1. I don't think the black-white heuristic is unfairly applied. Most non-white zoomers have bought hook, line, and sinker into the white-poc dichotomy interpretation of US history and hate yt. Sure, they lack the crime rate, but the anti-white idpol comes from every direction now and will continue to until civil rights laws are changed.
2. Even though the black population projections don't suggest much change, I'm not sure that's accounting for Africa's population explosion and the rest of the world's population decline.
3. There's not much chance of "bleaching" most non-black minorities. Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs will remain religiously endogamous, and Asians' genetic distance from whites isn't much less than that between black and white people. I don't see any reason to single out black people as unassimilable given that Brazil has fewer racial problems than the US despite being blacker and having a longer history of slavery. Branqueamento occurred within many Brazilian families, and most quarter black people can pass as white if they want to. Regardless, America's not white enough to bleach because whites have been a minority of births for a decade and their TFR's below replacement in every state, so instead of bleaching, you'll get the exact opposite
1. The far right, like Don Jr, projects low African IQ and high crime onto all non-whites and declares that America will soon become "like Haiti, like Brazil, like South Africa." Even from an HBD perspective, this is simply not true. The biggest immigrant groups are Hispanic or Asian. I agree that racial resentment is increasing, but that shouldn't be conflated with crime and economic decline. Furthermore, killing Civil Rights Law isn't going to solve what is essentially a religious problem.
2. Immigration is not a function of demographics, but law and economics.
3. Personally, I find the term "bleaching" to be slightly uncomfortable for me, and I probably should have pushed back on this, but I was trying to strike a balance between disagreeing / nitpicking and trying to be charitable / affable. But I think this is your strongest critique.
1. I agree about people projecting unfitting crime and IQ stats onto immigrants (including onto elite African immigrants). My point is rather that people have basically come to accept a racial binary view of history and society, and this will continue to shape idpol.
2. I think the fact that Africa is so poor and becoming overcrowded and that the US has a porous border will mean more African immigration. I personally have no problem with this.
I agree that the racial binary will continue to shape idpol -- and I will continue to reject it! Our porous border is with Mexico, not Africa, and most Africans don't have the means to fly to Mexico.
What is the evidence that the black population will increase? Pure ideology? "The left is going insane"? White genocide? The elites are satanic? The elites are stupid? The burden of proof is on you. I am projecting based on data, not based on conspiracy theories. We get hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of immigrants every year. What do you think is the black percentage of immigrants, and what do you think it will be next year, and why? State your assumptions clearly so we aren't just making assertions.
Its very simple. Subsahran population is exploding. Most will go to europe. But some are already going to the US, and an increasing number will come here as time goes on, and africa becomes even more overcrowded. Fertility rates basically everywhere else (including central america) are declining.
Over time, subsaharan immigration will comprise a larger and larger share of US migrant inflows.
Why will elites let it happen? Mixed motivations. But primarily because they feel a strong moral obligation to do so. Today’s elites are deeply moralistic, and most suffer the negative effects of their own policy choices (outside of people at the wealth strata of gates or musk, most EHC —urban upper middle class who work in law, finance, nonprofits etc—suffer the consequences of public disorder and crime, even if not directly in terms of being victims). Elites consistently vote against their own concrete interests due to ideology. No satanism or other strawmen required
The measures required to repel subsaharan migration will be too much to swallow. We already saw during the first trump term how mawkish sentimental imagery can reinforce opposition to border control (ie: time magazine article of cruing migrant child, in Europe kurdi—or whatever his name was i forget at this point—washed up on shore)
I've come to see white nationalism as DEI for non-Anglo whites. A century ago Slavs and Irish people would be laughed at and never be admitted to the club, but through "white nationalism" they're somehow in. Anglo or bust!
This is such an obnoxious rhetorical game; you're trying to position yourself as edgier / more exclusionary than white nationalists when Anglo supremacy is a laughably toothless ideology that doesn't threaten anyone and is much safer to hold publicly than WN.
You're one step removed from the Gen X cringelords who say they aren't racist because they hate all races equally etc.
You confuse utility with truth. Before we decide if an ideology is “safe” or “laughable” we should adjudicate its value. Angloism is highly good, given the awesomeness of the historical Anglosphere. A mishmash of whites, where we’re supposed to assume that Romanians are “Hyperboreans” is nothing by comparison. Now, perhaps Angloism is no longer possible, but it doesn’t mean we need to assume that a Bulgarian is somehow superior to a Mexican.
How long is the time horizon under consideration? During the first peak of European civilization Anglos had to be pulled out of their mudhuts by Meds.
Anyway I'll not discount the value of the more mercantile / libertarian cultural norms that developed in England in the centuries that followed, but the open society has plenty of vulnerabilities alongside its strengths and it's not obvious to me that the Anglo model is superior when divorced from the tremendous wealth that comes from controlling the world's reserve currency.
I'd rather be American than French, but I'd rather be French than British.
Also it depends on the Mexican. An educated Tejano is clearly superior to the Buglarian, while a Mayan peasant from the Yucatan is vastly inferior.
I think you should apply this thinking to other white people. If Anglos shouldn't be trusted to run their own countries because (for example) the UK underperform economically vis-a-vis western Europe, then (for example) poles should definitely not be allowed a say considering their country ceased to exists for 150 years, briefly had independence, then was a soviet colony again for 50 years.
When people say Anglos can't run a country, they're being hyperbolic and metaphorical, for many eastern European people, it's an objective reality.
That's such an ad hoc distinction. Russia would march to France if they could. The reason they can't is because western European countries are well run
I don’t understand the idea that Russians are an insidious influence, but the Chinese trafficking untold amounts of fentanyl through the border are just peachy.
I’m not saying their peachy. I’m saying the Anglosphere is a unique civilization and “white nationalism” is a poor replacement. If Anglos are destined to dilute themselves, I can’t see much of a difference between a Mexican and a Romanian.
Gotta drop some black pills (pun intended):
1. I don't think the black-white heuristic is unfairly applied. Most non-white zoomers have bought hook, line, and sinker into the white-poc dichotomy interpretation of US history and hate yt. Sure, they lack the crime rate, but the anti-white idpol comes from every direction now and will continue to until civil rights laws are changed.
2. Even though the black population projections don't suggest much change, I'm not sure that's accounting for Africa's population explosion and the rest of the world's population decline.
3. There's not much chance of "bleaching" most non-black minorities. Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs will remain religiously endogamous, and Asians' genetic distance from whites isn't much less than that between black and white people. I don't see any reason to single out black people as unassimilable given that Brazil has fewer racial problems than the US despite being blacker and having a longer history of slavery. Branqueamento occurred within many Brazilian families, and most quarter black people can pass as white if they want to. Regardless, America's not white enough to bleach because whites have been a minority of births for a decade and their TFR's below replacement in every state, so instead of bleaching, you'll get the exact opposite
Good critique, here's my response:
1. The far right, like Don Jr, projects low African IQ and high crime onto all non-whites and declares that America will soon become "like Haiti, like Brazil, like South Africa." Even from an HBD perspective, this is simply not true. The biggest immigrant groups are Hispanic or Asian. I agree that racial resentment is increasing, but that shouldn't be conflated with crime and economic decline. Furthermore, killing Civil Rights Law isn't going to solve what is essentially a religious problem.
2. Immigration is not a function of demographics, but law and economics.
3. Personally, I find the term "bleaching" to be slightly uncomfortable for me, and I probably should have pushed back on this, but I was trying to strike a balance between disagreeing / nitpicking and trying to be charitable / affable. But I think this is your strongest critique.
Ty for the reply. Just to clarify:
1. I agree about people projecting unfitting crime and IQ stats onto immigrants (including onto elite African immigrants). My point is rather that people have basically come to accept a racial binary view of history and society, and this will continue to shape idpol.
2. I think the fact that Africa is so poor and becoming overcrowded and that the US has a porous border will mean more African immigration. I personally have no problem with this.
3. Gotcha. I like your interview style
I agree that the racial binary will continue to shape idpol -- and I will continue to reject it! Our porous border is with Mexico, not Africa, and most Africans don't have the means to fly to Mexico.
“I personally have no problem with this.” Why?
2. What about law would change (especially given your political preferences) to make massively increased immigration from africa less likely?
And even though we will undergo a slow decline, the economic condition in america will still be far superior to africa. I assume youd agree.
So I am still puzzled at how you can be so confident that the black US population will remain stable.
What is the evidence that the black population will increase? Pure ideology? "The left is going insane"? White genocide? The elites are satanic? The elites are stupid? The burden of proof is on you. I am projecting based on data, not based on conspiracy theories. We get hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of immigrants every year. What do you think is the black percentage of immigrants, and what do you think it will be next year, and why? State your assumptions clearly so we aren't just making assertions.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/2022-worlds-most-important-graph/
Its very simple. Subsahran population is exploding. Most will go to europe. But some are already going to the US, and an increasing number will come here as time goes on, and africa becomes even more overcrowded. Fertility rates basically everywhere else (including central america) are declining.
Over time, subsaharan immigration will comprise a larger and larger share of US migrant inflows.
Why will elites let it happen? Mixed motivations. But primarily because they feel a strong moral obligation to do so. Today’s elites are deeply moralistic, and most suffer the negative effects of their own policy choices (outside of people at the wealth strata of gates or musk, most EHC —urban upper middle class who work in law, finance, nonprofits etc—suffer the consequences of public disorder and crime, even if not directly in terms of being victims). Elites consistently vote against their own concrete interests due to ideology. No satanism or other strawmen required
The measures required to repel subsaharan migration will be too much to swallow. We already saw during the first trump term how mawkish sentimental imagery can reinforce opposition to border control (ie: time magazine article of cruing migrant child, in Europe kurdi—or whatever his name was i forget at this point—washed up on shore)
The Aryan Kings have found each other.
I've come to see white nationalism as DEI for non-Anglo whites. A century ago Slavs and Irish people would be laughed at and never be admitted to the club, but through "white nationalism" they're somehow in. Anglo or bust!
This is such an obnoxious rhetorical game; you're trying to position yourself as edgier / more exclusionary than white nationalists when Anglo supremacy is a laughably toothless ideology that doesn't threaten anyone and is much safer to hold publicly than WN.
You're one step removed from the Gen X cringelords who say they aren't racist because they hate all races equally etc.
You confuse utility with truth. Before we decide if an ideology is “safe” or “laughable” we should adjudicate its value. Angloism is highly good, given the awesomeness of the historical Anglosphere. A mishmash of whites, where we’re supposed to assume that Romanians are “Hyperboreans” is nothing by comparison. Now, perhaps Angloism is no longer possible, but it doesn’t mean we need to assume that a Bulgarian is somehow superior to a Mexican.
How long is the time horizon under consideration? During the first peak of European civilization Anglos had to be pulled out of their mudhuts by Meds.
Anyway I'll not discount the value of the more mercantile / libertarian cultural norms that developed in England in the centuries that followed, but the open society has plenty of vulnerabilities alongside its strengths and it's not obvious to me that the Anglo model is superior when divorced from the tremendous wealth that comes from controlling the world's reserve currency.
I'd rather be American than French, but I'd rather be French than British.
Also it depends on the Mexican. An educated Tejano is clearly superior to the Buglarian, while a Mayan peasant from the Yucatan is vastly inferior.
I refer you to H.P. Lovecraft and Madison Grant.
I don't read.
If you read more, you'd write less.
Right. But I'm not taking the bait.
Anglos can’t be trusted to lead an Anglo exclusive society, given what they’ve done to any that existed.
I think you should apply this thinking to other white people. If Anglos shouldn't be trusted to run their own countries because (for example) the UK underperform economically vis-a-vis western Europe, then (for example) poles should definitely not be allowed a say considering their country ceased to exists for 150 years, briefly had independence, then was a soviet colony again for 50 years.
When people say Anglos can't run a country, they're being hyperbolic and metaphorical, for many eastern European people, it's an objective reality.
The distinction here being between those who get conquered and those who can ruin their country without being conquered
That's such an ad hoc distinction. Russia would march to France if they could. The reason they can't is because western European countries are well run
They’re not being run by the locals.
Point being.. ?
They can ally with upscale Mandarins. I don’t see how Slavs are superior to Mexicans or Malaysians in any way.
I don’t understand the idea that Russians are an insidious influence, but the Chinese trafficking untold amounts of fentanyl through the border are just peachy.
I’m not saying their peachy. I’m saying the Anglosphere is a unique civilization and “white nationalism” is a poor replacement. If Anglos are destined to dilute themselves, I can’t see much of a difference between a Mexican and a Romanian.
Romanians supported reactionary elite movements in living memory, Mexicans have not had a functioning elite since 1520.
That's a desperate DEI argument. The English had a wise saying that "n166ers begin at Calais."
Walt Bismarck blocked me and some other people I know for nothing more than scrutinizing his low-information and inflammatory posts.