Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Long march through the Republican institutions

The only major Trumpian issue not being championed, yet, by the Dems is restricting immigration -- but then, neither is that being delivered by the Republicans, who control the entire government. Unlike the locked doors of the inward-looking GOP, the gates of the Democrat party have been left open and unattended -- so just invade their territory and dig yourself in as the immigration restriction camp of the Dems.
Perspicacity or delusion?

The latter, I'll argue. Agnostic again:
The GOP is not "going to learn" from the lessons where "Trump taught them how to win". They are an ossified party at the terminal stage of hegemony. How long can they be given to learn how to win? Trump destroyed their vision back in 2016. If they're still ignoring his winning platform, they will not be pursuing it anytime soon.
How long will restrictionists have to wait for Democrats to make even the most non-committal, mild gesture in the direction of immigration restriction?

Rhetorical, of course. The only plausible answer is "indefinitely". There's no talk of it whatsoever among any Democrats, anywhere. The Bernie Sanders of 2015 is a distant memory.

Sanders has been an entirely unfettered open borders zealot for years now. Among Democrats, it's zero tolerance for any nuance on the National Question.

Chuck Schumer, concerned he might get Pelosi-ed for working on a budget deal that allows for a few bollards to be placed along thirty miles of the nearly 2,000-mile long southern border, increased the odds Trump will veto said bill by prematurely bragging about how good it is for Democrats [edit: doesn't look like Trump will be vetoing anything, just whining on Twitter instead] before anyone has seen the thing. That's how fanatical the contemporary Democrat party is.

Trump's successful campaign, with immigration as its centerpiece, showed immigration's electoral viability among Republicans. Jim Webb, in contrast, had something--anything--other than totally-open-borders entirely to himself in the Democrat primaries and he couldn't even clear 1% support in a field of five people.

Agnostic downplays the importance of immigration to Trump's success:
I'd be careful about putting too much emphasis on immigration -- it's not the #1 issue for any sub-group of Americans [AE: that is no longer the case], nor for Trump's winning coalition.
It wasn't just Trump's campaign announcement that put immigration front and center. Channeling the bemusement of political commentators everywhere, Nate Silver noted that, after being operational for months, the only policy platform Trump's campaign website offered was on immigration. Silver figured that since immigration hadn't ever won before, it wouldn't win this time, either--and he, like so many others (but not all!), got BTFO as a result.

It is difficult to overstate how bold a move centering a campaign around immigration was back in 2015. To the infinite frustration of those of us who have tried for decades to make the National Question the preeminent one, it has a pretty lousy electoral track record.

I supported Tom Tancredo in 2008. He was the first Republican since Pat Buchanan in 1992 to make immigration a major campaign issue. He went nowhere.

In 2012, Rick Santorum had a damascene conversion on immigration. He didn't fare much better than Tancredo. In retrospect it looks like he did okay, but that's because he was the Kasich of 2016--he simply stuck around longer than a lot of other candidates. Santorum never had a chance at the nomination.

In 2016 we finally saw the first successful immigration-oriented presidential campaign (in the history of the Republican party?) occur. And the second most successful immigration-oriented presidential campaign, too--that of Ted Cruz.

This is exactly the wrong time for immigration restrictionists to do an about-face and try to capture the party that NumbersUSA gives over 90% of current congressional members an "F" grade to.

The siege has been a long and grinding one, but we've finally captured a few supply lines and a few of our guys, like Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions, have even managed to scale the walls. In 2016, Trump avoided CPAC in fear of being run out of town on a rail. A couple years later, speakers favoring open borders were being booed and heckled by attendees, while Marion Le Pen spoke in the conference room next door. All the Republicans who 'should' be seeking re-election but have opted not to are almost all open borders cucks of the worst order. Let Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and others with less name recognition leave the party:
Cuban-American and the first Hispanic woman elected to Congress, [Illeana] Ros-Lehtinen announced back in April 2017 that she will retire at the end of her current term. Speaker Paul Ryan afterward called her "a force." She has clashed with President Trump on transgender issues, deportations, and his travel ban.
To the extent that the answer is political, it is not to scour the country for the phantom Democrat restrictionist, it is to make immigration the only issue that matters and primary any Republican who waffles on it.

Monday, March 19, 2018

The Han Hundred

The inestimable Sid:
What's striking is that China is becoming ever more powerful in Africa, and they may ultimately tie their infrastructure projects in Africa to responsible fertility. I don't know if there are any trends in that direction, but I hope they can pull that off.
How worried are the Chinese about African fertility? The Han don't suffer from the same self-destructive universalistic, egalitarian impulses that Northwestern Europeans (WEIRDOs) do.

China's a big country. They'll keep the dumb Africans outside the walls and everything will be fine. Illegal invasion from Africa into China is nearly impossible. The infiltrators stick out like a sore thumb. If they try a Camp of the Saints move into China, the Chinese navy will sink the rapefugee ships and that will be that. The invaders will seek out whiter pastures.

More likely, China will use its influence in the UN and other global bodies to talk up a good game on universalism and egalitarianism in the general sense. That's why they go to American universities, after all! They'll gesture in the direction of involving themselves in resettlement with no intention of ever actually doing so.

Just as in the case of the Paris Accords, they'll never commit to anything concrete in the present nor will they make good on anything they pledge to do in the future, but will correctly count on naive Westerners to do so. Consequently, the relative Chinese position will become even stronger as the West suffocates under low IQ, feral hordes while China keeps the door shut Japanese-tight.

The more I think about it, the more difficult it becomes--short of the CRISPR revolution or scalable nuclear fusion--to imagine the 21st being anything other than the Chinese century.

The best we can probably realistically hope for in the West is that following the political dissolution of the US, we end up with an implicit (no welfare) or explicit (no non-whites) rump ethnostate in the mountain and/or upper Midwestern former US that, equipped with nuclear weapons, is able to ward off external military threats.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Overwhelming majority say illegal immigration is a threat

Over the last several months the Democrats have quietly put into place a winning electoral--running moderate white men. Those moderate white men in Virginia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania sound nothing like their colleagues in California.

Celebrating the dispossession of white Americans by illegal alien invaders comes naturally to someone like Kevin de Leon, who cut his political teeth as a community organizer organizing against Proposition 187, the judicial snuffing out of which sealed California's fate as majority non-white and thus forever blue.

It's an acquired taste for guys like Northam, Jones, and Lamb, though. Inexplicably, Jones and Lamb were able to avoid saying just about anything at all about immigration, and Northam only had to fend off a couple hail mary immigration ads by bugman Gillespie, whose heart was never in it anyway.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted last Fall--one that unsurprisingly never made the site's topline--provides the GOP with some very low-hanging fruit to pick ahead of the 2018 mid-terms. The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who think illegal immigration either poses "no threat" or a "minimal threat" to the United States (N = 2,383; other possible responses were a "moderate threat", a "serious threat", and an "imminent "threat; "not sure" responses are excluded):

Republicans, ask your opponents exactly this--"Do you think illegal immigration is a threat to our country?"

Demand an answer. Outside of California, it's a devastating no-win question for Democrats to face. The invaders will tear Nancy Pelosi to pieces for not displaying sufficient zealotry in her desire to throw the doors open to all the beautiful brown skins and brown eyes in Latin America. How will these same invaders react to a pale white male who says their invasion is a threat? DACA, which would be dead now if not for the country's treasonous judiciary, contained the answer.

Our champions have flipped out over Trump appearing set to give the game away on multiple fronts--the biggest ones being immigration and guns. In both cases, Trump will end up doing the right thing.

Playing the role our champions have to keep him honest--and also to allow the tactical gambit to work--is laudable, but perhaps we can be more sanguine about these instances. Trump knows elected Democrats cannot go along with him on anything at all without their non-white base going berserk. The more accommodating and reasonable the president appears--while praetorian prefect Stephen Miller guides actual policy decisions--the more appealing Trumpism becomes to white independents and Democrats.

Everything is downstream of immigration. Not only is it the only issue that really matters, though, it's also a populist one where the optics favor Republicans. That the Stupid Party doesn't make every election about it--like, say, Donald Trump did--is why they continue to earn their Stupid Party moniker. 

Friday, March 16, 2018

We should have picked our own damned cotton


It's not okay to be white
No two-story buildings? No wheel? No surprise. The self-evident glee on their faces is the same sadistic glee their cousins experience when they're carving up the faces of Afrikaner toddlers.

Jared Taylor has said that if the founders could do it over again, he'd suggest Jefferson replace the second comma in the second paragraph of the Declaration with the word "in".

Z-Man's advice is even better: "Pick your own cotton".

(A parenthetical contemporary corollary to today's plutocrats: "Clean your own toilets").

Consider the cities of Nagasaki and Detroit in 1940 and today. In the interim, Nagasaki had an atomic bomb dropped on it and Detroit became majority-black. Which city is better off now? Rhetorical.

When the black population reaches critical mass, maintaining--let alone constructing--civilization effectively becomes impossible. Be it Baltimore, Haiti, or Zimbabwe, the outcome is never in doubt.

Oh c'mon, AE. I'm no Pollyanna but our future is Brazil, not South Africa!

Don't be so sure. We're looking at 4,000,000,000 sub-Saharan Africans incapable of feeding themselves by century's end. Those currently fleeing the dark continent are headed to Europe rather than North America in no small part because Donald Trump is in the White House. But that need not remain the case.

Is it difficult to imagine a president Kamala Harris browbeating us into taking in millions of teenage African refugees on account of it being Who We Are? The median ages in these 5.0+ TFR countries are in the high teens and early twenties, so 20 million 'refugees' becomes 100 million of someone else's babies a generation later.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Support for free speech among young college graduates has plummeted over last several decades

These are not unreasonable objections based on what was presented in the previous post. If the general tendency was for people to become more supportive of free speech as they aged, in fact, it could even be misleading. That, however, is not the case, as is illustrated below. People tend to become more conservative as they age, and their tolerance for disagreeable speech is no exception.

To show that the previous results are not simply an artifact of asking boomers about their positions on free speech when they are middle-aged while asking subsequent generations the same question when they are in their teens and twenties and also to show that, contrary to Steven Pinker and Fatt Yglesias, it is not the young, college-educated pups who are currently raising the torch of free speech, the following graph shows percentages of respondents who favor allowing "racists" to speak in public, by the decade they participated in the survey and by their age at the time of participation (N = 5,411):

In the seventies, then, we're looking at college-educated boomers (born between 1941 and 1960, concentrated most heavily among those born in the late forties and early fifties) on the green trend line. This is among the highest level of support for free speech shown in the survey's nearly half-century of existence. Boomers, both in their youth and in their later years, expressed more support for free speech than their parents did and than their children would.

The next batch of college-educated under-thirties (late boomers and early Xers) express less support for free speech than the cohort preceding them. With each passing decade, support for free speech among college-educated under-thirties declines. It is on pace to be a minority position among young college graduates a generation down the road--at about the same time whites become a minority in the country their ancestors built, in fact. Purely coincidentally, of course.

As a member of the twitterverse put it:

To repeat, free speech faces a bleak future. Diversity may well be its downfall.

Liberty, equality, or diversity: Choose one.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, AGE(18-29)(40-60), DEGREE(2-4), YEAR(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999)(2000-2009)(2010-2016)