site banner
PaperclipPerfector  30d ago (text post)   28722 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Richard Hanania interviewed Jared Taylor.

Jared Taylor, founder of white nationalist publication American Renaissance, was recently reinstated on Twitter/X after a years-long (and, under the Elon Musk “free speech” era, increasingly controversial) ban. Many have hoped that, as Dissident Right and race realist ideas are beginning to break into semi-mainstream online discourse, some of the old-guard figures like Taylor may enjoy a long-overdue rehabilitation in the public eye. (Something like this has recently taken place for Steve Sailer, who, after decades of being the commentator whom all the serious thinkers read but never publicly acknowledged, recently undertook a lucrative book tour and has finally been published by several mainstream conservative publications.) While Taylor was once a semi-regular fixture on serious news programs, and his speeches at American Renaissance conference were even occasionally broadcast on C-SPAN, his banishment over the past decade has been comprehensive; if he is, at this late stage of his life, able to make some money and get his name out there, it would be a well-deserved culmination of an honorable life. Taylor’s work has been formative in my intellectual development, and I consider him a formidable thinker as well as a true gentleman.

That being said, I think his conversation with Hanania (who promoted the interview as a debate) unfortunately revealed how the world has, in some sense, passed Taylor by. Part of this is simply that he is old and has lost a step cognitively. In his prime, back when he was often asked to appear on mainstream news segments, Taylor was known as a sharp, charismatic, and erudite debater; at his advanced age, he can now be outmaneuvered by more agile thinkers — and, whatever you think about Richard Hanania (who, in his now-disavowed younger days as a white identitarian commentator, wrote several pieces for American Renaissance), he clearly has a keen mind. More importantly, though, Taylor’s model of the world does not appear to have adequately adapted to observed reality.

One of the central pillars of Taylor’s racial worldview is that human beings naturally seek to cluster among others to whom they are similar. For Taylor, the “white flight” of the 1960’s and 70’s, in which white families fled urban areas for the growing suburbs in response to the growing presence of blacks, is an archetypal example of humans naturally and subconsciously coordinating to segregate themselves into racial affinity groups. Writing and speaking in the 1990s and 2000s, when Mexican immigration to the U.S. (both legal and illegal) was at a tidal surge, Taylor predicted that this would set off a fresh white flight, in which white Americans would flee states with growing Hispanic populations. The looming confrontation between whites and Latinos, in which whites would be forced to put up a mighty fight to prevent themselves from being replaced and politically outvoted by drunken and crime-prone illegals clamoring for Latin American socialism, was a central theme of white nationalist discussion at this time. “Demographics are Destiny!”

However, as Hanania deftly points out, the intervening years have been… less than kind to these predictions. Though left-wing agitation by a certain section of the Latino population did have some impact on politics in the early part of this century — I distinctly remember a segment of the Mexican and Mexican-American segment of the student body at my high school staging a full-fledged walk-out in 2006 in protest of the failed “Sensenbrenner Bill” (H.R. 4437) which would have curtailed illegal immigration — the long-term political realignment among Latinos in this country has been a surprise to both political parties. Famously, Trump’s 2024 campaign achieved considerable success among Hispanic men.

Additionally, while white identitarians were correct to predict an exodus of conservative whites from racially-diverse liberal states, they probably did not anticipate that such whites would flee not to Whitopias such as Idaho and Montana, but rather to racially-diverse conservative states. The racial demographics of Florida and Texas are hardly more favorable to racially-conscious whites than California’s or New York’s! As Hanania points out, it seems like the revealed preference of many white Americans is to move to places with plenty of Hispanics (and a decent number of blacks, provided they’re well-policed) as long as the economic prospects and the political environment seem headed in a positive direction. White Americans seem to have no problem whatsoever living alongside Asian immigrants, who generally make excellent neighbors, friends, and classmates.

(Taylor’s stance on race relations between whites and Asians has never been coherent, which is particularly surprising since he was famously born and raised in Japan as the child of two American missionaries. He acknowledges the many great things about Asian culture and the various metric on which Asians are on par with, or even superior to, whites, yet when asked why it would be a bad thing for whites and Asians to intermarry and their countries become more integrated, he retreats to some wishy-washy petty nationalist “Well, I just think white people should stay white and Asians should stay Asian because I believe in real diversity.” This has never been persuasive, and Hanania rightly skewers him for it.) Ultimately, Taylor’s predictions of mass racial strife and whites fleeing to the hinterlands to form whites-only communities just have not panned out. As Hanania says: There are plenty of extremely white places in America, and almost nobody is moving to any of them.

This particular section of the interview (beginning around the 55-minute mark) has also produced controversy among Taylor’s ostensible allies. Hanania brings up West Virginia and asks why, if living among other whites is the highest instinctive concern for most white people, why are so few people moving there? And, furthermore, what sort of white person would want to move there, knowing how poor and dysfunctional the local whites are? Who would prefer living among fentanyl-addicted hillbilly whites rather than living among educated and productive Asians and Hispanics? Taylor expresses agreement with Hanania, and indulges in some accurate criticism of the white people he witnessed while visiting the capital city of West Virginia.

This has caused many on the online right to turn on Taylor, as discussed by Scott Greer. (Many of the responses to Greer’s tweet perfectly encapsulate the phenomenon pointed to in his article.) The criticism of Taylor’s remarks strikes me as identical to a phenomenon many have observed in black culture. When blacks congregate among themselves in places like churches, a frequent topic of discussions and sermons is frank self-criticism of the failings of the black community. “Black men, we need to do better! Work harder, be better fathers! There’s too many young black men out there acting a fool, killing each other over nothing, leaving our communities shattered.” All true, all healthy, all necessary, and maybe at some point the introspection will lead to material changes. However, when blacks (or, at least, black activists and “community leaders”) are talking to white people, suddenly they’re a united front: “All our problems are your fault.” Any criticism of even the worst aspects of underclass black culture is suddenly forbidden, as it might give succor to the enemies of black political advocacy. Black commentators who break this taboo (Glenn Loury, Thomas Sowell, etc.) are savaged as traitors and dancing monkeys by the very same blacks who, among their own, will acknowledge the truth behind that very same criticism.

Apparently we now have a vocal contingent of aspiring “white community leaders” who similarly cannot brook any public criticism of the worst elements of white trash culture, lest it empower “the enemies of our people.” This is pathetic, insecure, dishonest behavior. Whatever one might say about Jared Taylor, he has never been afraid to publicly air out the neuroses and failings of his own people; his brand of upstanding, intellectually honest discourse appears fundamentally unsuited for an increasingly propagandistic “siege mentality” discourse on the modern racially-aware right.

I have many problems with Richard Hanania, but seeing the army of pro-Taylor trolls spamming the comments section of the debate with petty insults about his appearance rather than even attempting to engage with the substance of his arguments, I have to concede that the new contours of the debate have squeezed out principled but overly-old-fashioned men like Jared Taylor, and will require the torch to be passed to high-character individuals who can thread the needle between the increasingly low-brow Chud Populism of right-wing Twitter, and the respectable but vacuous thought leaders of the dying Boomer right.

There is no reason to criticize West Virginia if you want white people to advocate for their group interest. Jared was rebuffed for doing so by people who understand how group dynamics work. Strategic “divide and conquer” is a well-known tactic used to prevent group cohesion; anything which draws a wedge between white people or highlights differences will ultimately reduce the strength and chance of group advocacy. If the primary problem at hand is an absence of group advocacy, then there are about 10,000 items on the checklist before we reach “discuss West Virginia’s IQ”. Progressives know this all too well, which is why they refuse to highlight that black people disproportionately target Asians in violence. This is why Jared corrected himself in a later tweet —

As @GraduateBen notes, they are warm-hearted people who look after not just neighbors but strangers. Working-class whites will be the backbone of any true national populism. We are all brothers and sisters.

Consider that the IQ difference between West Virginia and Massachusetts (the highest IQ state) is only 7.1, which is less than the IQ difference between Akita and Okinawa in Japan, at 11 points. If Japan were in conflict with another group, and their primary aim was victory, what do you think their leaders would discuss in the newspapers? “We are all Japanese, we are one nation, one group” etc. This is how things work, because most people are not giga-online debaters with dozens of cognitive nooks and crannies to compartmentalize different concerns. Most people can only hand a few simple takeaways from an entire category of information. You can call this pathetic, but what’s pathetic is failing to understand how things are actually effected in the real world, and then being destroyed because of hubris and ignorance. Do you want to be right on the internet or do you want to change the world? People have made their decision.

Anyway, I don’t find the criticism of Jared’s belief compelling, because you’re looking at states and not neighborhoods. That’s a category error. When white liberals move to a state with more Mexicans, their neighborhoods are likely to have a similar racial makeup as before, and same when they move to suburbs. So I bet they still prefer to live among other white people, per Jared’s claim. And their friend groups are often homogenous. But at the same time, I think Jared’s point is kind of immaterial: the question is what white people would prefer without the vast amount of propaganda about in-group / our-group preferences that they receive through education and media.

[edit] One more point. According to Cremieux,

the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is between 109 and 115 depending on the type of cognitive battery they’re tested with. Lynn also provides some data on the IQs of Mizrahim, Sephardim, and Ethiopian Jews. The IQs of the Mizrahi are indistinguishable from Arabs, centering around 87 when sampled together, Sephardim have IQs of around 100

So the difference between the Ashk IQ and the Sephardi is a whopping 12 points. Ashk and Mizrahi is 25(!). This is significantly greater than the difference between WV whites (~98 when you take black out of WV total) and the average white American IQ (100-103). How often do you hear advocates of the Jewish people talk about this? Almost never, and especially not since the war started — instead only songs about One People. This is very advantageous for a group, obviously.

Strategic “divide and conquer” is a well-known tactic used to prevent group cohesion; anything which draws a wedge between white people or highlights differences will ultimately reduce the strength and chance of group advocacy.

Now apply the same reasoning to 'white people' wrt 'black people'.

Yeah, if Black Americans were caught up in self-criticism and failed to promote their in-group then it would reduce their political power. What am I missing?

"White" and "Black" could be a divide encouraged by those who want to conquer America.

One man's Divide and Conquer is another man's Join and Prosper.

That's the very nature of political coalition formation.

Okinawans are not ethnically Japanese. Different people, history, culture, language, phenotypes. Conquered fairly recently.

You can talk about dubious IQ studies you read about in online articles all you want. As someone who has had to deal with them professionally for over 20 years at this point, everyone in West Virginia is fucking retarded. Okay, not everyone, but a high enough proportion that in order to accomplish anything you have to start from that assumption or else you're bound to be incredibly frustrated. My first encounter with this was when I was in college, and got a summer job delivering ice to convenience stores and the like. We were based out of Pittsburgh, but the college kids all got the shitty routes, drivine to far-flung rural areas and the 'hood. There was one week when they put me on service duty, which basically consisted of me taking a minivan around to our sites with an air compressor and blowing dust out of the mechanicals of the boxes and cleaning them up a bit. To avoid any confusion of why a guy in an ice uniform was there poking around the box and not delivering ice, I'd stop inside to tell the clerk what I was doing.

I started with the urban routes and worked my way outward. I never had any difficulty explaining that I was just there to clean the box out to anyone of any ethnicity. Some people would tell me they were low and ask if a delivery was forthcoming or if I could call someone to come out (I don't know and no), but no one was ever confused by my presence. Then, at the end of the week, I hit West Virginia.

"Just so you know, I'm not delivering any ice today. I'm just going to clean the box out with compressed air and make sure everything is working okay."

"Heh?"

"I'm not delivering ice, just cleaning the box."

"Heh?"

(repeat ad nauseum)

I understand that convenience store clerk isn't the most intellectually demanding position and that some places will hire people of limited cognitive capacity to do this work; if it happened once or twice I wouldn't have thought much of it. But it happened at every place I went to in West Virginia. One guy was confused why I was there because he'd already gotten a delivery earlier that day. It got to the point where I stopped telling anyone what I was doing because they were too dim to understand. Then I crossed the river into Ohio and went in as an experiment and everything was suddenly normal again.

After becoming a lawyer, I was told that if I got licensed in West Virginia it would increase my prospects, so I did. I assumed this was because, since Pittsburgh is close to West Virginia, companies in Northern WV or the Panhandle would use Pittsburgh firms. I soon came to realize that all West Virginia companies of a certain size, or foreign companies operating in the state, use Pittsburgh firms for their WV work. When these companies are sued it's common for hearings and the like to be held in Morgantown or Wheeling so the lawyers don't have to drive to Charleston or wherever. During the oil and gas boom most of the legal work was given to Pittsburgh firms. Even ones that opened satellite offices in West Virginia were almost exclusively staffed by people originally from Pittsburgh, excepting maybe one or two locals (usually higher-ups who got sick of having to drive to Pittsburgh).

Now that I have to depose a lot of people from West Virginia, but none of them know anything. I mean anything. Trying to get basic personal information is like pulling teeth. They remember their name, dob, address, wife's name, and maybe their kid's names and ages, if you're lucky. They'll know that their parents are dead, but won't be able to tell you when they died. And I mean that; it's pretty common that they can't even narrow it down to the decade. One guy said he thought his father died in the 1980s; I pulled the obituary and he died in 2016. "Well, I know it was a while ago" was his response. One guy was on disability but he didn't know what for. West Virginia judges are more or less forced to have lax evidentiary standards for the simple reason that if they didn't, no one could provide enough evidence to maintain any kind of lawsuit. I struggle to describe it properly, because it's literally ineffable how utterly moronic these people are compared to those of similar socioeconomic standing in Pennsylvania.

This sounds like someone should be checking their pipes for lead.

Also check for parasites; hookworm has been known to have adverse effects on cognition....

IIRC hookworm has been eradicated in the US for long enough that people interacting with lawyers under their own power shouldn’t have been affected, and West Virginia wasn’t the last holdout anyways.

I believe the last holdout of white IQ’s suppressed by poor environment was further south, along the gulf coast and Mississippi River, and that DDT suppressing malaria was the main improvement.

I’m not really sure how exaggerated the story is. I’ve been through WV a few times. It was fine. I wouldn’t want to live there but it wasn’t full of morons wherein nothing worked.

In my experience, economic and tourism centers are just fine. It seems to me like OP is interacting with a pretty low tier if it is literally everyone who can't function.

I mean, restaurants exist throughout WV. Some of what OP is saying would make operating a restaursnt just completely impossible.

Well, he is a lawyer. It's possible he's dealing with a low stratum of society, or that West Virginia whites are simply hostile to lawyers for cultural reasons- I've seen it before.

The poster also has posted some (unintentionally) facts about himself that make him come across as smug. I recall the story where he and his friends made fun of a girl (to this day) because she was horrified at the idea that OP routinely committed crime (he doesn’t but he was fucking with her because culturally she was from the wrong set of people in the Burgh).

Maybe people picked up on his smugness and fucked with him but he didn’t realize he was the being trolled and just thought “these guys are idiots.”

Yeah which leads me to believe the simplistic explanation is that OP is exaggerating. Not saying the clerks weren’t dumb but…I think he is exaggerating

If any of you has seen Winter's Bone, the all-white Missouri community it depicts gives off a definite vibe of hostility towards outsiders (whatever their race). I personally would be too intimidated to set foot there.

And this is besides the place having few or no jobs.

A friend of mine who is an accountant got sick of living in the Portland area and moved to rural Kentucky where he was able to buy a lot of land. He's been there for two years and can't find any clients in his new state. He's a good networker, but they do not trust outsiders (and, according to him, are largely too dumb to understand what he does). It's friendly but he's not one of them. He gets a majority of his new clients from our referrals in the purpler Portland suburbs and comes out twice a year for in-person meetings.

Have you considered that people with all their money in their checking account aren't going to generate work for accountants?

People who are dirt poor tend not to have any need for accountants. (Or if they do, they can't afford them and have to make do)

Having been to rural Kentucky, it is genuinely very dire. I’ve never seen that kind of visible poverty before. I’m talking little burnt-out shacks in the hills where people clearly live. The people I met there struck me as markedly stunted. I’m sure there are plenty of capable people interspersed throughout this population — and I’m sure there are plenty who were born in such circumstances but got the hell out because they were too good for that life — but overall there just doesn’t seem to be any significant amount of human capital left in the region.

You're telling me a fictional movie made by Hollywood elites made you think poor white communities hate you? Damn I wonder how that could have happened.

To be fair the book the movie is based upon is much the same in this regard and is written by a white ex Marine, high school dropout from the Ozarks in Missouri. Whether it is accurate or not I do not know but those elements don't come from Hollywood. It's similar to Vance's Hillbilly Elegy in that regard, in that it is written about a group by someone from the group. Though a fictional story in this case.

Yes, but that place was hostile towards its own members too. Maybe LESS hostile, but it's not as though young J.Law was treated nicely.

rather beside the point but does Hanania look particularly ghoulish in this video? Almost seems like he's wearing eyeshadow/liner

because he's not white. looking good on video typically requires fully European phenotype , although blacks pull it off too. Jews look the worst. that is what I have observed at least. whites tend to have a more angular or square face and solid lower jaw which looks better on video. But jews make up for it by being articulate, high verbal IQ.

Hanania has a relatively European phenotype, just a strange one. If you look up Palestinian Christians (ie. his people) they’re relatively phenotypically diverse but many could pass as Sicilians. Jews are also diverse, even discounting half-gentiles like Chalamet and Johansson, Paul Rudd is 100% ashkenazi and widely considered a handsome actor (for his age etc but also in general).

Paul Rudd is 100% ashkenazi

Press X to doubt. He's like at least 50% Italian by SOME kind of proxy.

In the sense that the most widely-accepted theory is that all Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Jewish-Roman intermarriage in the first few centuries CE, sure.

That's just what being an ashkenazi is: Some sort of combination between Levantine and Italian.

Paul Rudd is 100% ashkenazi and widely considered a handsome actor (for his age etc but also in general).

He's considered handsome for a comedic actor.

Hanania is white. He's an ugly effeminate white, but he is white. Nobody looks at him and thinks he's brown.

Generally speaking Levantine Christians like Hanania look relatively European. The oddities of Hanania’s appearance are related to just having a weird and slightly sinister face, which is something that can happen to anyone of any tribe.

Well yes. Some of my best friends are Maronite or Melkite, and they just look Greek. Levantine Christians have been considered white for ages and ages.

How do you square this with how many Hollywood celebrities (particularly actresses), whose job it is to look good on video, are Jewish? Some of the most attractive and telegenic women in the world are Ashkenazi.

I posit it's easier for jewish women . the difference is not as great between gentile vs. Jewish women

His skin also looks unusually smooth.

Presuming this is more how he looks normally: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YnvZto0do5o

I'd guess that he had particularly bad bags under his eyes that day and is either using a beauty filter to try to cover them up or he had a friend apply some studio makeup.

Couldn't Taylor have replied that Idaho is growing incredibly fast, and it was always considered one of the white bastion states?
If the DR have trouble criticizing white people degeneracy, I have to wonder if they've actually read the most general level foundational media. Even reading the Turner Diaries beyond the day of the rope memes would show what the real racists thought about white people using drugs, getting fat and watching TV.

Is there any of Taylor's work you'd point to as an introduction? I only ever saw the famous Japanese TV interview (subs > dubs), and I have to admit that excessive Moldbug exposure poisoned my attitude to amren more than I should have allowed it to.

The one thing he keeps bringing up that I think actually lands, and it's not surprising he started with it because of that, is the unilateral disarmament that is whites not having an affinity group despite every other racial group having one. I don't really know how that point could realistically be discharged though - It's too easy to compare to naziism. Considering the makeup of likely people who would first advocate for and join such a party the comparison would probably not even be unfair.

edit: I should say my preference would be to abolish all the affinity groups, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

This is just misunderstanding how and why these advocacy groups work. WN talk as if minorities are "stronger" than whites collectively due to this advocacy, and that current racial politics are caused by their "winning". This is not how things work outside Zimbabwe et al. Its pretty clear Blacks cant actually threaten the US government if you think about it for a bit. These organisations exist because liberalism thinks they should, and they are given concessions because it thinks they should """win""". A white organisation mirroring them is pointless, because its not the internal structure that makes them work. If you could convice mainstream whites that it would be ok to have one, you have already convinced them on the way there to stop this theater, and then it wouldnt be necessary anymore to have one.

I totally disagree. Affinity groups around tribes or causes is how electoral politics work. Labor organizes around unions, Christians organize around various advocacy organizations, AIPAC, various trade groups, environmental organizations, you name it, all of them are to one degree or another affinity groups. What doesn’t work is individual political actors or very small groups, because without a large bloc, and especially a large bloc with big bags of cash, it’s not really possible to get modern politicians to bother.

I find the opposition to such an idea to be one of the best propaganda wins in recent history. You almost can’t actually have the conversation with people who don’t already agree to the proposition. Everyone else stops up their ears at the mere mention of the idea of a white advocacy group. I’m not proposing that they push segregation or anything of the sort, I’m not looking to disenfranchise people. But even the suggestion that there be a white group with a seat at the table when the ideas of DEI and affirmative action and even other policies around affordability are discussed. It’s like a cognitive kill switch to bring up the idea that they are allowed to have ancestral pride, advocate for their interests, and promote their culture just like everyone else. They might on the margins be okay with Irish groups marching on St. Patty’s, or Germans forming cultural heritage groups to drink beer and eat sausages.

@hydroacetylene because I think your objection is similar.

Affinity groups around tribes or causes is how electoral politics work

Why do you think white people vote for the left? On the "tribal power" model, it would have to be something like "Theyre being freeriders in the common white cause, and prioritising their other interests". Does that seem true? It looks to me that they dont just accept minority demands, they way you would give your allies their due. No, they generally consider it a positive to support these demands even at their own expense - not necessarily if that expense gets very large, but still. Dem primary candidates outwoking each other is for whites, the black machine voters gave us Biden.

Politics is never just interest blocks smashing against each other, not until you collapse all the way, at which point its war and diplomacy, rather than politics. Without a shared Nomos there is no polity, but only something like Realist international relations, which US domestic politics is visibly not.

It’s like a cognitive kill switch to bring up the idea that they are allowed to have ancestral pride, advocate for their interests, and promote their culture just like everyone else.

I agree, and it can be valuable to talk about this - what I disagree with is your model of what happens when that changes. You seem to think that theres some stage where theres a politically viable white movement that competes with the other ethnic movements, and sometimes one wins and sometimes the other, and I think you actually win before it gets there. "Stop listening to the black movement" is an easier ask than "start listening to the white movement".

Why do you think white people vote for the left?

There is no such thing as ‘white people’ as a monophyletic group. In the US there’s a blue tribe, which voted for the left, and there’s several groups which vote for the right and are called ‘red tribe’ by the motte despite being different groups. The red and blue tribes hate each other more than either of them hate or are hated by minorities, Serb and Bosnian style. Our politics is just Balkans tribalism, like he says, but almost everyone is wrong about what the tribes are.

This would make sense if the "anti-white" policies of the left were actually only anti-red-tribe, and didnt harm blue tribers.

They’re on the left because they value other coalitions they are in. I’m not suggesting that a person can only be in one group, I can be in the NRA and the Labor bloc at the same time. I don’t think you aren’t doing coalition based politics just because a person might be part of several. It’s just that for a bock to win on an issue you have to get enough potential members of that bloc to make that their top issue.

If you are in the NRA and the Labor block and you vote Dem, I would expect that you at least dislike the Dem policies on guns. But white liberals dont dislike Dem policies on race. Why not?

If your point is just that the groups themselves are epiphenominal to the desire to help minorities and it's instead sympathy for minorities that causes open advocacy for racial discrimination in favor of them that also creates the groups that are purely symbolic then sure. I guess what I object to is whatever egregore allows open unidirectional advocacy against my and my family's interests on the basis of or skin color.

No, organized black advocacy is definitely a big part of liberalism's political strength. The black political machine is just a huge part of democrat's competitiveness in swing states and it's no accident that the african american wing of the party tends to get its way.

Right, one of Taylor’s main goals in creating American Renaissance was to try and be the focal point of a movement of racially-conscious whites with impeccable optics: erudite, genteel, conservative-coded. No Roman salutes, no street brawls, no white-trash dysfunction, no scary pagan LARPing, etc. Early American Renaissance conferences featured several Jewish speakers, and Taylor has never made the Jewish Question a topic of his advocacy. However, American Renaissance and its surrounding movement had a separate problem, which is that — due mainly to the proud Southern heritage and pro-Confederate sympathies of Taylor and its other early figures like Sam Dickson and Sam Francis — it struck many as having a distinct odor of that other epochal white identitarian movement, the Ku Klux Klan.

Now, to be clear, Taylor himself is squeaky-clean: Yale-educated, a successful businessman, multilingual, an unimpeachable family life, and not a whiff of violence or disreputable behavior. The immediate circle he cultivated was respectable, denouncing anything resembling racial terrorism. He believed he could create a genuine intellectual movement, like the early Progressives, winning people over to his cause through reasoned argumentation and leading by example. This didn’t save him from being labeled a white supremacist, a hate-monger, and all other manner of opprobrious terms by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The most genteel figure imaginable was still basically a Klansman and an evil cult leader in the eyes of those people.

Nowadays, many of the leading lights on the so-called Dissident Right — which is largely an outgrowth of the intellectual current Jared Taylor helped create and nurture — do indeed have more of the disreputable and optically-unfortunate tendencies which more strongly trigger respectable people’s Nazi Alarms. It’s unfortunate that honorable men such as Taylor couldn’t do more to mainstream their cause back when it still could have avoided these failure modes. It’s encouraging, though, to see that many of their most dire predictions appear not to have come true to the extent they feared.

He believed he could create a genuine intellectual movement, like the early Progressives, winning people over to his cause through reasoned argumentation and leading by example.

My initial reaction to this quokka-esque faith in reasoned discourse was “lol, lmao even”

But then I realized that Taylor is the product of a different time, a time when public intellectuals really did have some cachet and, even if they weren’t household names per se, they still had some power to set the conversation and shift people’s opinions through logos. The Mont Pellerin Society, for example, was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Reagan/Thatcherite revolution of the 1980s.

I wonder if Taylor will embrace the new meta, or if he will cling to the antiquated ideals of the Ivy League debating society to the bitter end.

Jared Taylor is 73; a man that old does not change his mind.

Old people don’t change their minds, with rare exception, they just die. Without death, there would not be change.

It is death that causes the lack of change. Will X lead to consequence Y or Z? Elon predicts Y. The years tick by. In twenty years time X will have caused either Y or Z. It is becoming easier to predict with each passing year. Eventually every-one will agree how it turned out.

When will Elon change his mind? If he is old enough to die before the twenty years are up, he won't bother. He isn't going to live to see it and will not be personally embarrassed.

If instead he gets wonder rejuvenation treatment, and fifty years more life, the future becomes more real. He starts to care about where trends are leading because he anticipates seeing the eventual outcome. If Y is starting to look like a bad bet, Elon will change his mind.

politically outvoted by drunken and crime-prone illegals clamoring for Latin American socialism

...

Famously, Trump’s 2024 campaign achieved considerable success among Hispanic men.

Well, there's a natural modus tollens to consider when looking at the modus ponens there. It was expected that Latin-American immigrants would not stop voting in Latin-American politics after they came to the US. Now they're voting for Trump. Did they actually stop? Or is Trump actually more similar to Latin-American socialism than we expected?

It's kind of a matter of internet dissident lore how leftists cling to their mythos of being the anti-elite underdog and champion of the small and oppressed, even as their creed becomes the faith of rich and noble Brahmins yearning to defend their privilege. Perhaps more attention is due to how this is reflected on the other side - are rightists clinging to a mythos of being the noble elites of word and deed seeking to protect their rightfully earned place at the helm, but actually becoming the ideology of bombastic People's Tribunes promising to bring down the enemy elite and distribute gibs to their socioethnic clients? With some squinting, is the promise of Trump (imagined and played up by fans), distributor of free tendies, rewarder of loyals, crystalizer of traitors, not quite similar to that of a Perón, Bolsonaro or even (with identification filed off) Evo Morales?

Latin America isn't all socialists, Milei is a latin american. Latin America is populist, clownish and doesn't have as much long term thinking.

As soon as Milei stops the bleeding a bit they'll go back to voting for socialists again.

That's what truly unfortunate about it all. Argentina had the world's best performing stock market (in USD terms) last year. However I still wouldn't think it safe to invest there on a longer time horizon than 2 years. In a way it's like a longer half life 3x leveraged ETF: excellent for making money in the short term if things go well but woe unto he who leaves his money in there over time.

(Aside: this is yet another example showing why it is better for humanity if the common man has his ability to influence the world restricted)

I mean, UPRO has outperformed SPY going on decades now...

That's only because SPX has been getting artificially juiced and prevented by the FED from falling since the financial crisis (note that UPRO was inaugurated in 2009 so all graphs for it start after then). Of course the leveraged strategy overperforms when there's a big force preventing the underlying from naturally correcting. I don't think the Argentinian market has a similarly strong backer for it, and anyways if the Argentinian equivalent of the fed tried to do something like this their economy would shit the bed and then interest rate you'd need to pay to afford 3x leverage would likely wipe out any gains (not to even factor in currency depreciation since presumably you care about USD performance rather than in pesos).

Sounds like a frustrated bear excuse, my guy. If the government’s holding the line, it’d be stupid not to leverage. It makes no difference whether it is naturally a good strategy, or if the government is artificially propping it up. It has been working for 16 years, so you can’t use it as an example of a strategy that’s likely to fail on a 2 year timeframe.

Latin America has a couple of really good leaders right now. I’m long on El Salvador and Argentina.

To be fair, political parties are clinging to images of themselves that are most likely to get themselves power. They don’t exactly have a loyalty to “the people” except in the sense that in a democratic system, the legitimacy of a government is supposedly conferred by plebiscite. But I don’t think any politician really spends so much as ten minutes a day worrying about the welfare of the people in his own country. They care about winning elections, they care about pushing agendas important to their bloc. But I don’t imagine either one of them care very much about what narrative wins them power. I expect the democrats to drop the blue collar thing pretty soon, not because they’re going to change their mind, but because it’s seen by the general public as false. Nobody sees the democrats as in the corner of the common man. The democrats represent the PMC and fashionable identity politics causes (the kind that the PMC likes, rather than things that make life better for minorities). They represent the manicured hand of the upper classes who only see plebeians through the lenses of Noblesse Obliges. The right represents the blue collar workers.

Trump as a caudillo is not a new comparison- it's just usually been democrats making it. Charismatic leader promising to set things right by rule through force of personality is kinda true.

As others mentioned in this sub-thread, racial identity is an important consideration but by no means is it the only factor supporting one’s quality of life. Economic prosperity counts for a lot as well. A rising economic tide is enough to cover a multitude of sins. But when that tide recedes, racial preferences remain.

For example, George Floyd wasn’t the only black man to have died in police custody. Nor was his death the only one recorded and sensationalized in the media. But the reaction to his death was so much larger—why? Because the COVID economy crushed people and they wanted a reason to vent their frustrations. The unemployment rate was something like 10 percent at the time, and people were locked in their homes and going stir crazy.

After reading (post-Floyd) about Arthur McDuffie, who was beaten to death by Miami police on December 16, 1979 despite having committed no crime, I would have expected that to spark nationwide rage. There were serious riots in Miami's black neighborhoods, but the cause failed to catch on nationwide.

I have to conclude this is because newspapers and TV stations outside Miami didn't cover it (but the black papers must have?!), so I guess social media made all the difference.

but the black papers must have?!

The OCR isn't great but yes, it was covered by multiple black and at least one "alternative anti-war" papers in North Carolina. Unclear if there was any rage associated or just reporting.

racial identity is an important consideration

Is it though? It seems to me that this is one of the key points of disagreement between the intellectual/journalist class and the wider MAGA coalition. If you watch Trump and Co. opposition to immigration is almost always framed in either economic terms (jobs) or security (criminals 'waltzing' across the border unchecked), the preoccupation with racial identity is pretty much exclusive to PMCs and the specific subset of minority grifters who prey upon them.

Jobs and border security are topics safely within the Overton Window, yet correlated to racial identity politics fairly well. Politicians are allowed to talk about them while maintaining plausible deniability about being white identitarians. That’s the upside to civic nationalism, if you subscribe to the idea that Americanism is closely associated with European/white heritage.

How many of those criminals waltzing across the border are ethnic Swedes, Poles, or Irish?

And yet we see Hispanics breaking for Trump (allegedly against thier interests) and white identitarians breaking for Harris (again allegedly against thier interests), the rationalist who is deeply invested in identity politics might have trouble understanding what is going on, but to anyone else the the simplest explanation is the ovious.

The Democrats claim that no one cares about crime or the economy, just race is further evidence that democrats do not care about crime or the economy, they only care about race.

Don’t believe every claim you read. A post-election survey by the Associated Press shows that Trump won 55% of the white vote in 2020 versus 56% in 2024. He improved with Latinos (35% in 2020 to 43% in 2024) and blacks (8% in 2020 to 16% in 2024), but these remain small segments of the voting population compared to whites. Do the numbers suggest a racial reckoning for Democrats? Hardly—they just failed to turn out the non-white vote. In 2020, whites were 74% of the voting population; in 2024 whites increased to 75%. This in a country where the white population is declining in both percentage and real terms.

Trump won in 2024 for the same reason he won in 2016: the Democrats picked a terrible candidate who failed to inspire non-white voter turnout. The Democrats have a long-term formula for electoral success, they just have to get their heads out of their asses and pick someone personally likable. I am amazed at how hard this has been for them.

He improved with Latinos (35% in 2020 to 43% in 2024) and blacks (8% in 2020 to 16% in 2024)

This more than "suggests" a reckoning this "is" the reckoning. The Democrats' electoral strategy for the last 30+ years has depended on keeping Blacks and Latinos on the Democrats plantation and this is why the people pushing Identity politic the hardest are all woke PMCs from Democrat controlled cities and/or Canada.

The nature of FPTP elections means that even a small shift in the effectiveness of a tactic can have big effects on the end result and these are not small shifts.

Do the numbers suggest a racial reckoning for Democrats? Hardly—they just failed to turn out the non-white vote.

This is a racial reckoning for Democrats. A racial reckoning isn't when the racial block converts in-majority to the other side, but when it can no longer be counted upon as a racial block.

Due to the structure of the Democratic coalition and its distribution across various electoral units, Democratic victory across the national electoral landscape requires not just a preponderance of 'minority' voters, but a consistently high preponderance. Those voters are what make 'favorable' gerrymanders favorable in the first place by having narrow coalition majorities in as many districts as possible. Due to how a First Past the Post system works, if a coalition goes from a hypothetical 52% to 49% output- a swing of just 1% protest voting and 1% switching sides- a coalition goes from winning the electoral contest 100% of the time to 0% of the time.

This is why Harris 'only' getting around 80% of the black vote, and Trump doubling from 8 to 16% of the black vote was such a disaster for the Democrats' nation-wide results. The Democratic coalition in the modern urban-based PMC-centered format is/was dependent on 90%-ish alignment to maintain the degree of reach they did have outside urban centers. Worse than a nearly 10% drop from African American support levels earlier in the century, the crossover of voters is double the impact in a binary first-past-the-pos setup. Every drop below that is a 1% equivalent needed from elsewhere, and every crossover is 2% equivalent needed from elsewhere to make up for not only the lost vote, but the additional vote to the other party.

Moreover, voter consistency of a block hinges on the block never voting otherwise. The biggest predictors of how someone will vote is how their parents and family vote, and the biggest predictor of how that someone votes is how many times they've crossed party lines before. The first cross-over is both the hardest and the most significant, as the voter who has crossed over even one time before is far more likely to do so again, and the voters who are known to cross over are among the biggest influencers to get their families to cross over as well, until you have a critical mass of people who are no longer 'reliable' voters for the party. This is how voting blocks / electoral walls crumble.

The issue for the Democrats, going back to the coalition structure, is that the urban-based PMC-core model was the development of the Obama-era party, and the party coalition expectations were based off of his coalition. Except Obama's black and minority support was the exception, being exceptionally high, not the norm, or the level of expected support to baseline from. And as the normalization of Black voters defecting continues, the future reliability of the ethnic blocks is going to decrease, not increase.

As long as the Democratic party coalition continues to baseline off the expectation of Obama-era levels of support- and dismiss failure to meet it as a failure of turn-out as opposed to a transition in the degree of party loyalty of the ethnic voting blocks- they are going to continue to face the racial reckoning as the racial groups they reckon will overwhelmingly support them, won't.

I think it’s less a racial reckoning and more about them being pretty much outed as caring mostly about the concerns of the laptop class and their pet causes than actually running the country.

They don’t care that crime and drug use in cities is horrible. They care that nobody mentions it, and that they don’t put too many minorities in prison. This hurts poor blacks quite a bit because they don’t have the wealth to leave and go to lower crime areas. Working class jobs are a bit harder to come by because we’re importing millions of working class Mexicans and Hispanics willing to work for McDonald’s wages doing construction and restaurants and trash pickup. If you’re in that class, especially for blacks who have less education and fewer opportunities, this is a bad thing. But saying that is racist. And when people can’t get legit jobs and earn their money, crime looks attractive, especially if the authorities have outright stated they don’t want to prosecute crimes.

Environmental stuff, in abstract, I think is okay. The problem is that it’s basically being done on the backs of poor people. Costs are higher because we refuse to dig up the oil and coal reserves we have. We put huge roadblocks to development and manufacturing, often in the form of regulations. This might be okay for the elites who don’t care how much anything costs, but if you’re counting pennies, yeah the fact that your gas costs $5 a gallon matters. Tge fact that regulations have doubled tge cost of food matters.

People know that pattern by now. They watch Americans suffer, especially poorer ones, knowing that help is not on the way. At least not for natives. And that’s what hurts democrats. If you’re not needing something that the elites see as important, or you’re in the wrong social class, you aren’t getting help. Poor people in North Carolina are still sleeping in tents hoping to not lose their land. Immigrants in New York get fully funded EBT cards and free housing. And it’s not super surprising that people are turning away from the party of neoliberalism and lazy identity politics is losing support.

the preoccupation with racial identity is pretty much exclusive to PMCs

You cannot honestly be attempting to claim that racial identity is not important to most black Americans of all socioeconomic classes.

I can.

More specifically I contest the words "most" and "all".

Oh boy.

I mean, this really is the central DR3tard article of faith. “Egghead white communists taught blacks to care about race. If it weren’t for them, black people would all be good old-fashioned American individualists.” It’s delusional. Sure, many middle-class blacks don’t go around screaming about race all the time. But I guarantee you most of them were raised, by their family members and not just by white liberal teachers, that their race and heritage are important. They’ve gotten “the talk” about how police can present a potential threat, and how they need to take extra care to put their best foot forward around white people, so as to not feed into stereotypes. When they see a news story about a black guy who got himself killed by police, there’s a little part of them that says, “That could have been me.”

You and guys like you are always smugly going on about how “PMC liberals” — your ever-present outgroup, whose machinations are directly responsible for every last bad thing in the world — don’t know what everyday, salt-of-the-earth black people are like, so they have to rely on the accounts of grifters pushing an agenda. (An agenda taught to them by, of course, PMC whites.)

But no, this is nonsense. We can see what black people are like and what they value not only by speaking directly to them — something which I’ve done thousands of times in my life — but also by observing their voting patterns, their choices of entertainment, the ways in which they choose to spend their private lives largely in the company of other black folks. They go to black churches, listen to black music (whether that’s hip-hop, or gospel, or Motown, or jazz), and watch black movies. They have a distinct culture, which tracks almost one-to-one with race, and they don’t see anything wrong with that. They’re not doing this for “identity politics”, or to get gibs from da white man, or because scheming communist white people are pulling their strings. It doesn’t mean they can’t productively interact with white people; many of them have white friends, or at least white coworkers. But they know who their people are, and their inner lives are directed primarily toward the betterment of their larger community. This is healthy and normal. It’s not a pathological behavior, and it’s not something “the PMC” taught them.

You and guys like you are always smugly going on about how “PMC liberals” — your ever-present outgroup, whose machinations are directly responsible for every last bad thing in the world — don’t know what everyday, salt-of-the-earth black people are like, so they have to rely on the accounts of grifters pushing an agenda. (An agenda taught to them by, of course, PMC whites.)

They aren’t responsible for literally everything that happens. But what they have is a set of objectively harmful luxury beliefs (for example identity politics), are insulated by their money from the consequences of those beliefs, and because they have much more time to be politically active, and have more money to throw to NGOs that say things they like to hear, they have an outsized influence on politics. It’s the “make middle class women clap” phenomenon that’s been going on for decades. Political leaders listen to them, artists listen to them, etc. because they have time and disposable income.

I don’t think they invented blacks or Hispanics caring about race. They’re minorities, and banding together to solve problems is simply how problems get solved when you don’t compromise the majority of your area. Hispanics do the same. The big difference is that until recently whites were a big enough majority in America and Western Europe that whites didn’t feel the need to do the same thing. Christians didn’t feel the need to band together before because they had a supermajority in elections and therefore their issues were dealt with. The reason so many here don’t like PMC liberals is that the issues that are brought up by whites and Christians are issues that PMCs oppose as backward and uncouth and so on, and they’re thus funding and working for groups that oppose white identity politics.

Political leaders listen to them, artists listen to them, etc. because they have time and disposable income.

Do they ever

MacKenzie Scott, Bezos ex wife, used the gigantic Amazon divorce money she got to spend 16 BILLION dollars on hundreds of NGOs

These billionaires divorces are worse than Soros

Well yeah. It’s how politics works for the most part. For rich people it’s a sport and they have tons of free time and money to spend bankrolling things that they can brag about at dinner parties. And for the most part that’s all they care about. Palestinians are a popular cause because the Israelis on TV mostly look like Europeans, and the Palestinians are brown. Besides, saying Islam has a violence problem makes them feel bad.

More comments

Oh boy.

I mean, this really is the central DR3tard article of faith

No matter how much you might sneer at it, DR3 (ie "Democrats are the real Racists") remains objectivly true.

Who is the real retard then?

DR3 is absolutely not true. A legit white racist, especially in the South or Midwest, will almost always vote Republican. Democrats discriminate against white people, so no racially conscious white outside of weird online people will be convinced by the racism of the Democrats because this racism is directed against them.

What dr3 is saying is that paternalist racially conscious identity politics performed by the democrats is more racist than any republican, even the deep south caricature everyone imagines when you say racist. They dress it up in fancy language and performative compassion, but don't actually give a shit what happens to the community or what the people there think or want.

It is one hundred percent correct, but unlike its brother 'what if the positions were reversed' is a poor argument for right wingers because it assumes the progressive framing is correct.

More comments

Assuming they’re racist against nonwhites, yes.

More comments

You didn’t even refute anything I said. Do you have specific evidence — even if it’s just anecdotal! — to demonstrate that what I’m saying is untrue?

My evidence is that of my own eyes.

I live in a decent sized southern city, and as fantastical as this may sound to the average mottizen such as yourself, black people are out there, right now, wearing clothes, driving cars, and running buisinesses as if they were human beings. While the streets are clean, and reasonably well maintained, and homelessness is rare.

Who are you to tell me that they aren't?

More comments

Who is the real retard then?

"I'll see your DR3, and raise you a DR4".

(Dissident Right are...) - don't ban plz, it's a self-deprecating joke!

I don't think Hanania's points are very good. There are just so many non-white people now in the US that it is impossible to avoid them. And being very white isn't the only thing people look for in a neighborhood or place to live. They might choose to live in NYC or LA for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean a lot of them wouldn't prefer their cities and communities to be whiter.

why it would be a bad thing for whites and Asians to intermarry and their countries become more integrated, he retreats to some wishy-washy petty nationalist

Would you rather live in 1950's California as a white person or future California in a post-racial one where everyone is mixed and from all around the world and there is no unifying culture or set of values other than "diversity is our strength". Obviously that ship has sailed, but if I had a time machine I know which one I'm choosing.

CA in the 50's.

Have you seen the newspaper advertisements for the post-war new build ranch style homes in the new / first suburbs?

It was short lived though, you can see the degeneracy and decay begin to set as depicted in Dragnet.

It was never possible to avoid them, there are large swaths of the country (eg the Rural south, Texas, portions of California) where the "minority" population has been there as long if not longer than the "white". Hanania is just another member of the PMC raging at his percieved loss of privilege.

California was a very white state in 1950. The south had segregation. And they used red lining and other ways to keep them out of white cities across the US until that became illegal with the Civil Rights Act. You could absolutely avoid them. Especially outside the South and places like NYC. In 1950 the US was 90% white and 10% black. So outside a few areas, non white people were extremely rare.

Would you rather live in 1950's California as a white person or future California in a post-racial one where everyone is mixed and from all around the world and there is no unifying culture or set of values other than "diversity is our strength". Obviously that ship has sailed, but if I had a time machine I know which one I'm choosing.

Time machines aren’t real, and nobody has the option to return to 1950’s California. That ship sailed and is not coming back. All I can do is look toward the future, try and game out how different trend could possibly develop, and do my small part to try and make sure the better outcomes are realized rather than the worse ones.

Yeah but he is old so has experienced both. For him it's not a hypothetical. Which is why he is so against what is happening.

Taylor’s stance on race relations between whites and Asians has never been coherent, which is particularly surprising since he was famously born and raised in Japan as the child of two American missionaries.

Assuming that Blacks are inferior to whites and whites are equal to Asiatics, still doesn't get you to supporting infinite Asiatic migration to white countries and infinite white immigration to Asiatic ones. When the next war errupts with an Asiatic country, the coethnics of that Asiatic country US will again face brutal persecution, which would be lacking if they were white.

And because Asiatics are perceived to be intellectual equals to whites, their future persecution is all the more likely: if Japanese-Americans were as smart as mere rats, like Americans depicted them as, they wouldn't credibly be considered a threat. But because the enemy is both weak and strong and Americans in their heart of hearts knew Japanese Americans were at least their intectual equal, Americans knew they posed a threat, if they weren't loyal.

Likewise supporting infinite white immigration into Asiatic countries makes you no better than open border types who consider all socities with functioning credit cards to be equal: immigration even of equal quality populations breeds distrust and disrupts the assabiyah. The few white Americans in Japan, despite your claims that their IQ is equal to that of natives, act in the same manner as immigrants to white countries do: refuse to learn the language, write smear pieces alleging persecution or spread deceits inteding to besmirch the reputation of the host country. See Debito Arudou, Jake Adelestein, David Atkinson, neither showing the amount of respect to the country which opened its doors to them, I assume you would demand from immigrants show to the US.

If white nationalists want to be seen as something to conservationists, who can care about pandas without hating snub nosed monkeys, they should refrain from promoting dissolution of non-white peoples. Admixing South Koreans to some subgroups of US whites could increase their average IQ, but it would decrease diversity, and a principled white nationalist who cares about diversity would oppose it, just as he would oppose any attempt to destroy as a nation any ethnicity, no matter how low its average IQ.

Afford Asiatic peoples the same rights you, Hoffmeister25, have in the past said Black people also deserve: the right to their own states and with their own immigration policies.

When the next war errupts with an Asiatic country, the coethnics of that Asiatic country US will again face brutal persecution, which would be lacking if they were white.

I see no reason to believe that this is true. (And, to be clear, the supposed “brutal persecution” of Japanese-Americans during World War 2 was actually nothing of the sort.)

Likewise supporting infinite white immigration into Asiatic countries makes you no better than open border types who consider all socities with functioning credit cards to be equal

I made it explicit in my post that I do not support “infinite immigration” of anyone to anywhere. Immigration numbers should be controlled and manageable, to limit cultural disruption and strains on education, the job market, and public accommodations.

If white nationalists want to be seen as something to conservationists, who can care about pandas without hating snub nosed monkeys, they should refrain from promoting dissolution of non-white peoples. Admixing South Koreans to some subgroups of US whites could increase their average IQ, but it would decrease diversity, and a principled white nationalist who cares about diversity would oppose it, just as he would oppose any attempt to destroy as a nation any ethnicity, no matter how low its average IQ.

I don’t care about diversity in that sense. I want the world to become more interconnected and culturally-homogenous over time; I just want the culture the world converges on to be advanced, Eurasian in character rather than some oppositional Third World miasma, and to value the things I value. I’d be perfectly happy if in 300 years nobody speaks Korean any longer, as long as that means that people with Korean ancestry have been successfully amalgamated into a thriving, technologically-advanced, proud world culture. This will mean a flattening and merging of white cultures as well; I don’t care if anyone is still speaking Dutch in 300 years either. This process of cultural blending between the peoples of Eurasia and the Americas needs to take place gradually and not by force or coercion, but I do believe it will take place.

I don’t care about diversity in that sense

At the risk of drawing booing, hissing and throwing of rocks I will confess that I'm super woke in this regard, and actually do care about diversity. Humanity transformed into stirred gruel of averaged out geno, pheno and culture types sounds very unappealing to my sensibilities, even if despite the numerical supermajority of Indians and Africans they somehow fail to dominate this gestalt.
Let the hundred flowers bloom, I say. The only realistic obstacle to what modern left winger would perceive as consummate planetary diversity is ironically the rejection of diversity on the local scale through self segregation and political borders - unfashionable as it is today. Interesting how through seemingly subtle tweaking of what diversity means we can arrive at dramatically different policies.
I'm aware that, to an extent, homogenization is natural in a world made smaller through technological means. With any luck, space colonization will prove a lasting obstacle to this.

I’d be perfectly happy if in 300 years nobody speaks Korean any longer

Idle curiosity: how many languages do you speak fluently?

Idle curiosity: how many languages do you speak fluently?

Just English. I used to be conversational in Spanish, albeit at nowhere near a high enough level to discourse intellectually in it; my Spanish has atrophied significantly from disuse, though.

I do expect that English will probably be the global lingua franca if the homogenization I’m expecting becomes a reality; while I love the English language very much (duh, I speak it, it feels like home to me, of course I think it’s the best) I also welcome language reforms (especially spelling reforms) in order to make it a truly suitable global (and later interstellar) human language.

I wrote a top level post earlier this week about- well, I don’t know that it was about this, but it was adjacent- white people not minding Mexican neighbors. People are fine with it.

Race issues, intractable ones, in the US seem specific to blacks, and perhaps specific to AADOS blacks, vs everyone else. Yes subcontinentals are widely disliked elsewhere in the Anglosphere but we don’t have enough of them for it to be a big issue here.

I suspect that if we imported unselected Arabs or whatever, then there would be serious race issues between them and everyone else. But we don’t have those either. American ‘race issues’ are code for ‘blacks and non-blacks not getting along’.

I’m not sure it’s strictly a race issue. Arabs are mostly Muslims and Islam has a whole host of really bad ideas embedded in the religion. Even if we don’t allow random Arabs in, conversion is a problem as well because the religion is predicated upon Islam supremacy and imposition of Islamic laws and social structures on any society it encounters. They wouldn’t just impose a Mosque of England and you could live perfectly comfortably practicing your own religion without fear or having to follow the rules. Islam simply cannot accept other beliefs as equal to their own.

Mexicans are okay people, and generally seem to be taking up labor jobs, which I think is why Trump did so well among black men who might be competing for those labor jobs. Whites don’t care so much unless they’re in the trades because they aren’t around them as much.

It seems like Sunni Shiite and Christian Arabs are three different ethnic groups; Christian Arabs make good immigrants and the other two don't. To what extent this is driven by ethnicity/culture vs religion is an open question. I certainly think religion plays a role.

Considering that the main difference between Sunni and Shiites one one hand and Christians on the other is religion, I’m not seeing much of an open question here.

Almost none of these people are converts, and their parents weren’t either. A significant plurality of Arab Christians don’t have grandparents who speak Arabic(they spoke Aramaic instead), the consanguinity rates are much lower, these populations are basically different castes in the same country.

Depends on the type of Mexican. There's a neighborhood about 5 minutes away from me that no white person would willingly live in and it is all Mexicans. It is an incredibly unsafe neighborhood. I think all the white people who used to live there didn't like them very much as neighbors. And of course, Trump ran on mass deportations. Who do you think those people were understood by everyone to be?

Centracos and Haitians?

So you think conservatives and MAGA are cool with the millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico that currently live in the US? Are they getting a pass because Americans like them as neighbors so much? When they ask for papers and start deporting, Mexicans are going to be spared because they are such great neighbors to MAGA people in Texas?

There will not be mass deportations. I’m pretty confident in that. And I’m also pretty confident that if all the illegals had been Mexicans(most aren’t these days), immigration would not be a top political issue.

How old are you? Because people on the right (and some on the left) have been talking about deporting illegal Mexicans my whole life. This is such a ridiculous argument you are making if you are not in your early twenties.

Who do you think this was targeting 30 years ago in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187

You're just flat out wrong if you are "confident that if all the illegals had been Mexicans(most aren’t these days), immigration would not be a top political issue." It has been a top political issue for decades, and during most of that time period, the majority were Mexicans. And they are still a plurality of the migrants anyway.

Imagine this scenario: Tomorrow, 100% of the illegal immigrants in the US are Mexican. Is it no longer an issue? MAGA and conservatives now support open borders? Or do you think they will want those illegals deported?

Editing this just to add one more point. Trump literally made illegal immigration from Mexico in 2015 one of his biggest campaign issues. His infamous “not sending their best” speech was clearly about Mexican illegals. This isn’t even debatable.

Who do you think those people were understood by everyone to be?

Central Americans? Asians? Mexicans are no longer the majority of illegal immigrants.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/

The number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico dropped to 4.0 million in 2022 from a peak of 6.9 million in 2007. Mexico has long been, and remains, the most common country of birth for unauthorized immigrants.

It's the most common in the sense that it's the single biggest, but it accounts for about a third of illegal immigrants. The lion's share are not Mexicans.

I would argue most people probably think the majority are Mexican. They probably just assume most Central Americans are just Mexicans. But even if somehow the average person knows the updated numbers (they don't), it is understood that millions of Mexicans will be deported.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing. Do you not think the average MAGA person who wants mass deportations of illegals doesn't want the millions of illegal Mexicans in the US deported along with all other illegal migrants? It is understood by anyone who supports this policy that Mexicans will be one of the top groups deported (and they are correct, by the very source you cited). And these same people have wanted these people deported for 50 years, so the changing demographics of where they come from is irrelevant. Deporting illegal Mexicans has been something they always wanted!

Additionally, while white identitarians were correct to predict an exodus of conservative whites from racially-diverse liberal states, they probably did not anticipate that such whites would flee not to Whitopias such as Idaho and Montana, bu

Assuming that you've accurately represented Hanania's viewpoint here, he doesn't appear to fully understand the situation. On a county level, people move towards whiteness and away from blackness.

Sure, South Carolina has a lot of black people. But conservatives moving from California to South Carolina aren't going to be anywhere near them. They will be in a nice safe street somewhere else.

But even on a state level, Idaho is the second fastest growing state since 2010 after Mormon (and lily white) Utah.

At the same time, Taylor is still wrong. Because it's not about "being near your own people". It's about being near white people. Black and Hispanic people also migrate towards white areas. High trust societies rock.

I think it's not so much about being near white people, it's about being near people who create thriving economies and do little violent crime or property crime. Few people of any race want to live around methed-out white gangsters in a backwater town. And then the secondary consideration is being around your own race. So, for example, a white person will probably on average prefer to live around affluent peaceful white people than around affluent peaceful Asian people, (of course there are many exceptions - some people of every race enjoy living around people of a foreign culture and so on. I just mean on average), but would rather live around affluent peaceful Asian people than around violent white people in a place with a really bad economy.

At the same time, Taylor is still wrong. Because it's not about "being near your own people". It's about being near white people. Black and Hispanic people also migrate towards white areas. High trust societies rock.

Conservative Muslims in Europe, for example, prove Hanania's point that people move for economic reasons and not just purely identarian ones,sure.

But do these groups mainly move to live amongst white people or do they live amongst their own? You can have all of the benefits of a Western society while making it more like yours if you can have your own neighborhood/community embedded in a high development country.

It's about being near white people.

I don’t think this is true. It is about getting away from blacks, but most whites appear to have few if any qualms about moving to places like the Bay Area which have heavily Latino and Asian populations, but few blacks.

They move to the whitest POSSIBLE areas though like Pleasanton or Livermore or Palo Alto. There's a lot of areas in the Bay that have lots of Hispanics that middle class white people would never move to if they had a choice. Especially if they have kids. I think you're missing a massive piece of the argument which is that there are literally no all white cities in California and haven't been for decades. But there are massive economic reasons to go there, so they will deal with the diversity even if they don't like it. And when they do move there, if they have the means to do so, will move to the place with the most white people.

And I think you are also forgetting a lot of people on the right hate California and would never move there period.

But there are massive economic reasons to go there, so they will deal with the diversity even if they don't like it.

Exactly. Here's a great blog article on the subject: https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/fleeing-opportunity

Diversity has killed growth because talented people are leaving the most productive areas. Throughout most of history, the opposite was true, with young dreamers coming to Rome, Paris, London, or New York to make their fortune. They still do, of course, but in much smaller numbers.

How bad is it? California has lost millions of citizens to domestic migration despite having by far the best climate and great economic opportunities. Imagine how bad things would be if they didn't have beaches, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley.

It's not all bad news though. Cities are IQ shedders, so in the long run, it's probably better if our best people leave the cities. Bad for economic growth, but good for demographics.

Diversity has killed growth because talented people are leaving the most productive areas.

Racial diversity is not even close to the primary reason why most people flee California. The extremely high cost of living, the massive homeless problem, the crumbling infrastructure, the punishing taxation, the piss-poor governance — all of these are far more salient than the number of Mexicans. (And California has a far lower black percentage than nearly any of the states — Texas, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina — to which Californians are mostly fleeing.)

Again, people are not moving to the black areas of those states.

Most blacks in Texas live in the same major cities everyone else does, and these are the ones people are moving to.

You’re aware that black people can move around outside “their neighborhoods”, right? The neighborhood where I live isn’t heavily black in terms of the people who occupy houses here, but there are plenty of black people when I go to the grocery store, or to various public places. If a school district practices busing or has magnet schools, my children can have black students in their classes, even if we don’t live in a “black area”. Thus, the black percentage of the population is still relevant even if you feel like you can just move to “a white area”.

Yes, of course. People living in majority black neighborhoods move out a lot. It's a good idea for them to do so.

But majority black areas still exist, even if they bleed residents every year. Also, new majority black areas are constantly created as other groups leave.

More comments

The extremely high cost of living

Cost of living increases are directly related to more migrants and illegal immigrants providing competition for many of the individual costs that go into living (food, energy, housing).

the massive homeless problem

Directly related to the above as well. If the cost of living and competition/pressure on wages wasn't artificially pumped up by immigration, the homeless situation wouldn't be so bad.

the crumbling infrastructure,

i.e. infrastructure that can't support the inflated number of people it is expected to support - once again you can blame migration.

the punishing taxation,

And a lot of that is due to illegal immigration as well.

the piss-poor governance

Directly enabled by immigration. There's no viable right wing path to victory, so there's nothing that cleans out dead weight on the left side of politics. When you don't even have to try to win elections, the selection pressures for leadership consist entirely of pleasing donors and party insiders - as opposed to solving the problems your citizens are facing.

You're right when you say that racial diversity isn't the cause - but you're not really giving a complete picture, either. The costs of massive immigration, which is one of the manifestations of the drive for racial diversity, are all directly related to the list of reasons you gave for people fleeing. You're looking at people fleeing from a burning house and saying "They're not running from the fire, they're running from the heat and the smoke! Look, they're even taking shelter in a building with a fireplace, so it clearly isn't the fire that's making them run."

Texas has very similar demographics and high immigration inflows, with at the very least fewer of these problems than California does. Poor governance is the main reason.

They move to the whitest POSSIBLE areas though like Pleasanton or Livermore or Palo Alto

Not really. Palo Alto gained almost no residents from 2010 to 2020 and is 48% non Hispanic white. Dublin is one of the fastest growing cities in the state and is 28 percent non Hispanic white.

I said possible. There are very few majority white cities in the Bay Area. And when I lived out there, the ones I mentioned were much whiter, but had lots of Asians and Indians moving in like crazy. The demographics were changing quickly. But this is irrelevant to what I was saying because as I mentioned they move to the whitest city possible, not that they move to a white majority city. I didn’t say they moved to majority white cities because those are incredibly rare and out of reach for all but the wealthiest.

I honestly don’t even know what you are trying to say with your comment. What point are you trying to make with this? How is this even relevant? 48% white is about as white as it will get there.

they move to the whitest city possible, not that they move to a white majority city

They don't. That's what I'm telling you. Palo Alto, comparatively white, is practically not growing. Almost nobody is moving there. Dublin, comparatively nonwhite, is among the fastest growing cities in the state.

I honestly don’t even know what you are trying to say with your comment.

My argument is that your claim has no correspondence to reality and contradicts the data. Do you have any evidence for your claim?

I haven’t lived in the Bay Are in over 10 years, so I thought of random cities known for being white when I was there. And it’s not even debatable that I am right. You can look at maps of cities in the Bay Area and the percentage of white people and they clearly try to congregate and cluster in certain areas. They have a preference to live in the whitest possible cities if they can. This is a clear revealed preference based off demographic data. Otherwise, you would see white people randomly distributed amongst all the cities, which you obviously don’t. Even within cities, there are certain percentages of SF or Oakland that have higher percentages of white people than others. How else would you explain this?

Your claim:

On a county level, people move towards whiteness

This is a claim about where people move to. The cities growing fastest (i.e. the cities that have the most people moving into them) are rather nonwhite. How does this not, at least to a first approximation, disprove your claim? Perhaps you can argue that all the growth seen in e.g. Dublin and Emeryville is Asians, but you haven't shown that.

So again, do you have any evidence that white people tend to move to white towns? Or is your argument not actually supported by evidence of where people are moving?

You can look at maps of cities in the Bay Area and the percentage of white people and they clearly try to congregate and cluster in certain areas.

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/bayarea_whites_2017_0-0.png

Doesn't really look like that to me. Looks to me that white people avoid the very shittiest parts of the bay, which makes sense since white people have the resources to do this more often than Hispanics or blacks. White people also more frequently live in old money towns like Atherton, but that's clearly not due to whites overwhelmingly moving there, for the simple reason that nobody is overwhelmingly moving to Atherton. And finally white people are more likely to live in rural areas, but again, hardly anyone is moving there.

More comments

It is very low non-white Hispanic and black through, which is probably what he means. (10% and 3% respectively iirc! There goes 47% of all the murders!)

Exactly. They are pretending not to know what I am talking about. The cities in the Bay Area with lots of white people will also have lots of Asians so pointing it out is irrelevant. Whites with means clearly have a preference for a certain kind of city.

More comments

53% Asian in Dublin? That's crazy, I don't remember it being anything like that much.
It's even 42-42 white-Asian in Pleasanton too. Guess I was in a bit of a racial bubble.

When was the last time you visited Dublin? There's been a lot of Asians in the tri valley area for some time, and the trends have continued.

Ultimately, Taylor’s predictions of mass racial strife and whites fleeing to the hinterlands to form whites-only communities just have not panned out. As Hanania says: There are plenty of extremely white places in America, and almost nobody is moving to any of them.

I haven't followed Taylor's work too closely, but it's wrong to characterize the entire Dissident Right as predicting that whites will flee to rural white communities. I don't want to live in a rural white commune in Idaho, I want to live in a world-class city! The fact that non-whites migrate to the most desirable places to live is not really a rebuttal to "demographics are destiny." And white flight to the suburbs is evidence of that fact- it's a compromise: they want access to a world class city but they don't want to live around blacks.

And if you don't call the past 10 years racial strife, I'm not sure exactly what it would take for you to admit this has happened. Take something like white representation in Ivy League 25 years ago compared to today. That is a reckoning. If Taylor predicted White people would flee all the cities to form rural communes (I can't verify that, I'll take your word for it), then you can register that as a false prediction, but the "White Nationalist" prediction I've heard is it will cause civilizational decline and urban decay. If White Nationalists predicted urban decay would you say their prediction was correct?

I have many problems with Richard Hanania, but seeing the army of pro-Taylor trolls

Richard Hanania's entire schtick is trolling with insults about how low-status it is to be a white identarian, including ample insults about appearance. Turnabout is fair play.

And if you don't call the past 10 years racial strife, I'm not sure exactly what it would take for you to admit this has happened.

Hanania’s stance, which I basically agree with, is that the real strife isn’t “everyone against white people”, but rather “blacks against everyone else”. If the oppositional culture of black was taken out of the equation, whether by crushing Indian Schools style cultural reprogramming, eugenics, or geographic/political separation, white people would have almost no difficulty living with a substantial number of immigrants from other races. Latinos certainly took time and significant effort to integrate, and obviously the country needs to get a handle on the number of Latinos to make sure they don’t become a majority population too quickly, but having lived in a heavily Latino city my entire life, I can honestly say that they have not been a significant source of any strife or discomfort to me. Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here. (Again, proportions matter — I wouldn’t want America to accept 4 million Chinese immigrants next year — but pretending like Asians are a significant contributor to racial division in this country is simply dishonest.) The problem, overwhelmingly, is blacks and the fallout from the eternal question of how to deal with them. Applying a model of race relations designed for black-white conflict to other races is simply missing the point. It’s a distraction.

There are places in the world from which developed countries should want a very small number of immigrants. The United States has, thus far, managed to do a spectacular job of avoiding receiving very many immigrants from those places. Europe has done a much worse job of this, and has suffered the consequences. As I’ve said before, if Europe had let in a million Vietnamese instead of a million Syrians, the continent simply would not be facing any serious problems with multiculturalism. Jared Taylor’s model is, like yours, over-focused on whites vs. non-whites, while it should instead be trying as hard as possible to muster Asians and Latinos in a coalition against blacks and Arabs.

Minor point- the Hispanics that do well in the US seem to be mostly Mexicans, Cubans and certain other carribean groups, and the upper crust and upper middle classes from elsewhere in Latin America. Centracos(most of the people coming to the border now) do much worse, possibly as badly as blacks.

Oh for sure, that’s what I meant when I said America has so far done a good job of keeping out masses of people from populations which will be way harder to integrate. Centracos and Venezuelans will be a very different breed (literally) of Latinos.

Yeah, it's frustrating that people, including Hoffmeister who I feel ought to know better, don't property account for European admixture in Latinos when they get defensive of Latino immigration to America and treat it as a monolith.

Kind of like how Hollywood makes Ana de Armas the character who is the stand-in for Hispanic migration to the United States in the film Knives Out. Not this Guatemalan guy.

Yeah, it's frustrating that people, including Hoffmeister who I feel ought to know better, don't property account for European admixture in Latinos when they get defensive of Latino immigration to America and treat it as a monolith.

I don’t know why you think I see all Latin American peoples as a monolith. I live in San Diego, which is very heavily Mexican, but we have communities of other nationalities and I have interacted with them. I’m well aware that Mexican mestizos and brown Dominicans are very different sorts of people on average. The difference is that thus far, America simply has not had to deal with very large numbers of non-Mexican Latinos. I’m as hawkish as you are about keeping it that way.

You're still thinking in terms of racial coalitions, and Hanania does not or at least he pretends he does not.

You think racial coalitions only matter when it comes to the Black Question, but they can be tossed aside when it comes to every single other political and cultural question? Nonsense. You can say you want them to be your ally against the blacks until the cows come home, but they are going to act in their own interests. Racial coalitions are everywhere.

Blacks are not even the most threatening minority because they don't really have the agency to achieve political and cultural power like, say, Indians coming and replacing the highest levels of our most important institutions. You don't think that would be a problem?

Again, proportions matter — I wouldn’t want America to accept 4 million Chinese immigrants next year

But why not? You just say "proportions matter." But can you explain why accepting 4 million Chinese immigrants next year would be a problem, but at the same time "Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here". Would you be OK with American demographics becoming vast majority Chinese if it were just spread out over 80 years and associated with economic growth?

Arab Americans also have a higher median income and level of education compared to Latinos. They do well in America. Why not let the Arabs in?

Nigerians also do well in America. I've never had a bad interaction with a Nigerian, only good ones. Why not let them all in?

You haven't sufficiently explained why Latinos are good in America but Arabs are bad in America. If you are measuring "do well" by economic output then you're just in Bryan Caplan Open Borders land like Hanania. Or is your position "Open borders for everyone except Africans"?

Overall, you seem stuck in evaluating immigration impact based on crime and terrorism. If a group doesn't commit a ton of crime then it's OK to mass migrate to Europe and the United States? Feel free to dispute that if I'm not fairly characterizing your argument.

But can you explain why accepting 4 million Chinese immigrants next year would be a problem, but at the same time "Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here".

I'm going to take a different tack than @Hoffmeister25, and say "modern Mainland Chinese are a considerably-bigger threat than other East Asians and to some extent even legacy Chinese". Specifically, the PRC actually does maintain a degree of control over its diaspora, particularly those educated there (its internal propaganda is far more effective than its external) and those with hostages close family members there, which poses an obvious NatSec risk in the not-so-unlikely event of crisis; "don't import a large, organised enemy force" is like Rule 1 of immigration policy.

But why not? You just say "proportions matter." But can you explain why accepting 4 million Chinese immigrants next year would be a problem, but at the same time "Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here".

This is one of my least favorite tactics of yours, wherein you pretend not to understand that it’s more difficult to culturally integrate a large number of people than it is to integrate a small number of people. If 4 million Chinese people arrived in the U.S. over the course of one year, this would introduce very serious logistical issues for the places accepting them. Masses of children entering the school system without any English proficiency. The likelihood of insular ethnic enclaves, of the type that still exist today in parts of New York City. (I’ve been to the Chinatown in Flushing myself, and it really is like stepping into some random street market in China.) Whereas a smaller number, spread out over a longer period of time, would introduce considerably smaller issues.

Arab Americans also have a higher median economic, level of education, and national average income compared to Latinos. They do well in America. Why not let the Arabs in?

Because that’s an extremely small selection of the total Arab population. Ditto for the Nigerians who have immigrated to the U.S. thus far. The story of Arab and African immigration to Europe shows what happens when you accept a totally un-selected mass of random citizens from these places. I have no problem living among intelligent English-speaking Igbo Nigerians, provided they are not provided with an outlet to politically prosecute grievances against white civilization. (And, to be clear, most do not appear to wish to do so.)

his is one of my least favorite tactics of yours, wherein you pretend not to understand that it’s more difficult to culturally integrate a large number of people than it is to integrate a small number of people.

I never made that assertion, I was asking you to elaborate on how you reconciled that statement with "there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here." You say cultural integration, but you acknowledge the reality of racial coalitions, you just seem to think they are only meaningful for the Black Question and not other cultural or political questions.

Jared Taylor's position is that racial coalitions would be impactful in many other ways and would compete with whites politically and culturally. I can say his prediction on that front has 100% come true. It's still early for Indians, but Taylor's point about all the wealthiest Indian philanthropists donating predominately to Indian causes would be a meaningful leading indicator that the racial coalitions won't respect your desire to only acknowledge them for the Black Question. There is also a huge amount of anecdotal evidence of nepotism from Indians in Silicon Valley culture. You just seem fixated on black crime without regard for how racial coalitions express themselves in all of our other cultural institutions.

Equally or more important than the question of racial coalitions is the question of ethnogenesis. You claim that eugenics is the most important question of the day, but you don't see the risk in haphazardly introducing admixture from all over the world into European society? You are certain that a mixture of everyone is going to be better than a European?

Jared Taylor's position is that racial coalitions would be impactful in many other ways and would compete with whites politically and culturally. I can say his prediction on that front has 100% come true.

I agree with you that the issue of integrating Indians is presenting some interesting difficulties. You and I probably agree that in many ways this issue is isomorphic to the integration of Jews into gentile countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. Now, I see the story of Jewish integration as basically a qualified success story, whereas you clearly see it as a disaster and as an ill portent for how the Indian situation will pan out. Probably the biggest difference between the two scenarios is that there is just such an incredibly large number of Indians waiting to emigrate, and the prospect of successfully assimilating the kinds of numbers we’re potentially talking about is dire. We simply cannot let the nascent Indian lobby succeed at forcing our countries to let in an endless number of them. If the stream can be cut to a trickle, though, I think the story of Indian immigration to the West will be seen as a success in sixty years.

You claim that eugenics is the most important question of the day, but you don't see the risk in haphazardly introducing admixture from all over the world into European society? You are certain that a mixture of everyone is going to be better than a European?

I don’t know how many more ways I can make it clear that I do not want haphazard immigration from all over the world. No, I do not want billions of Sub-Saharans, or Gulf Arabs, or Venezuelans, or Melanesians. I do believe that the optimal genetic admixture of people in the future will be some combination of European, East Asian, Jewish, and a small but non-negligible amount of Amerindian. You might think this would be a mystery-meat catastrophe, but I think it would be a healthy and vital blending of the best each of these elements would offer.

What's your take on the Hapa ethnogenesis? Early results don't seem great. They seem to have a lot of issues, it's not clear human admixture works in the "best of both worlds" way like me all may wish.

I look at Hapas, imagine a little bit of Jewish admixture (very little, not enough to go around, more likely Jews are subsumed as well) plus Amerindian admixture, plus Indian admixture, imagine them replacing Europeans in America and Europe. I don't know man, seems like a pretty bad ending to the European race to me and I don't think Civilization would be better for it.

What's your take on the Hapa ethnogenesis?

I'll give my two cents, as I am a product of it. Those of us above a certain age are disproportionately likely to be from broken families (relative to non-mixed families of the same social class) and to have parents who are deeply weird in some way e.g. dad is autistic, a sexpat, or an abusive soldier, mom is a former sex worker or couldn't find a husband in her home country and snagged a white guy to have kids with at age 40, etc. This is not a good recipe for creating successful and well-adjusted individuals, but doesn't necessarily reflect what the results would be if you randomly paired off the populations of say Germany and South Korea.

The younger couples I see around me seem more normal, as most met at school or through some tech job in California, and the gender ratios are less skewed i.e. more pairings of Asian men and White women. It's too soon to tell for sure, but I imagine a nation of their descendants would look like a cross between Finland and Japan: a clean, orderly place capable of making substantial contributions to science, technology, and literature, but with a smaller fraction of truly brilliant, one-of-a-kind individuals. There's a certain type of genius I've seen in a few individuals of European, Jewish, or Indian descent that I have never seen in East Asians.

Hapas seem fine if they assimilate to a consistent culture. Getting stuck between two is bad for them.

What's your take on the Hapa ethnogenesis? Early results don't seem great. They seem to have a lot of issues, it's not clear human admixture works in the "best of both worlds" way like me all may wish.

What specific issues do you have in mind? Certainly some seem to deal with an angst about being torn between two different cultures; that’s to be understood, as currently European and East Asian cultures are still sufficiently divergent enough that I can imagine it being quite difficult to seamlessly navigate between both worlds. However, those cultural gaps are already on their way to closing, as Asian countries continue to Westernize. (And as Western countries increasingly integrate aspects of Asian culture.) I see the cultural difficulties hapas face as basically temporary and contingent. Are you pointing to more material genetic issues?

More comments

Very few Jewish-Chinese Hapas exist beyond the first gen; I personally know quite a few and they’re all first generation. You would need at least 2-3 generations to be able to discern what wasn’t just an identity crisis in my opinion.

More comments

spamming the comments section of the debate with petty insults about his appearance

Hanania did help bring it on himself by intentionally riling up the Chuds during the H1B visa kerfuffle.

The comments on that reddit post are not as one-sided as I expected, looks like this issue splits redditors differently than the other wedge issues.

The more I read of Hanania over time, the more respect I lose.

His opinions are all over the map and impossible to pin down. He's right about the gribblers and maga conservatives being and embracing stupidity, of course. But pinning himself in the neoliberal camp as a kind of anti-maga race realist zionist(?) is getting old fast.

More specifically, it's the smug eternal dunking that's been getting insufferable

When someone namefags they declare themselves a traitor to anons everywhere. If they were formerly one of them then they have betrayed their philosophy, their community and themselves. It is natural for those who remain in that community to attack them with everything they have. Calling it crab bucket behaviour inspired by envy is misunderstanding the game board.

As you mention, Hanania trolls all the time, and he especially trolls white nationalists. I don't see how turnabout isn't fair play.

I actually changed my mind about the crab bucket bit and edited that out before I saw your response to it. I wrote it before I spent some more time reading Hanania's timeline and losing the will to disapprove of the people attacking him.

I forgive him for namefagging because he didn't start doing it until he was outed by a journalist and made unemployable. Namefagging is his only way to make a living now, he has no choice. He could have been a right wing youtuber if he wanted, but instead he decided to picks fights with his former comrades for twitter-clout.

JD Vance did the same thing in 2016 and he was forgiven. So it's never too late to repent, I guess.

Ah it's all good, I just wanted to emphasise the trolling aspect - Hanania has fun with it, and while I'm sure there are a couple of trolls just losing their shit I think most of his responders are also having fun with it - they're playing the game from the opposite angle.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats