The Ideological State

Civic nationalism is an effort to define a nation ideologically, rather than biologically and geographically. Up until the French Revolution, a nation was primarily a related group of people with a common language, culture and history. The French were not defined by geography or ideology, but by blood. The lands they occupied were French lands, because they were occupied by French people. The people were loyal to themselves and, by extension, a king, whose duty it was to defend the interests of his people.

The French Revolution changed that as a nation came to be defined by geography and ideology. The challenge with replacing private government, where a king defends his lands and the land of his people, is in finding something to replace the basis of loyalty. That’s where the civic religion comes into the mix. Instead of people giving their soul to God and their sword to the king, both are pledged to the new civic religion, where the state is the object of worship and veneration. Citizenship becomes a sacred duty.

The Enlightenment ideas about public government were, of course, a reaction to the defects of the aristocratic regime. A good king makes for the best form of government, but a terrible king, who is greedy or stupid, makes for the worst for of government. The former advances the peace and prosperity of his people, while the latter damages it. Placing the fate of the people on luck, hoping the next king turns out to have the right mix of qualities for the age, seems like a rather silly way to run a society, when you think about it.

Public government addresses that by giving the people an organized way to get rid of bad rulers and change public policy. The trouble with public government is the same trouble we see with public property. When no one owns something, no one has an incentive to sacrifice for it or invest in it. The tragedy of the commons applies to all public goods, including government. The solution is the civic religion, where the identity of the citizen is tied to the success of the state. The state becomes the altar of the people.

This is why, in our current age, the ruling class drones on endlessly about democracy and the alleged threats to democracy. They don’t use the word democracy to mean people voting on public policy. They mean it as a synonym for the neo-liberal order and the cosmopolitan ideology that animates it. It’s why the wrong person winning an election is a threat to democracy, while the right person winning is a celebration of democracy. It’s also why the coup plotters in the FBI still feel smugly justified in their actions.

Ideological nations have two problems. One is they must endlessly whip the citizens into a fervor in order to keep them loyal to the state. Religions have the same challenge, which is why the preacher is always warning about some imminent threat to your soul or reminding everyone about God’s wrath. Piety is a full-time commitment and that applies to civic piety, as well. It’s why communist countries are drenched in patriotic symbols, songs and public performances, designed to keep everyone in a heightened state of ideological frenzy.

The other problem, a consequence of the demands of piety, is they become ruthlessly intolerant of dissent. “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” becomes the mantra of every nation built on ideology. If people are allowed to question the ideology that organizes the state, they are doubting the project itself and this must be viewed as a threat to the state. Therefore, civic religions must always become increasingly intolerant and narrow, in order to defend the state against challenges.

This is why the two great industrial wars of the 20th century were blood baths. When one tribe fights another for access to the river, they just want access to the river. They see each other has competitors for a resource. Compromise and mercy are possible, because their conflict is not personal. They may work up a good hatred for the other people in order to screw up their courage, but that’s a fanaticism of temporary necessity. Once the material dispute is resolved, the people have no reason to hate one another.

When two people make war over religion, because they see one another as an abomination or a direct threat to what defines them as a people, the conflict must be a fight to the death. There can be no mercy toward that which threatens your existence. This also means no limits. The total wars of the 20th made perfect sense to the combatants, because they saw the other side as devoted to evil. Incinerating a city is perfectly reasonable if you think the people in it are evil, because they support an evil ideology.

Again, this is something we see in our own time. Social media is full of post by Progressive fanatics, celebrating violence against people they call Nazis. It’s not that these victims are actual Nazis, of course. It’s just that the word now means “evil people” who the pious see as a threat to their existence. By definition, the pious must never show mercy to evil, as to do so means accepting that there is some virtue in the evil people that is worth preserving. Piety demands no mercy be given to the impious.

Now, the American ruling elite, for the last 75 years or so, has claimed that rather than being a nation defined by blood and soil, America is a nation defined by allegiance to a set of ideals, the American creed. That way, anyone who wanders in can be a citizen, as long as he pledges allegiance to those ideals. This was a post hoc justification for mass immigration in the early 20th century and a way to include the sons of recent immigrants into the national mythology. It sacralized the immigrant as the ultimate American.

In fact, Americans are now more loyal to foreigners than to one another. It seems that a third defect of the ideological state is that the ideology evolves a hatred of itself. Something similar has happened in Europe. The EU is, after all, an effort to apply the lessons of America to the European continent. Instead of defining the people biologically and geographically, a European will be an idea. In Europe and America, the idea of citizenship has curdled into self-loathing. What defines the people is their hatred of themselves.

This is not correctable. People join a cause or a movement in order to swap their individual identity for that of the group. In other words, people are driven to ideology out of self-loathing. A society based on ideology must therefore reward those most riddled with doubt and celebrate self-loathing as the highest virtue. The ideological state, regardless of design, must always become a suicide cult. It simultaneously boils off the skeptical and rewards the most fanatical. A society run by fanatics always ends in a blood bath.

150 thoughts on “The Ideological State

  1. All you need to do is read the following to see how homogenity is key to a lasting civilization.

    >A finalist for World Magazine’s Book of the Year! “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise is essential reading. It will soon find its place on the shelves of premier academic institutions and in the syllabi of pioneering scholars.” –Antonio Carreño, W. Duncan McMillan Family Professor in the Humanities, Emeritus, Brown University “I could not put this book down. The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise constitutes a watershed in scholarship. . . . Fernández-Morera brilliantly debunks the myths that for so long have dominated Islamic historiography and conventional wisdom. We were waiting for this great breakthrough.” –Raphael Israeli, Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern, Islamic, and Chinese History, Hebrew University of Jerusalem “Fernández-Morera examines the underside of Islamic Spain. . . . This is an intelligent reinterpretation of a supposed paradise of convivencia.” –Julia Pavón Benito, Professor of Medieval Spanish History, University of Navarra “Desperately, desperately needed as a counter to the mythology that pervades academia on this subject.” –Paul F. Crawford, Professor of Ancient and Medieval History, California University of Pennsylvania “A splendid book. This sober and hard-hitting reassessment demolishes the myths of religious tolerance and multiculturalism that have hopelessly romanticized the precarious coexistence and harsh realities of medieval Spain under Muslim rule. . . . Must-reading.” –Noël Valis, Professor, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Yale University Scholars, journalists, and even politicians uphold Muslim-ruled medieval Spain–“al-Andalus”–as a multicultural paradise, a place where Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in harmony. There is only one problem with this widely accepted account: it is a myth. In this groundbreaking book, Northwestern University scholar Darío Fernández-Morera tells the full story of Islamic Spain. The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise shines light on hidden history by drawing on an abundance of primary sources that scholars have ignored, as well as archaeological evidence only recently unearthed. This supposed beacon of peaceful coexistence began, of course, with the Islamic Caliphate’s conquest of Spain. Far from a land of religious tolerance, Islamic Spain was marked by religious and therefore cultural repression in all areas of life and the marginalization of Christians and other groups–all this in the service of social control by autocratic rulers and a class of religious authorities. The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise provides a desperately needed reassessment of medieval Spain. As professors, politicians, and pundits continue to celebrate Islamic Spain for its “multiculturalism” and “diversity,” Fernández-Morera sets the historical record straight–showing that a politically useful myth is a myth nonetheless.

  2. Since none of us were alive when the Frogs initiated the National Razor, we have to rely on history books about the event. The words of JFK come to mind: “…those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” The masses had had enough of famine and privation. They identified the perpetrators and took violent action. Sadly, they were co-opted by some very smart, Godless and corrupt despots who steered them in a very wrong direction.
    Keep in mind, the privation aspect. This is what is missing with all of the shouting, fist-shaking, and empty threats of Antifa, and the other useful idiots being co-opted by our modern-day Jacobins. The Normies and Sheeple will not storm the Amerikan version of the Versailles as long as they have their bread and circuses. Time is running out, but as of today it is still my side. Bleib ubrig.

    • Memo re JFK quotes- all that he ever said worth repeating was taken without attribution from the minds of others.

  3. People should study the malignancy of the French Revolution a lot more. It was an attempt to obliterate a people. Consider:

    – Murdered king & nobility
    – genocide in Vendée
    – temples to Reason & so on
    – placing a whore on the altar at Notre Dame
    – finding and obliterating the relics of French heros
    – destroying the relics of the people themselves, like the Oriflamme
    – psychotic recalculations of time; new months and so on
    – absurdities like the metric system
    – etc.

    Bad stuff, fam. You try to kill things you hate; so it seems clear the Revolution hated the people.

  4. If you want to see a perfect illustration of civic religion trying to overwrite the older, normal national identity, watch this scene from “La Revolution francaise”, where Robespierre reaches the apex of his power, by instituting The Cult of the Supreme Being. He’s obviously a true believer, and thinks that the rest of the country is following right behind him. But you can see the cracks in the reaction of the crowd: yawning, fidgeting and finally laughing. “What’s going on?” asks one worker. “Oh, he’s still yammering,” answers a woman. “Huh. Wake me when he’s done.” It’s really quite funny, and worth it for the sight of Robespierre’s face when he realizes that the crowd isn’t going along with it. If he hadn’t gone to the guillotine himself a few weeks later, he probably would have had them all executed.

  5. You sure are right about the worship of “democracy”. When I was young, I used to enjoy voting; I looked forward to it, elections were exciting. And lots of other people felt the same, as turnout was pretty high – we were all participating in this together. Now, even my husband shares my boredom with voting.

    We had an election in Ontario a month ago: the Conservatives won, which is good, but not in our very liberal riding in Ottawa. The people here stuck stubbornly to the Liberals, and afterwards we realized that not one candidate canvassed our house. Canada’s still old-fashioned; it’s traditional for candidates to go door-to-door, and it’s always happened before. I like it; even when it’s the leftist candidate coming to the door, I make a point of thanking them for making the effort. I realize now that nobody came because we don’t matter anymore. The big votes all come from the imported Somalis in the south and east of the riding. It isn’t worthwhile for candidates to appeal to us old-fashioned Canadians, because they can win by promising free stuff to the foreigners.

    If a Conservative couldn’t win this riding in this past election, when the corrupt Liberals were thrown out in a wave, it’ll never happen again. Hence, voting is useless.

    But this pointlessness of the exercise coincides with positively frenzied calls to vote. “Get out and vote! Everyone MUST vote!” is all you hear, rising to a crescendo on election day. It’s the one holy Day of Obligation in the calendar, it seems. And this goes along with ever diminishing turnout. In the old days, nobody had to scream at us to go to the polls, we wanted to. Now it’s like being berated to go to Confession.

  6. Up until the French Revolution, a nation was primarily a related group of people with a common language, culture and history. The French were not defined by geography or ideology, but by blood. The lands they occupied were French lands, because they were occupied by French people.

    This is simply incorrect. The French were transitively defined by their allegiance to the French Crown and the House of Bourbon. What is now the French language was still only a regional dialect; cultures and histories of, say, Provence and Alsace-Lorraine were wildly different. It was the anti-monarchical revolutions that had to redefine nations in another way. Except England and the Netherlands which went through their revolutions in the XVII century, nations and nationalism in your (modern) sense only appeared after the French Revolution, whether in imitation of or in reaction to it. E.g. in what is now Germany, nationalism in your sense appeared specifically as a reaction to Napoleonic conquests.

    • Thank you for the very nice printable targets! I needed something with a little splash of color with which to verify my rifle’s 200-meter zero!.

  7. “The lands they occupied were French lands, because they were occupied by French people.”

    NO, this really, ignores the vast history of the disparate parts of France being brought into line with Paris. At one time, Occitan, Basque, Breton, Provençal, Catalan, Alsatian, etc were everyday languages spoke in their various regions. These linguistic differences reflect(ed) the enormous ethnic and cultural dissimilarities that pestered France for most of its existence. They are also indicative of the regional identities that most of these groups retained (even today) as many saw (see) Paris as a ruling foreign elite. It’s wise to remember that France is nothing more than a collection of local kingdoms and fiefdoms who have been incorporated into modern France by millennia of conquest.

    The nation state that we see as France today is the result of five or more centuries of civic nationalism and the eradication of local group identities. Through the zeal of the French, they exacted many honerous policies and penalties on the different ethnic/language tribes that populated the periphery of France. A vast amount of social capital has been spent even eradicating the local dialects. Eventually these efforts became known to many as La Vergonha.

    Now, as much as I agree with you on many points, France is the embodiment of a successful nation state that was built using many different ethnic groups. You need to iron-man your arguments by looking deeper into the formation of the European nation states, often by uniting many ethnic groups under one banner.

    • Peasants to Frenchmen, by Eugen Weber goes into this in great detail. It’s a book that should be required reading by all in the Dissident Right. Still the unification of France was made possible not only by conquest but by an underlying commonality of the People.

      Civic Nationalism works, to a degree, as long as the legal conceptions of identity align with intuitive ones. The important thing here being human intuition.

      The reason why America “worked” for so many years is because it’s political apparatus, almost instantaneously, worked against the ideals of its constitution. Despite its proclamation that all “men are made equal” citizenship was effectively restricted to Whites, as was eventually immigration. American identity and intuitive identity were thus aligned. Slavery, of course, was the huge wart on the American body politic which exposed the hypocrisy of its political ideology. Race relations continue to remain a problem to this day.

      It’s true that France is a forced conglomerate of individual nations but it was able to be united successfully because an equilibrium could be achieved between legal and intuitive identity. Idiotic migration and assimilation policies have upset that equilibrium and France, the EU and the U.S. as straining to remain viable.

    • This is all true – and interesting – but ‘picayune’ in context. Z-man wasn’t concerning himself with the development of what we call ‘France’, but in the reality known as ‘France’, hardly a ‘proposition nation’, but a “blood and soil” nation, much as Italy was after Rome emerged as dominant and reduced local and regional thinking to ‘national’ thinking well before the Punic Wars.

      The million plus Frenchmen who were cut down in WW1 weren’t harboring grievances about ignored variations in their Romance dialects, or the ‘infamy’ of public education that stressed Parisian French as the language of the country. Oh, maybe a few Basques from the edge of the Pyrenees… consolidation of tribal peoples is never perfect, even in a land as geographically well-defined as the ‘Hexagon’.

      You say that France is “the embodiment of a successful nation that was built using many different ethnic groups.” You are right, but let’s not forget that these ‘ethnic groups’ were all the lost and isolated remnants of a still-remembered Latin civilization, related by blood and language and of course religion – that joke we all laugh at – Left and Right – Christianity.

  8. How do I think like a Native American so I can become a citizen of a Tribe and get diversity and repairation cash and prizes?

    My mother didn’t deliver me on a reservation so I can’t be a native American nation anchor baby.

    • tz1;
      That’s easy in my neck of the woods. I’m just across the river from one of the largest Indian reservations on the west coast. They have no gas tax, sales tax, or car licensing fees. They pay no state or county property tax, nor are they required to purchase state fishing or hunting licenses.As registered tribal members, they each receive monthly checks from the B. I. A. AND are eligible for EBT cards from the state. And the icing on this cake? They each receive about 3800 bucks a month from the casino on their land.
      But you were asking about marrying into this. Their women are short, fat, and ugly beyond belief. And there are lots available as the men die young from booze and drugs and lead poisoning. But you’ll have to get in line, because the illegals are swooping them darlings up for a green card and a life of Riley!
      The local joke around here is what’s the difference between an Indian girl and a killer whale? About 40 pounds and a tavern jacket.

      • The gas stations on the reservations I’ve stopped at in Oregon may have no gas tax, but they charge the same as everyone else. The extra goes into their pocket just the same.

    • How ’bout you Denny? Can you entertain us with tales of your latest conquest? I imagine beautiful women must just throw themselves at a guy like you. I hear they love soyboy f@ggots.

  9. Really solid writing. A state is either ideological or biological. In the latter case, the more ‘traditional’ case, it is an abstract mega-tribe, a huge Darwinian alliance against the rival mega-tribes. In this view it makes sense to want the biological descendants to also occupy the territory perpetually.

    In the ideological state, allegiance to an ideology, an idea virus in a way, is demanded above and beyond allegiance to one’s own genetic interests. At some level the two views are mutually incompatible, most of all b/c an ideological state is biologically the equivalent of promiscuous; your family can have been a servant of the state since feudal times. But, you are no more to be preferred than the children of a recent immigrant, provided they accept the leading ideology. That is equivalent to promiscuity, you can be discarded for something shinier at any moment, and your posterity too.

    • The weird thing is how bugman leftist types all like commodity generic products, while “respectable conservatives” prefer the expensive brand name that pays for corporate virtue signaling. The consumer base of each side acts in the complete opposite manner of its expected behavior.

      • Marketers say that brand loyalty becomes fixed after 35, which is why ads are targeted in the 18-35 group. When it comes to durable goods, they target 25-54. Boomers are flush with cash, so they can afford to spend on brands. Millenial leftists have student debt payments, and prefer spending on restaurants/travel. Generics are thus preferred, and the public perceives them as of higher quality thanks to Aldi, Costco and Whole Foods. There are no true “econobox” cars in the US, even KIA has moved upmarket. Increasing urbanization and Uber is reducing the incidence of car ownership among youth.

  10. Zman has been on fire lately. He’s establishing himself as the best blogger I’ve ever come across. “The ideological state, regardless of design, must always become a suicide cult.” There’s a quote for the ages! Z has a particularly keen understanding of the significance of religiosity to the human animal. Just because our society has abandoned traditional religion does not mean that it has liberated itself from the cultic propensities of our species. The West simply swapped out Christianity for Progressivism. Should they eventually achieve total victory, Progressives will prove themselves as tyrannical a sect as any that have previously dominated.

  11. I agree with the first few commenters – this was an outstanding post.
    The religious/ideological/fanatical aspect of civic nationalism is why no one in the mainstream talks much about secession/separation for the two sides. It would be like dividing the Church.

  12. I agree with Z’s premises, but have trouble with the last one. Where does this institutional self-loathing come from? Z seems to think it is inevitable. Fine, but why?

    I can come up with only two reasons. One is that a significant number of people really do hate themselves. I don’t really understand that, because life is what you make of it, and good attitudes and habits are yours to exercise and live by. (“Always look at the bright side of life”, they sing from the crucifixes, in Monty Python)

    Two is that this self loathing drives people to positions of power, to either atone for the self hate, or to put oneself into a position to inflict it on others. I suppose the elites tolerate or encourage such a thing, for their own reasons. But it seems entirely too neat and clean that such a state of affairs is inevitable. Yes, the rest of us are the enemy, and they hate us with the passion of a thousand suns, but why the inevitability that the levers of society are doomed to be controlled by people with such attitudes? Yes, they want it more, because their warped souls demand it more than the rest of us do, but we have smarts, and the powers of observation and rationality, with the ability to reason things out. We are not a mob blindly following our passions.

    I see this as a pitched battle with those who hate us and hate themselves. But I am having trouble accepting the inevitability of their being able to dominate and prevail in our culture.

    • I don’t think the people who hate us actually hate themselves. If they start to, they are absolved by hating us harder.

      • I can see that, substitution of hate for others to avoid self-hate. What I am trying to figure out is why we, as individuals, or our western society, as a whole, is doomed to lose agency in deciding the sort of cultural rules and assumptions that we will live under. I completely agree that we live in a largely dysfunctional self-loathing system. I am looking for a good reason to accept that this is an inevitable course of events. I want to close the “Step 1, many people hate themselves and us, and join movements that reflect that”, “Step 2, ???”, “Step 3, we are doomed to inevitably live under such a state of affairs” loop for “Step 2”. I don’t find the current arguments for “Step 2” completely convincing. I ask this not just to be ornery, but because to turn the tide, one needs as complete of an understanding as possible of what is going on and why.

        • Step 2 is to is to dispossess white people, except for a few of the Shabbos. Step 3 is that J*ws rule over a stupid, docile brown population, which may be violent, but easily controlled.

          C’mon Dutch, .. you know this.

      • Dutch, the first sentence of my comment was my main thought here. These people who hate us do not hate themselves. Period. To the extent some of them do, I doubt it’s of much consequence politically.

        We need to stop trying to understand the situation by imagining our enemies hate themselves. It’s not enlightening and it’s not productive.

        For the garden variety leftists, I suppose they get a kick out of feeling superior and righteous. That and maybe freebies. That doesn’t require self-hatred.

        For the ones who call the shots, I’d look at economics. Trillions are at stake.

        Take a look at what Trump is trying to do to bring manufacturing and complete-cycle food production back to this country. It is a turd in the punchbowl for the people who have grown rich by exporting jobs and raw materials and assuming we will all become webmasters or 7-11 clerks … or whatever.

        For the shot-callers it is convenient to have lefties put on their pink hats and gin up hatred for Trump and the likes of you and me. It serves a double purpose of changing the subject from the economy and fighting their economic enemies. So you see this everywhere from pussy hats to Yahoo Finance.

        I share your lament about losing agency. To start to regain it, I’d say follow the money.

          • OK, I will concede the self-hate argument. In my own experience, the people near me who lean hard left are miserable and full of fury, and they were so under Obama as well. No making them happy people, at all.

            To put things a different way, I agree with “follow the money”, that Alinskyite tactics have worked for the left, and that people want to protect the flow of freebies that the system gives to them. The warping and rejection of fundamental Christian principles, and the falling away of the traditional family unit. The hostility to whites, especially heterosexual white males, and the embrace of the other-than-whites. Broad acceptance of ghetto gang cultural cues and the wide use of vulgar language. Rejection of our own history as the workings of an illegitimate culture.

            My question is does any of this or all of it make the current self-loathing of the culture inevitable? Is it just too much to reasonably expect to fight back against? Has it been inevitable all along, or have we been asleep at the switch? Which leads to the next question (which is where my true interest lies, as all of these elements are “givens”, at this point, easy to see if you are willing to look at them), which is can we fight back, piece by piece, to reclaim the culture, to return to some approximation of our more traditional ideals (which probably go well beyond what our ancestors ever actually lived through), or are things so far gone that burning it all down is the only way out? I hope for the former, but fear that it is the latter. My personal belief is that we were asleep at the switch, which means none of this was actually inevitable, we just allowed it to happen. Perhaps it is pure intellectualization on my part, but I have trouble assuming that we had no agency to stop or turn the corner on all this stuff. It matters to me, because I don’t want to believe that this outcome of a noble human experiment was inevitable. Likely, yes. To be guarded against (which “we”, the broader culture, failed to do), definitely. But I don’t accept inevitability until someone can square that circle for me. Inevitability means that the whole western experiment was doomed before it started—of course, I suppose every human thing terminates at zero sooner or later—but I am not buying it until the sales job on this inevitability idea is a better one than it has been so far.

          • Dutch, I appreciate the long response. There’s a lot to ponder in what you’ve said, and I don’t have answers. I’m going to reread your comments a few times and think about them. Maybe a descendent of this conversation will pop up in the future.

            I wasn’t looking to score a point in the discussion. Unlike your experience, most of the lefties I know seem to be pretty happy with themselves. I don’t know what’s in their hearts and psyches, but they seem pretty well-adjusted. They just believe they are morally correct.

            One change I’ve made in the last year is to try to understand political issues in terms of economics. Nothing fancy, just the question of who stands to benefit.

            Best to ya.

          • Best to you, too. The “follow the money” argument explains so much about so many things.

            The Pollyanna-ish optimistic part of me would like to think that we can work out these fissures in our culture over time, build something better, and not shed too much blood in the quest to get it done.

            There is another voice that says “no way Jose”, that “things won’t end well”, and that the clash of civilization’s philosophies, sooner or later, always leads to serious bloodshed and the burning down of it all. I hate that, but it is probably the proper way to bet. Humans are messy and complicated creatures, and it shows in how things play out. Charlton Heston on the beach at the end of “Planet of the Apes” is probably more relevant than we know.

        • I totally agree with Cerulean.
          Not self-hatred, but marketing a war for personal advantage.

    • There’s an awful lot of “just do it” that gets spread around the popular culture. To the point where I think some people simply have no mental ability to restrain themselves from doing anything. When the things they do inevitably lead to personal repercussions – they end up a place where they hate themselves because of their inability to control themselves.

      I’ve seen this as far back as the AIDS crisis back in the 1980s. During that time I remember some of the homo-advocacy groups getting really pissed about the fact that the government had not found a cure yet. I had the conversation with people then – and have had it again recently – where I pointed out that the cure for the problem is extremely simple: KEEP YOUR DICK IN YOUR PANTS – and KEEP OTHER DICKS OUT OF YOUR ASS. Start doing that – and the problem solves itself almost instantly.

      You know what people say to that? They get PISSED. They start saying stupid shit like ” I can’t do that!!” and ” that’s just crazy – you can’t expect people to do that!!”.

      Really? So you’re faced with death – and your response is that you simply can’t do the one thing that will save you from that fate?

      How do you deal with people like this? They’re so far from any form of reason that I don’t believe there are too many options left than let them kill themselves – and keep your dick away from them until it happens. You also have to politically find a way to not suck the civilization dry trying to save the un-savable.

      But somewhere in there – these people also hate themselves for their utter inability to do reasonable things that would benefit themselves.

      I liken this to criminals – who often KNOW that they’re doing bad things, but simply will not stop.

      There is some deep , dark, crazy ass psychological shit that goes on in the heads of many people. Self hatred for a myriad of reasons is just one of these crazy things.

  13. What joined a country like France together before the Revolution wasn’t blood, it was tradition.

    Various regions of France, with distinct cultures and from different barbarian-tribal backgrounds were held together by held together by a tradition of loyalty to the local and eventually the national sovereign.

    The idea that a nation (ie a tribe) should be coterminous with a state is a product of the French Revolution. The national countries we see today like Italy and Germany were put together after the Revolution because of the ideals propagated from the revolution. These countries are totally artificial and are just as ideological in origin as silly American Civic Nationalism.

    It is tradition that can hold things together in relative peace, without that you will have the constant conflict of revolution.

    • Various regional dialects were stamped out in order to create a national language. This process was never completed in Spain. In Europe, only Germany has any sense of federalism.

      The Right in the US does identity with America, but the nation is not congruent with the state. It hasn’t been congruent since the Civil Rights Revolution. The common identity formed by the World Wars and Space Exploration is genuine, but has been debauched by immigration and Hollywood.

  14. This comment below by another fellow, exemplifies literally what myself and every Freeman I know in the sphere of my life, and a long over due gestalt that is probably the only remedy suitable to repair the foul evil damage the deep state and swamp, (apologies, I repeat myself here), have tainted our Republic with, and the systematic effects of dividing us to conquer us has sown. 24/7/365 uninterrupted broadcast, no commercials, no narrator. A mike on the gallows so we can listen to these crooks and traitors lament and cry in fear, as they employed terror and fear as a tool of tyranny against us, hear their urine drip down their legs, the rumbling and evacuation of their nasty bowels, as the reality of their execution comes to roost along with the 13 knot necktie laid around their necks.
    Public hanging after a peoples court, burn the corpses, and flush the wretched remains down the toilet in undisclosed locations. No monuments. No headstones.
    Only their execution will enable us as a people, to repair the wounds and damage these most foul creatures have wrought in their hubris and wonton greed.

    Because Fuck You That’s Why Bitchez!

    A most suitable appropriate rant I support in total solidarity:
    -from FreeNorthCarolinablogspot

    IMHO, I think that a 12 Station Gallows should be authorized and built by Presidential Order. Immediately, with most haste, and extreme prejudice, upon the National Mall. Facing the Capital Bldg. In plain site from the Front Door So that all can see it without hindrance.

    Station a heavily armed Platoon of US Marines all around the gallows 24/7/365. Have it well lighted, like the other National Monuments on that Stately and Sacred site. Allow the public to walk around it, to take photos, to admire it’s stature, contemplate it’s sole purpose, and recognize it’s necessity in these troubled times.

    Keep the Socialist Democrat/Fascist protesters, and Liberal Narre-do-wells, SJWs and other Progressive Riff-Raff outside of the USMC established perimeter. Let this Emblem of Freedom and Liberty stand there silently waiting for the TREASON trials to end. Let the sturdy beams, bolts, and boards shining in the sun be a constant reminder to the guilty parties of just what happens to TRAITORS of this GREAT NATION. Let it stand as a reminder of who we the defenders of this land can become when pushed to the friggin limit of our collective patience. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

    • That is truth. The US still thinks it has a frontier for the taking.

      That delusion keeps us from growing up and living with limits on land, energy water, transit, work and so on.

      We are for better or worse, quite developed and need to live as developed nations do

      This probably means more government but if we won’t pay for what we need or can’t get an effective one than we need to reverse course on development

      We seem to be doing that which is probably for the best. We can either revolt and replace or more likely just join the rest of the Americas in poverty and violence

      • LOL.

        “need to live as developed nations do”

        WTF is that supposed to mean?

        Are European nations “developed” ? – because if so your assertion would mean that the population will only reproduce as sub-replacement level, government ponzi scheme like programs which depend on an ever growing populations to keep the politician’s heads from swinging from gallows will then force an acceptance of immigration from all corners of the globe….. and the “more government” you claim we will probably need will do stupid shit like regulate the size of bananas that can be sold as well as every single other nook and cranny of human existence.

        That is – until the whole damn thing implodes in on itself.

        You know what TRULY being “developed” would mean? It would mean a nation and society that understood that government as it is currently imagined is mostly pure waste – and is a detriment to human life. A TRULY developed nation and people would have no need for that shit.

        The leftist argument always seems to conflate “developed” with more government – and more government is always an excuse for some variant of Marxism, which is just an excuse for thievery.

        Basic truths don’t go away simply because we live in modern times, modern times only make it easier to paint over those basic truths and get away with it for longer periods of time.

        You don’t need to have a frontier to have a vital civilization – what you need is less thievery to support the sedentary. Because one of those basic truths is that each man only has so much time and energy to give during his lifetime on this rock. Any bit of his time that he spends supporting the useless – is time lost that could have been spent doing something constructive. Energy, creativity – and productivity = a “young” civilization.

        Civilizations don’t grow “old” – they grow more and more accepting of thievery and debauchery to point where any productivity is subsumed by the useless and the dependency class. Sooner or later the whole mess implodes because the productive start figuring out the scam – and stop being productive enough to keep it going.

        Getting rid of the non-productive is a question of recognition – and will.

        You don’t need a frontier to have either one of these things.

  15. This needs to be connected to Nietzsche and “the priests” who talked us out of our natural and physical hatred of the Other and into self-hatred and Original Sin.

  16. One other problem with the propositional nation: the proposition itself is a “living” idea. It changes depending on the requirements of whatever group has the whip hand.

    The Civil War was in large part a struggle between the idea of a propositional nation and one based on blood and soil: the South defended its land and people, and the North defended the notion that their values and way of life were universally sacred. The South lost; and ever since, the Yankees have had control over the proposition. What it means to be American today is far different from what it meant in 1870 — a social paragon (even a Yankee one) from the 19th century, if brought forward to today, would be attacked as a Nazi monster.

    What that suggests to me is that the proposition is beginning to slip out of anyone’s control. Polls like this are something like paraneoplastic syndrome: the cancer that’s killing us is beginning to manifest itself as weirdness.

    • For all the wonderful qualities they have, no one is easier to manipulate than white girls. All your story demonstrates is that your side controls the media. An hour after my side controls the media, all those white girls will agree with my side.

    • “You guys.”

      Do you include yourself in that? White girls favoring Afghans doesn’t make you a winner.

    • “Police pointed out that passengers who refuse to obey a pilot’s orders while on board a plane can face fines or up to six months in jail.

      Authorities also said the Afghan man was in custody and would be deported, though they did not say when. ”

      Who lost, assmunch?

  17. An idea that they’re increasingly forcing on us is “race doesn’t exist–we’re all one race, the human race.” If you buy into that nonsense, then you see blood & soil nationalism as foolish and it’s easier to view America as a proposition nation.

    The problem for them is that American citizens are increasingly bumping into the flood of immigrants and learning just how much race is real, which results in more “we’re all the same” propaganda to counteract the threat of tribal nationalism.

    • I do see pushback against multikult, but most whites are happy to be subsumed into liberalism, at least while it doesn’t make any demands of middle class tax increases. The alternative identity we offer is scandalized by alt-right rioters. It will take apocalyptic (Somalia) levels of leftist violence before “ethnostate” becomes mainstream.

  18. The headline of the poll you linked says a “Record High of 75% of Americans Say Immigration is a Good Thing.”

    The fine print says: “Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, non-response, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cell phone-only/landline only/both and cell phone mostly).” No reference in the methodology blurb about citizenship.

    So when Gallup says “Americans,” they mean “people living here.”

  19. I don’t get the move from the fact that some Americans have come to hate themselves to the idea that all ideology involves self-hatred. It seems to me a contingent fact that when the American Left seized on the race question as the means to subvert society, the fact that they were of the same race as the bad guys in their narrative made self-hatred a possibility, especially as their attacks became more broadly targeted. People join movements in order to become part of something greater than themselves. That doesn’t imply that they hate themselves.

    • People become Marxists or vegetarians, because they see in these movements soemthing worth that they wish fort themselves. This means they see something lacking or deficient in themselves. They seek to replace the rotted part of their identity with the good things from the group identity. Take this further and the fanatic hates himself and seeks self-abnegation in total devotion to the cause.

      Organizing ideologies inevitably reward devotion, which results in a race to be the most pious. Christianity solved this by placing salvation beyond this life. The best you could do is be in good standing by following the rules of the Church. Civic religions have no such limiting principle. This means they come to be dominated by fanatics, which means people ruled by self-loathing. The ideology then becomes defined by this self-loathing.

      • And, as Moldbug pointed out, Christianity also went a long way toward solving the fanaticism problem by setting up a system where the most pious thing a fanatic who really wanted to show their devotion could do was to lock themselves up behind the stone walls of a monastery or convent and take a lifelong vow of silence. That effectively removed them from public life and removed their DNA from the gene pool, so much fewer people of that sort were around to pester the rest of us. They even managed to find something genuinely useful for them to do in having them copy Greco-Roman books so their knowledge didn’t disappear. It was quite ingenious really, and getting rid of that system has been disastrous for us. In truth, all the pursed-lipped scolds in the HR department who spend their nights complaining about Trump on Twitter and their weekends at pussy hat marches really belong in a nunnery, where pious misery in the name of in-group virtue signaling can make them happy.

  20. That’s why you’ve got to build in some method of absolution. Hate yourself, yes, by all means… then go get absolved, so you can go right back to hating yourself without ever doing anything about the self-hatred. Martin Luther — a world-champion self-despiser — really missed a trick there (have you ever read Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom? He thinks he’s describing the psychological process by which one becomes a Nazi, but it’s really the process by which one becomes a Frankfurt School Communist… like Erich Fromm. (You’d think that lack of self-awareness would be a problem for a professional psychotherapist, but there you have it). Anyway, he’s got a great discussion of Luther and the consequences of his self-loathing). AMDG, my brothers.

    • AMDG? Thanks.

      Oh, and fuck Niehoffer (?), that “first they came for the commies, then they came for the commies, and when they came for me, a commie…”

      • Father Niemoller.

        Unfortunately, today a better phrasing would be-

        “First they came for the Nazis, but I did not speak up because I wasn’t a Nazi…”

    • Martin Luther; “When my heart is cold, and I cannot pray as I should I scourge myself with the thought of the impiety and ingratitude of my enemies the Pope and his accomplices and vermin, and Zwingli, so that my heart swells with righteous indignation and hatred and I can say with warmth and vehemence: “Holy be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done!” and the hotter I grow the more ardent do my prayers become.”

  21. If a majority of immigrants adhered to the ideals of the “American Creed” we would not be in the place we are now. The truth is most immigrants are economic migrants and opportunists and care nothing about ideals.

    • But they don’t adhere to the ideals of the “American Creed” and it’s probably because of their innate tribalism. They couldn’t adhere if they tried, which most of them won’t.

      • Yup. The civic nationalists are trying to harness the power of “everything for the Race” as “nothing beyond the State”- and then moving that to “sacrifice for the World”.

      • I was making an effort not to be harsh. Because the USA is saddled with certain populations not covered under the “. . . to ourselves and our posterity” clause. 😉

    • The point being that nations cannot rely on creeds for integrity, but must be grounded in real things, people, and places.

      Learn from the Jews. They go around the world preaching the gospel of ideas, and after their ideas make places less safe run to soil populated by people of their race.

      Everything has its time and place. Creeds are tools of religion. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.

      • Islam keeps the Sephardi under control quite well. The higher-IQ Ashkenazi have been troublesome in Europe, even if they convert.

        The Ottomans historically welcomed Jewish settlement, there would be nowhere near the level of Muslim enmity towards Zionism if they had agreed to keep the Palestine mandate united under the Hasehmite monarchy. As the century moves on, Israel will identity more with its Semitic neighbors and less with Europe. I don’t know which way the diaspora will go, but I would prefer they do right by us and make aliyah.

    • Yeah, immigrants don’t adhere to our creed in large part because their people didn’t create it. Even if they agree with the ideas, they don’t respect the tradition that holds them sacred.

      When I look at e.g. George Washington, I feel a surge of pride that this great man was among my ancestors, if not directly by blood, then at least by ethnic/cultural/religious ties. When a Mestizo squatter or an African hood rat looks at George Washington, he sees only a foreign idol, at best, and at worst a hateful reminder that his own civilization is inferior.

      Thus, multiculturalism demands that everything good about white civilization must be reassigned to the brown hordes, while every sin our people committed, real or imagined, must be magnified.

      What’s funny about all of this is that your standard-issue normie-con white guy is actually engaged in tribalism when he touts civic nationalism. He just doesn’t know it. If the roles were reversed – if the founding stock of this nation looked like baboons – Joe McNormie wouldn’t feel the same affinity for them, and for their creed, that he does now.

    • Best Guest, that is cow excrement. No matter what the majority of immigrants believe or claim to believe, their DNA remains the same – i.e. not European White. Their biology heavily influences their personal behavior and values and thus communal culture. A Pakistani programmer can claim to luv muh constitution all he wants, but he’ll still reek of curry, hair oil, and no deodorant. He’ll still want to bring in more of his own type so as not to feel different or isolated, and to exploit and lord it over them in keeping with his home, DNA-inspired social order.

      There are no magic ideals and no magic dirt. Mass non-White immigration means exactly where we are now regardless of immigrants’ professed motivation or beliefs.

  22. Napoleon once said, “Cannon killed feudalism. Ink will kill modern society.” There is much truth in this because the destruction of something is often times built into the origins of things. From ink ideology came and to simple ink it will return. Live by the ink; die by the ink.

    One thing I find interesting is how the ideological school of Destutt de Tracy and the positivism that succeeded it rejected religion because of its reliance on metaphysics, and then evolved into a conglomeration of abstractions with no basis in reality other than a wish for things to be and to be accepted.

    A metaphysics grounded in nature was succeeded by one grounded in dreams.

    With a foundation not even of sand, but of ink.

    • Therefore my disdain for the sages and their semantic pissing contests. They think themselves above the common superstitions, refusing to consider any data spoken in other than their own approved dialect- yet they still cannot explain anything outside their narrow bounds. They refuse to see the remarkable universiality of common superstition.

      This tells me that real explanation is not what they seek, but one-upmanship. They credulously believe “we can never know” or “we can never solve that”, because they’re too busy demanding “Link, please!”

      • PS- racial identity is one of those superstitions. My beloved lefty friend wanted to quibble about the definition of “white”- so I said, “if I walked up to a crowd and punched a brown person, do you think anyone would question what color I was?”

        • This is the modern equivalent of Samuel Johnson refuting Berkeley’s theory that nothing is real by kicking a rock.

  23. It seems that a third defect of the ideological state is that the ideology evolves a hatred of itself.

    Oh, the ideology doesn’t hate itself as such. The holy hate the unholy. This is exactly what you talk about higher up. Holiness is always relative, and there’s always room to be holier-than-thou. The problem comes in when you establish that the holy should rule — then people compete to be ever holier. This process always ends in violence. This is an inherent problem with democracy, more generally any ruling formula which incorporates “will of the people”. Or indeed any ruling formula that allows entry into the ruling class based strictly on asserted belief. Asserting belief is cheap. If anyone can do it, people will compete to do it hardest, severest, and stupidest.

    At best, democracy can slow down the process, as has happened in America. Here, the arc of the moral universe is long indeed — but still, it bends toward ruin. At worse, you get the Soviet Union, where the holiness struggle was less than a generation, terminated only via extreme violence by the Red Czar, Stalin, or the People’s Republic of China, where similarly crazy leftist autophagy broke out almost immediately, and was terminated similarly with strongman military rule.

    • It’s simpler than what you theorize. The hate is only for straight, traditionalist white men. Later, the hate will be for white women and white homosexuals, but those two groups are too self-absorbed to see what’s coming. It’s really that simple.

    • Leonard, what you say applies to the current ideology. I don’t think it has to apply to every ideology.

      Here’s Webster’s take on the word:

      1 : visionary theorizing
      2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
      b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
      c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

    • I think Leonard has neatly solved the difficulties with Zman’s “hates itself”. How does that work?, I asked. Yes, the holy hate the unholy as traitors to their skin.

      “Honor thy father and mother” doesn’t mean “obey your parents” (in murder? in theft?), it means “live in such a way as to bring honor to your parents, your line, your town, your people”.

      So the unholy shame their “skin”, that is, their people; thus, (white) nationalism is an unholy betrayal of the fairest of the fair, those woke savants who are evolved beyond the knuckledragging neanderthals.

    • well if it always ends in violence…
      I don’t expect to see the other side of the inevitable, learned a thing or two from haji. one way or another by god.

  24. The brutal truth: “Americans are now more loyal to foreigners than to one another.” The progressive or civic nationalist says, “I will destroy my countryman if he doesn’t affirm massive immigration.”

    Why do those who care about me disavow me because I oppose massive immigration? Because “Americans are now more loyal to foreigners than to one another.” To the believers, if you don’t love displacement levels of immigration then you must be destroyed. To suggest even a minor cessation is to be beyond redemption. I must admire our enemies, that they can conjure such fervor.

  25. Totally agree the left defines democracy as advancement of the progressive agenda and election of their candidates. Had long argument with loony lefty who insisted that “democracy died” in Nov 2016. I was unpersuasive.

    • All these years whenever progs go on about democracy I would think that we have way different meanings of that term. There are a whole mess of implied assumptions that I never had. I took at face value the meaning of it, like in the dictionary.

      Of course the U.S. is a republic (tee hee) as we all know with it’s own constraining definitions of how a ‘democracy’ should be applied.

    • I guess it’s a good thing that’s what the Republican party pushes for, as well, huh?

  26. Well, the polls all said Hillary Clinton was gonna wipe the mat with Donald Trump too. Looking at that Gallup poll, I’d say they’re just another pozzed outfit parroting the deep state boiler plate.

    In the real world, I think the first world has had its fill of the third one. The left can whine about victim politics all they want, but everyone knows that poverty and stupidity are old friends… and they know what lies ahead for those that pander to them.

    • I think several generations of proselytizing about the glories of immigration have had their desired effect. When asked an opinion, people naturally give the approved one, because they assume it is the popular one. Americans worship immigrants. It is starting to change, but there is a reason both parties refuse to embrace even mild limits on immigration. They can read polls too.

      • I’m not sure they give the approved opinion because they assume it is the popular opinion, or because they’ve seen what happens to wrong-thinkers.

      • I suspect big donor money has more to do with the politicos seeming ambivalence towards limits on immigration. Between the US Chamber of Commerce & Big Beef/Big Pork/Big Chicken/Big Ag, there’s a hella lot of campaign contributions flowing to these guys/gals.

        • It’s really not that much. When you look at the lobbying by agribusiness, it is a drop in the bucket compared to public sector unions and Wall Street. Our rulers, as well as their paymasters, really believe in the borderless utopia.

          • So we return to the question of why our elites believe in a borderless utopia. The most parsimonious explanation is that J*ws feel more comfortable in multiracial countries and they have manipulated the naïve universalism of the whites to follow them. Is there a better explanation?

          • I think it gets back to the lack of a limiting principle. Think about marriage. When it was defined by reproduction, it was limited two people of the opposite sex and largely confined to people of child bearing years. It also excluded things like cousin marriage in the West, in order to avoid pinheads. When that principle of reproduction was removed, marriage has now been expanded to include gays sharing rent and a bed. Next comes plural marriage and non-human marriage and eventually pederasty.

            I think once you decouple the civic religion from the national identity, claiming that there is one transcended way to organize society, it inevitably means denying how we traditionally categorize people. Not only is there a war on borders, we have a war on race, ethnicity and sex. The collapse of Christianity as a source of moral authority probably has something to do with it. People who think they are gods tend to go insane.

          • “People who think they are gods tend to go insane.” Indeed. Just look at the clown train of anti-Trump loons howling on the boob tube these days.

          • there is demonstrably a lack of limiting principles, but that lack is hardly an oversight. limiting principles have been actively rejected, and there are plenty of behaviors and policy whose active promulgation bear this out.

          • Zman, you can’t really believe this, that our rulers really believe in a borderless utopia. If you’ve ever had the chance to really get to know an accomplished politico, the kind that get elected to higher office and keep getting elected, then you know that they have no principles. There are only two things that matter to an accomplished politician, money & votes. All you have to do is note the ever-shifting positions amongst the politicos to recognize this truth. With respect to immigration, there may be a few who are voting out of principle, but they are the small minority. The rest are voting because they want votes (Team Blue), or they want money (from donors to Team Red). It really is that simple. As to your assertion that Big Ag gives less than Public Sector Unions or Wall Street – that may be true, but the unions and Wall Street ain’t givin’ to Team Red Senators & Reps, are they? So, Team Red Senators & Reps make noises about open borders because it keeps the dollars flowing from Big Business. For Team Blue, it’s all about more voters for Team Blue. Don’t believe me? Just look at what’s going on in San Fran with wanting to allow illegals to vote in local elections.
            Or, ask yourself why Paul Ryan and his ilk on Team Red were still trying to slip in amnesty & maintaining H1B visas in the most recent iteration of ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ legislation.

          • I have just taken the plunge to read about the Rothschilds and the Khazarian Mafia . The situation here would be world control over dummies. So make sure that Africans and Islamists inbreed and take over the West first. Then take them out as you will. The Rothschilds seem to be associated with Zionism. There are direct accusations about the twin towers and the Pentagon missile within this scenario. Primarily though this stage is the collapsing of Societies by immigration of low IQ aggressors. Am I pushing this too far ?

          • (((BILL KRISTOL))) and his intrepid band of (((Never Trumpers))) have joined up with Pierre Obimodar or whatever his name is, from EBay, and he is funding their Anti-Trump tariff ads.
            With friends like this…

        • arch is correct. when you add up the agribuissness with chamber of commerce and koch like manufacturers , it is a lot of money .

          Who was the lobbyist shot at the GOP baseball shooting ? Paul Ryan said “matt was at my house so much they thought of him as a son” . no all the money is campaign contributions reported to the FEC .

          from wiki :

          On June 14, 2017, in Alexandria, Virginia, Republican member of Congress and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana was shot while practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity, scheduled for the following day. Also shot were Crystal Griner, a U.S. Capitol Police officer assigned to protect Scalise; Zack Barth, a congressional aide; and Matt Mika, a Tyson Foods lobbyist.

      • Do Americans worship the immigrants more than they do black Americans? Because negro worship has deep roots in this country from well before mass 3rd world hordes became the norm, so it feels like to me the South of the Border gang came in second. But, May be I’m wrong and that’s changing, due to the demographic surge.
        Can we just burn it all down, already People? I’m tired. Of everything.

    • Saying that immigration is good or that it can be beneficial is not the same as saying that it is an unalloyed good. I’m not sure what people meant when they answered the pollsters, or in what spirit the question was asked. That poll could mean anything.

      • You can click through to the cross-tabs. The data for question 12A is the most revealing. They have been asking this question since 1965, periodically at first but at least once a year since 2000.

        The percentage of responses indicating that immigration should remain at the present level is remarkably consistent over 53 years, which suggests to me that these are mostly politically disengaged people. As long as there’s no crisis that directly affects them they will go along to get along.

        The percentage who indicate that immigration should be increased has increased steadily over time, but really accelerates in the 2000s. I suspect this mirrors the growth in the Hispanic population, which has a direct vested interest in increased immigration. Interestingly, the footnotes indicate that the sample is oversampled for black and Hispanic respondents, then “weighted” to be representative of national adults. Whenever you see that raw data on a politically sensitive has been “weighted” it should raise a red flag (cf: global warming data).

        The percentage who indicate that immigration should be decreased is all over the map, but generally trending down in the 2000s. Again, I suspect this reflects the decrease in the proportion of the white population due to Hispanic immigration and relative fertility rates. This may also be an artifact of the oversampling and subsequent “weighting” of the data.

        Personally, I struggle with these issues. I live in the American Southwest and I can tell you that the demographic issues have been decided in this region and Hispanics won simply by virtue of numbers. Debating it now seems as pointless as debating Nixon’s decision to close the gold window. Any effort to restore a country with the demographics of American circa 1965 necessarily implies ceding most of the American Southwest. Also, I work in the tech industry and I can tell you that the tech industry in America simply cannot survive without immigrants from Asia and India.

        Having said that, I’m strongly in favor of closing the borders and imposing significant reductions in immigration, including legal immigration. 330 million people is enough. Our cities are crowded. Traffic sucks. Housing is so expensive that young people can’t afford to start families. We’ve had 53 years of accelerating immigration under the ’65 Act. Maybe we need a 50 year hiatus to give the country some breathing room.

        • Guest, just wondering if you’d expand on why “the tech industry in America simply cannot survive without immigrants from Asia and India”? Is it a matter of education? Work ethics? Wages? Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

          • Insufficient numbers of Americans (especially white Americans) obtaining engineering degrees. Math is hard.

          • “Math is hard”. Well, so is medicine and science but if the money is there they will come. The only real reason there would be insufficient numbers of Americans in any profession from grape picking to engineering is the money. Foreigners will work for less. I’m sorry but I’ve been an employer almost all my life and I’ve found that if you pay enough the job will get done. Plus, as long as we allow our own citizens to sit around and collect “benefits” without working we will need people to do the jobs they SHOULD be doing. It’s not a matter of the “jobs Americans don’t want to do” it’s a matter of paying Americans not to do those jobs. It’s stupid.

          • Agreed. SS disability is becoming a fall back for lots of working class losers.
            Why isn’t there a…..? Money
            Why can’t I find a good….? Money
            Nobody wants to do the job that I….? Money

            I never bargain down on my contract work that I pay for.

          • Insufficient numbers of Americans (especially white Americans) are obtaining degrees in medicine and sciences also. Scroll down to Fig. 12-2 for a graphic illustration in the relative drop in science and engineering degrees awarded to whites. It has dropped a full 10 percentage points.


            I certainly won’t argue with you about the utility of paying engineers and scientists more money, and that may well be one of the reasons behind the drop in degrees awarded. Nonetheless, whatever the reasons, there are simply insufficient numbers of Americans obtaining science and engineering degrees. At a time when demand for the technical skills associated with these degrees is increasing rapidly, the proportion of Americans (especially white Americans) is dropping. That is clear from the data.

            In short: Chip and Becky from Naperville may well have majored in engineering in 1980. In 2018, they are probably majoring in finance or something else.

          • Why study tech when employers can import/outsource your replacement for %50-60 of what they’d have to pay you? Better off learning HVAC rather than Python.

            Lots of global tele-medicine happening as well, with Radiology being a front runner.

            Get the H-1Bs out and wages will rise.

          • Guest, get your dick out of your hand and quit looking at pictures of the HB visa-mill that’s destroying wages and our technological infrastructure. What? Are you the CEO of Red Hat?

          • chip and Becky cant both major in engineering because engineering is not direct admit, my asian friend . since you like research , look up the slots available at almost any state university engineering school and you will find the number of slots for juniors , which is fixed , is much smaller than the number of freshman and sophomore engineering students. this is not accidental.

          • If you are black or Hispanic and have average grades and medcat scores for admission you are four times more likely to be admitted to med school. If you are below average and black or hispanic and have below average grades and medcat scores you are nine times more likely to be admitted than a white person.

          • The tech industry doesn’t want to hire Americans.

            Americans expect to be able to do things like buy a house close to work and raise a family and work 40 hours

            Foreigners do not and will live ten to a tiny apartment in Silicon Valley

            In any case the entirety of the 90’s was engineering layoffs , Com Sci layoff (outside of the SV bubble) tech layoffs, outsourcing, downsizing, affirmative action and down skilling along with foreign labor replacement

            At that point for most people, tech which is hard and limited to about 10% of the population with ace math skills tops seemed no longer to be worth the time and trouble

            What has to end is business thinking it has an entitlement to cheap labor.

            Baring a revolt we won’t get that and so the US will just decay.

            Upside since we can’t make tritium, we won’t be a nuclear menace to anyone and 3rd world America once it gets its ass kicked a few times will either junta or learn to stay at home.

          • Once an HB gets into a hiring position it’s the end of whitey. (Even if *you* trained *them*. They’re allowed a group preference, you aren’t.) FWIW there is no such thing as a “work” visa. They’re all immigrant visas now.

          • i have a nephew who was adopted as an infant from india he has told us that he absolutely has a huge hiring advantage due to his ethnicity. seattle area.
            ceo of microsoft is a pajeet. the area is full of them and now their extended families. tech companies are among the worst. several years ago microsoft, Boeing and several other wa state companies sponsored a program that paid tuition for qualified american students, they only had to agree to stay and work in state for three years after graduating. This program lasted two years, I suspect it was less expensive to simply import more pajeets. My list is very long.

          • I beg to disagree. I have personal experience with this in Research Triangle NC, and this is, primarily, a labor cost issue, at least with the tech firms (SAS, Red Hat, etc.) in this area. It’s far less expensive to bring in the workers from east asia on one of the many Visa programs the US gov has set up. You also often have to look at who is the head of the tech firm. If he’s east asian, they’ll be predisposed to bring in their own cultural/countrymen. I’ve see this occur on several occasions.

          • Engineering degrees don’t have much value for writing code, whereas math ability does….

          • American tech industry can survive quite well without these foreign imports. Its just that their profit margins won’t be as big. Remember we went to the Moon, discovered the transistor, microprocessor, microwave ovens all without Chinese and Brahman wage slaves.

            The fact is we produce more than enough engineers and programmers, In fact it’s a glut size the industry practices age discrimination on a massive scale.

            The bottom like is that Silicon Valley wants low wage, sweatshop labor they can work like dogs without repercussions. This is why they are always screaming about “more” H-1B’s, etc.

        • Having explained why immigration restriction (at least in your part of the country and your industry) is useless, you then argue for it. Thanks for your support.

        • Wrong about tech immigrants. The best programmers are generally Americans, while the Indians and other Asians generally head for some administrative post where they can hire more of their compatriots….H1bs are generally hired because they are much cheaper indentured servants, or because the person hiring them is of their ethnicity. Very near sighted, but that’s the way it is….

        • “The tech industry cannot survive in America without immigrants from Asia and India.”

          You are either an idiot or a liar. Or both.

    • Of course there are contrasting surveys. Take for example the Harvard-Harris poll referenced here:

      Although the respondents generally sympathize with DACA recipients and favor merit-based immigration, nearly half of them want immigration cut to nearly nothing. A clear majority think that border security is inadequate, and about 2/3rds are in favor of eliminating the diversity lottery and chain migration.

      This is after almost three years of nonstop hysteria on the part of the corporate media, along with god knows how many decades of Pharisaic propaganda about our nation of immigrants. Despite all of that, immigration is still a winning political issue in this country.

      What struck me about the Gallup survey was their little timeline chart. It shows that public regard for immigration has dropped 6 points since 1999 (with a lot of ups and downs between), from 44% to 39% now. On the face of it, that’s a big number, but how many more immigrants, legal and illegal, have we taken in those ~19 years? How many more rent-seeking, grievance-mongering immigration advocates have we cultivated? For how much of that time (and for the first time in history) have our news media and pop-culture gatekeepers treated anti-immigration sentiments as radioactive?

      When you put it in those terms, it’s actually pretty amazing that support for our side has remained so high, even if you take Gallup’s numbers as gospel.

      Finally, I’ll just leave an extra link here for lols. It describes a 2012 experiment in which pollsters measured pro-immigration sentiment before and after hiring a few spanish speaking mexicans to haunt the commuter routes of rich, lily-white liberal enclaves. Predictably, pro-immigrant sentiment plummeted after a couple of weeks:

    • Back when Ron Paul was running for President – I followed the whole thing very closely. My major reason for supporting Ron Paul was the same reason a lot of people support Donald Trump : BFYTY

      One thing that became blindingly apparent by watching that campaign was that the major polls are a few things:

      1) Manipulated to generate public opinion in the direction they want public opinion to go.

      2) Using just plain bad methodology, which equals bogus results

      3) Even if 1) and 2) are not in play – they’re not reported thru the media accurately. The media puts their own twist on the results – and the media lies to suit their own agenda.

      One of the people I used to read extensively at that time pointed out that the most accurate “polling” mechanism out there – was one of those websites (whose name escapes me now) – that allowed betting on elections. When all the other polls kept getting it drastically wrong – they were pretty much right on the money every single time.

      The reason why I can’t remember the name anymore – is because they went after the site and shut it down (or at least shut down the political betting portion) . Which alone should tell you something.

      If I was a betting man with two options: A) Believe the results of a Gallup poll , and: B) Assume EVERY time that it’s an outright lie – I would go with B) every single time.

      Polls in this day and age are nothing more than another variant of fake news.

      You would do well not to trust a single conclusion they come to.

  27. This has got to be one of your clearest and insightful articles ever.
    Ideology laid bare and explains a lot of what some know and how we got here, why we fight and where we are probably going.

    Hoffer would be proud.
    Proposition nation indeed.

    • Not really.

      The French Revolution replaced a monarchy unresponsive to the citizens with something they believed would better serve their individual and collective interests. There was no “replacing of loyalty”, as the people remained steadfast in their allegiance to their nation. Nor was there the creation of a “civic religion”—rather, it was a renewed sense of holding their leaders responsible for their actions. The people “own” the government by way of their ability to speak their mind about how officials are conducting their business and by their opportunity to install or remove those officials based on their performance, or lack thereof. Moreover, the identity of the nation is directly linked to the success, or failure, of its institutions, created by the people themselves, to carry out its duties. Representative democracy refers specifically to citizens having a substantial say in public policy matters, and regardless if the “right or wrong person” wins an election, only those on the fringes make accusations that the system was rigged. Because that person who emerged victorious is still held to the same standards developed by the people, and depending upon the circumstances, may or may not be re-elected. The “intolerance” of dissent has grown exponentially within the past decade as a result of a host of factors that we have borne witness to other periods in our nation’s history—social class strife, financial uncertainty, political wrangling.

      “This is why the two great industrial wars of the 20th century were blood baths. When one tribe fights another for access to the river, they just want access to the river. They see each other has competitors for a resource. Compromise and mercy are possible, because their conflict is not personal. They may work up a good hatred for the other people in order to screw up their courage, but that’s a fanaticism of temporary necessity. Once the material dispute is resolved, the people have no reason to hate one another.”


No, both world wars were indeed highly personal between competing nations, with each side ramping up the propaganda to dehumanize their opponent while championing their self-righteous causes. Even when the conflict was resolved, there developed lingering animosity between some of the combatants—the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. comes to mind.

      “Social media is full of post by Progressive fanatics, celebrating violence against people they call Nazis. It’s not that these victims are actual Nazis, of course. It’s just that the word now means “evil people” who the pious see as a threat to their existence. By definition, the pious must never show mercy to evil, as to do so means accepting that their is some virtue in the evil people that is worth preserving. Piety demands no mercy be given to the impious.”

      Of course, the Alt Right celebrates fanaticism, which includes the use of force, against their ideological opponents they call “cucks” or “race traitors”. With God on their side, and Bible verses in tow, it is again a self-righteousness that anyone who dares call into question the holiness of race realism and the return of aristocratic patriarchy is an enemy, a group that at best should be banished and at worst should be exterminated.

      • There’s a lot wrong with this comment, but the biggest is its overlong, pedantic, finger-wagging tone. I was going to reply, but just lost interest after three sentences.


        • To Paul Scott–The blood shed occurred because the French people were tired of paying disproportionately high taxes compared to the other Estates and were unhappy because they demanded more rights. As a result, they rightly took control of the situation when the monarchy outright refused to redress their grievances.

          To BTP–What is ignorant is your knowledge of the French Revolution. The Third Estate LOVED their nation, but it was extremely rare for people of this ascribed status to make it out into another estate. They sought from their monarch reforms. When their calls for changes were repeatedly denied and/or not heeded, they took action by holding King Louis XVI accountable. If you are going to make a charge, offer proof or just remain silent on the matter.

      • “Nor was there the creation of a “civic religion”—rather, it was a renewed sense of holding their leaders responsible for their actions.”

        Possibly the most ignorant statement ever uttered about the French Revolution by anyone. Nice work.

      • I have no argument that it began with “a renewed sense of holding their leaders responsible for their actions”. What it ended up with was the Reign of Terror. I also have no argument with your characterization of part of the Alt-Right, but as with Reign of Terror above there is a block you are missing.

        • It ended up that way because the earnest effort by the peasant classes to completely change their government to make it accountable turned into a bloodbath by competing factions, which led to a dictatorship. That is par for the course when a historic system is turned upside down.

    • Yes I agree David Wright. Especially the repositioning of the meaning of words like Democracy. And the self-identity associated with political grouping.
      Note how Zman ends, a grim forecast of the civil war.
      Especially important are the traditional associations of kinship. geography, king, Country, and God.
      The propensity to violence is now in my heart also. It just grew on me. I hate progressives and Democrats now.

Comments are closed.