the world

A Broadway producer agrees to pretend to consider white people:

The hit musical “Hamilton” has drawn widespread praise for its use of a diverse cast to explore American history. But a casting call seeking “nonwhite men and women” to audition for the show drew criticism from the union representing theater actors, prompting “Hamilton” to say Wednesday that it will amend its language to make clear that anyone is welcome to try out for the show.

The dispute is in some ways semantic — audition descriptions of many of the characters in “Hamilton,” as for other Broadway shows, often specify the race, gender and age range of the characters, and that is standard practice in the theater industry. But Actors’ Equity said that auditions should be open to anyone.

At the end of the day, the producers of “Hamilton” said that they would change the posting that had drawn criticism, to make it clear that people of all ethnicities are welcome to audition, but would not back away from the show’s commitment to hire a diverse cast.

I don’t see a problem here. As we all know, Americans can be born anywhere in the world. George Washington may well have been Chinese and Thomas Jefferson from Papua New Guinea, for all we know.

America is the world. Posterity is not the children. Diversity is our strength. Islam is the religion of peace.

No wonder they hate the truth-tellers. There is no room for the truth in their consciousness.

Ben Brantley wrote in The New York Times that “‘Hamilton’ is, among
other things, about who owns history, who gets to be in charge of the
narrative.”

You don’t say….