In our current age, we just assume that the world is organized into countries. Look at any map and there is no place on earth that is not part of a country. The exceptions are the Arctic and Antarctica. They are governed by a coalition of countries, but they lack more than a sprinkling of people. Otherwise, every bit of the world that has people is part of a country. More important, a bedrock assumption is that countries are a permanent part of the human condition. Countries are forever.
Nothing is forever, of course, but we can get a sense of how durable the current country model is by looking at some recent examples. The war in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein revealed that Iraq was not a unified country. The big sectarian divisions of Sunni, Shia and Kurdish quickly became obvious. Within those larger divisions, there were smaller groups with other loyalties. There are 150 tribes in Iraq and below that are hundreds of clans and thousands of houses. Iraq is a complicated place.
It turned out that keeping Iraq together required a very strong central government with the ability to balance the various tribes against one another to keep the peace. Even after the US military figured it out and pacified most of the place, the government did not fully control all of the country. The only reason it remains an intact country today is the surrounding countries prevent it from breaking up and the West provides money and material so the government can survive.
The fact is, Iraq is a country only as long as the rest of the countries accept it as a country and help it keep together. If Iran decides it wants to annex part of the country, a part with coreligionists loyal to Iran, there’s not much Iraq can do about it. Joseph Tainter explained this in his book The Collapse of Complex Societies. In the modern age, a society is unlikely to collapse, because of the surrounding countries. Like Iraq, a country can go through a very difficult period, but ultimately survive.
At the other end of the country scale, in terms of internal stability, we have some good recent examples in Eastern Europe. The Visegrád Group, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, have managed to stay together, despite enormous external pressures. Just surviving the Soviet Empire is something close to a miracle, given what happened to Russia proper. Now, under enormous pressure to allow millions of foreign invaders into their countries, they persevere.
This is not hard to understand. Poland is 98% Polish. They speak Polish in their homes and see themselves as Polish by ethnicity. The tiny minority communities, like the Silesians, have been there for as long as anyone knows. Slovakia is 80% Slovak, with another 9% Hungarian. That minority population has been there forever. The Czech Republic is 95% Czech. These countries are not just arbitrary concepts. They are nation-states that share a common language and a common heritage.
The peculiar history of these countries may explain why they have survived as nation-states, but also why they resist the call for open borders. All of these nation-states have been absorbed by empires, but they have never been on the other end. Poland never tried to conquer Europe. Still, the core reason they have managed to survive through conquest and division is they are nation-states. What this says is that countries can come and go, but the nation-state has permanence.
That brings us to another type of country, the United States. At the founding, calling America a nation-state was a bit of a stretch, but not unreasonable. The overwhelming majority of the people were English and spoke English. There were some Dutch and Indians, with some French sprinkled in, but the only other ethnic group of any consequence were Germans. They were about 10% of the population at the founding and clustered in the midland states.
That’s not the America of today. You can probably just lump in the whites as a single ethnic group, the White American, but we have large numbers of non-whites. Then you have those old regional cultures that are still lurking in the background, creating new divisions among the newcomers, as the newcomers magnify those divisions. Somalis dumped in Maine are going to change the state in a different way than those dumped into West Virginia. America is looking like Iraq now.
A reasonable person should wonder how long before America starts to have the same troubles as we saw in Iraq. The central government is better organized and more capable than the Iraqi government, but there are limits to everything. The Federal government largely depends on the states voluntarily going along with what the Federal legislature decides is the law. But as we see with California, states are starting to buck this trend, mostly due to their new citizens.
This brings us back to Tainter. His conclusion, after reviewing and analyzing why complex societies collapse, is that the modern age has too much inter-dependency for a society to collapse. Countries have deep connections with other countries. Everyone agrees upon the borders and that the country system must be maintained. The thing is though, the primary force behind this is the United States. Without American economic and military might, the country system probably falls apart.
That’s not to say America is headed for a collapse or even a crackup. Maybe as the country turns into Brazil demographically, it will avoid becoming Brazil economically and culturally. The bigger question though is when does the internal cost of keeping this country together cut into the resources needed to keep the country system together? At what point does the vibrancy of America make it impossible to keep an Iraq together or a Mexico from dissolving into chaos?
Tainter does a great job analyzing the economic reasons for the rise and fall of civilizations, but his conclusions re: the modern world are suspect. I think Thomas Chittum’s book “Civil War 2” is a much better analysis of our future, probably because it is focused specifically on that topic.
Tainter assumes that only 1 nation at a time would be approaching collapse, to be propped up by its neighbors. Instead, we are seeing every Western nation beginning to teeter at the same time. This is how system-wide, not just nation-wide, collapses happen. For example, the late bronze age collapse wasn’t due to 1 nation collapsing or from successful invasions, but rather 1 unsuccessful invasion plus a few other natural factors that disrupted international trade. This lead to widespread chaos and collapse amongst many nations.
(interesting book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/1177-B-C-Civilization-Collapsed-Turning/dp/0691168385 )
He mentions the Byzantine empire being stopped from falling by their rivalry with the Parthian empire, but doesn’t mention that this rivalry lead to a debilitating war that allowed for both Empires to collapse due to Muslim invasion. A similar event will likely be the looming American Civil War that even the Left seems to see as inevitable. If such a war happens and it disrupts our food exports, much of the rest of the world will begin teetering closer to the edge.
No way Detroit, MI and Bristol, TN can be considered part of the same country.
The neo-con sales-pitch of democracy breaking out in the middle east was built on a naive confusion of nations and countries in the buying public. Cosmopolitan intellectuals who knew better ignored and obfuscated the difference. They are still doing it.
Nations are a polite fiction in Islam. There is no separation of church and state in Islam. An observant Musllm identifies as a Muslim, not as an Indonesian. He is part of the Ummah, worldwide Islamic diaspora. To say “the government of Iraq” invited our troops in is to play on peoples’ ignorance. That government is of and for Iraqi quislings, suckups to Kufr imperialism.
It is possible that a segment of the Iraqi govt (i.e., one of the tribes) did invite US troops into Iraq, but only because they hoped that the US military would destroy an opposition tribe and help install their own tribe into power.
Recall that Saddam Hussein belonged to a minority tribe – as does Assad of Syria.
Tribal society is incompatible with representative democracy irrespective of the religious affiliation of the tribe or ethnic group; just check out the mess in sub-Saharan Africa , Adding religion into the mix just inflames any ethnic/tribal animosities and just provides an additional excuse to exterminate the other tribal members.
“…..This brings us back to Tainter. His conclusion, after reviewing and analyzing why complex societies collapse, is that the modern age has too much inter-dependency for a society to collapse…..”
What absolute rubbish.
If you believe the above you must also believe history “ended” when the USSR fell apart in 1989 (1990?).
In 1909, the Englishman Norman Angell wrote “The Great Illusion,” which laid out the case that …..”the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be “the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another”, as it meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved.
He also wrote that….. “the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous. For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long…”
His book was a bestseller and he was personally invited by Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany (Queen Victoria’s grandson) to discuss his views.
The War to End All Wars began 5 years later and involved all the European powers whose economies were most interdependent and had the most to lose if events unfolded the “wrong” way.
Historians have a habit of fitting already known results to a thesis. And because a thesis sounds reasonable it it interpreted as “explaining” why and how a past event occurred.
But almost never have these historians – or anyone else for that matter – been able to predict what was to unfold.
How many “experts”, even ONE MONTH before the dissolution of the USSR, predicted this event?
Of course, once it all happened, the experts all appeared out of the dense forest to explain why and how it happened and why it was inevitable.
What bullshit.
As for Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, Israel, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain and ??? , NONE of these nations existed prior to about 1920 and one or two not until 1948 or later.
They were all cobbled together by the UK, France, the League of Nations, the UN and other outside parties.
Prior to their nation status, the Arab world was a bunch of disparate tribes roaming the deserts of the ME, ruled by the Ottomans for 500 years or so.
The Ottomans at least kept a tight leash on these Arab tribes.
Once actual borders were established by the “powers,” all hell broke loose because “diverse” groups confined within national borders are not fans of diversity, esp. when the “other” diverse group is in charge or even in a position to make demands.
(See Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire for a Euro model of diversity in action).
The USA , until recently “worked” – more or less – because immigrants knew that they and their kids had to ” become Americans.” Their kids went to public school just like all the American kids.
No classes taught in Tagalog, Spanish, German, Hindi, Vietnamese, Ubonics, Bangladeshi, etc., and they were taught AMERICAN HISTORY and there was no WELFARE.
Immigrants were forced – for better or worse for them – to sink or swim.
It turned out better for the USA.
Today, assimilation is discouraged and actively so.
I have no idea if the USA will fall apart or not. But predicting that it will not or it will – and I am sure good reasons can be supplied for either eventuality – is a fools game and demonstrates an incredible ignorance of history.
By they way, when the machine gun was invented, many “experts” proclaimed that it would make war obsolete because no commander would dare send his soldiers to confront these guns; another brilliant prediction by the experts.
And Donald Trump will never be president.
P.S. check out “The Black Swan'” and “Fooled By Randomness;” both by Nicholas Taleb.
Immigrants were forced – for better or worse for them – to sink or swim.
A while back I read somewhere that many immigrants did sink – and elected to return to their countries of origin. Hard to imagine that now, especially when there’s no reason to be homesick. Chain migration can import the whole family to augment and share in the lonely immigrant’s publicly paid bounty in his new land.
If they’re not allowed to work (because of laws) or get on welfare (because of laws) they’ll voluntarily go home! Cut off their source of sustenance!
>>>Poland never tried to conquer Europe
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth used to be the biggest Empire in Europe. They had a bunch of minorities that have never been ethnically integrated, in fact the Shlyakhta elite thought of themselves as being non-Polish. Ukrainians, Belorussians, Germans, Lithuanians. Copernicus was a German. They conquered Moscow and put a Polish king on the Russian throne briefly.
Copernicus was German! That’s a bit simplistic, if you read his biography. He was born in what was at the time Poland, his mother came from a very well-to-do Polish family, his father was a successful businessman who did business in the Germany speaking cities near where he was born. He attended a Krakow University. He wrote in Latin, as did all educated people in academia at the time.
I think it’s a stretch.
Living in California, I must tell you that sending home the non-citizens (we used to call them “wetbacks”) will barely change things at all. Somewhere in the ‘60s, the liberal locals began to adopt the “burn it all down” attitude. This is very strange, as California has been blessed with riches and beauty way beyond what most places have. Trump’s election has brought back the “burn it all down” outlook with a vengeance. In our case, it is not just the attitude of some of the locals, which exists in greater or lesser numbers in most places in the country. It also infects most of the political and cultural leadership here. They are enraged that non-progressives have political and cultural power, and the “in your face” Trump is considered beyond the pale. They are now engaged in a reflexive “whatever Trump wants, we despise” campaign. They see no problem in destroying their own house just to spite the Trumpistas. They are doing a good job of it. This is not the current financial and social disaster that the big eastern cities are suffering through. Instead, it is a conscious series of decisions to head down that path, to actually go there, all to spite “the man”. And this is stage-managed by wealthy white Californian middle aged males. To what rational end? None that I can see. Shipping the non-whites out will change none of this. These white male whackos are deeply embedded into the positions of power in the state system, and they intend to “burn it all down” because the rest of the country is not going their way.
The immigrants and non-whites are currently useful tools for the white male whackos running the place. I do think you’re correct that the left wing honkeys, male and female are the real problem, not the guys manning the leaf blowers. Too bad we can’t deport the likes of Governor Moonbeam, Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsome and the like.
Exactly. The immigrants are coming because informal immigration has been made available to them, and the benefits upon arrival are taken because they are offered. In their shoes, I would do the same.
The dominant progressive white culture in California believes that the feudal economic and social arrangement here can be formalised if those pesky middle class people would just go away. The immigrants are seen as tools in their quest, and a suitable servant class when all is done. In fact, the illegal nature of their immigration allows exploitation of all kinds without recourse, as the “we will get you sent back” leverage protects the dominant class’ predations of all sorts.
Correct. A compliant worker class is the goal. The pesky gun-owning, civic-minded middle class (whites) are in the way.
Ayup. Real Conservatism is economic nationalistic and populist not Neo Liberal
The Right, radical, rebel, alternative, hard , paleo needs to get enough folks jettison money over ideology and money cucking
Baring an implosion it won’t be easy but a real right wing state is economically nationalist and doesn’t allow Chamber of Commerce bungholes or Globalists to make economic policy and it puts homogeneous conservative state and its ideology above short term profit
Breaking away from that habit, tacking down and actually having a core ideology is the main challenge the Right faces and until it can accept that money and Conservatism are tangential not linked it has along way to go.
It depends on how the political winds blow. If the situation is resolved in a mostly peaceful and orderly way that require you to have the pretense of the old order simply being fixed, not much anyone can do about the Left
OTOH if it all goes to hell? You can do whatever you want and think you can get away with.
The middle ground, an interregnum say 20 years of right wing authoritarianism allows some options and limits others
That said both Moonbeam and Pelosi as well as most of the Democratic party leadership is old, many pushing 80!
Newsome will be around for a while, he’s 50 or so but by party standards he’s a spring chicken
On the whole Democratic party if breaking down and as it gets more radical dooms itself anyway
I agree with much of your description of the white elites in California. They are our deepest problem. Even when we expel the foreign populations that have subdued us, we have a strain of our elite population that hates non-liberal, non-elite whites. My hope is that the act of expelling non-whites will prove to be intolerable to these white-hating whites and they will leave us. But they are our most intractable problem as an embodiment of ethnic self-hatred.
I would like to add as a son of Czech immigrants how a unified culture and people produce better quality women. Growing up in the US, I noticed early on that Czech girls from the Czech Republic were very sweet and feminine while the girls here who had Czech parents, but were brought up as Americans developed into the cold, feminist bitches we take for granted in the West. It took me a long time to sort through the confusion
way to stand up for western womanhood.
… as the country turns into Brazil demographically …
Is that happening, though? Compared to the US, Brazil is an indistinct demographic blob. The last time Audacious Epigone wrote about this (using 2000 US Census data), the interracial marriage/cohabitation rates for whites were tiny. The 2010 Census shows that even among newlyweds, over 90% of whites married other whites.
We’re turning into a white plurality country with fairly distinct racial groups, which has the potential for more tribal conflict than Brazil experiences.
“The 2010 Census shows that even among newlyweds, over 90% of whites married other whites.”
This means that every generation has 10% fewer whites than the previous. And that means that in 7 generations, there are half as many whites as originally. This aside from immigration.
At what point does the vibrancy of America make it impossible to keep an Iraq together or a Mexico from dissolving into chaos? I think a better question is at what point does the vibrancy of California and the southwest cause the hispanicized population to forge ties with Mexico and, over time, become essentially a part of it? We already see states like California passing legislation and adopting policies that are more favorable to Mexican citizens than to citizens of the US in aggregate. And the feds do little or nothing about it. At some point either the feds say NO! Enough of that shit ! , and send in the National Guard – or California becomes a de facto province of northern Mexico. It is not inconsequential to this possibility that groups like La Raza are actively promoting the idea that the southwest was stolen from Mexico and a substantial portion of the legal and illegal hispanic – not to say goodwhite – population in the US agrees with them.
I sure don’t see the current crop of politicians doing anything to impede this process, and after 2020 President Oprah and Vice President Kamala Harris aren’t likely to get in the way.
And goodwhite progressives throughout the land are likely to be sensitive to the claims of past injustice and the need for equitable treatment of our legal and undocumented hispanic citizens, and all their cousins south of the (current) border, and the need to honor their natural desire for closer ties between southwest states and Mexico as well.
It’s not like there’s going to be a WALL or anything to get in the way of that project, apparently.
Everyone keeps focusing on the politics of immigration, when the answers are in the economics of our current immigration problem. The business class (meaning the political donor class) wants the cheap labor immigration provides. The donor class is adamant, that’s why both Rs and Ds are amenable to amnesty, pathway to citizenship, etc.
Remove the economic incentives both to business and to the immigrating labor force and immigration will, for the most part, stop.
In other words, it’s always the money.
“Remove the economic incentives both to business and to the immigrating labor force and immigration will, for the most part, stop.”
Your statement is false because you overlook a pro-open borders force that is at least as powerful as the business interests. HInt: Who lobbied for 4 decades for the 1965 Immigration Act?
The problem is that we are past the point where immigration laws and enforcement matter. The NYT estimated that if all of Trump’s promises were kept it would delay whites becoming a minority by 5 years. The Brookings Institute estimates that due to demographic change already locked in the last year Republicans have any chance of winning the presidency is 2028.
Is that like the 92% chance of HC winning in 2016?
Lot of libs here have real estate, and take their equity very seriously. So far their political idiocy hasn’t cost anyone $$ But the homeless idiocy has made a huge swath of libs really pissed off, and they (we, me, etc) want the fukkers hauled over to nevada and other shit states.
A brilliant writer Tom Chittum wrote a book on this about 20 years ago, it’s well worth the time to read. It’s a bit of a cult book, which is why used paperbacks are going for $40 and up on Amazon. Someone put the .pdf on line though, so you can read it there.
Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America by Thomas W. Chittum, 1996
https://archive.org/details/CivilWar2
Thanks for posting the link. I read that Chittum book in the late 90’s and it had a big effect on my thinking. Back then I targeted around 2025 as when the US breakup occurs. Now I might push my prediction to 2030, but no further away than that. I’m going to re-read it to see how it holds up today. If I remember correctly, I believe he had a checklist of things that will happen that will make civil war inevitable. I’m curious to see how many of those things we can check off between 1996 and now.
Edit: I just read the Civil War ll checklist. Most of the items are happening or are close to happening. We’re doomed.
Unless you plan to lose the war, we’re not doomed.
A whole lot of people think the US is going to crack up in the early 2030’s including people I don’t typically associate with the rebel right
Its a little unnerving.
That said its also an opportunity to build the kind of society you want and to be able to shoot or expel people who don’t fit in, well if you have the power and will to do so.
Well, the crackup doesn’t necessarily imply a dollar crash and supply chain disruptions…but it probably will. In that event, things will get real ugly in the cities real fast. That’s why I recommend everyone get the hell out of urban areas…
Which is why I’ve been advocating for forming Community’s for a long time now…Get a parallel system set up and running so when the collapse does come then the effects will be less severe and if by some miracle it never collapses you have a system that is beneficial for you and those in your Community…
Texas turns blue in early 2030s, SS starts getting cut in early 2030s, the welfare state and interest will be all of the federal revenue in the early 2030s.
Any other happenings would be appreciated. I’m collecting a list.
Very interesting book
A scarily influential book, highly recommended to everyone.
This is pretty simple. Teach your kids that that the Nation of the West have a right and a duty to send the foreign occupiers home. This is our land and they are not us. Coexistence is treason.
Foreign nationals, no matter how long they’ve been living here, do not have a right to citizenship. There is no possible basis for residence except a total abandonment of everything foreign: namely religion, culture, traditions, language, loyalty, and even DNA. Aliens must embrace Christianity (or Christianized agnosticism), they must embrace our culture and tradition and national loyalty and everything else. And they must become us through miscegenation. Otherwise they have to go back. Period. And even those who make that commitment have no claim, although we might make exceptions for some of them. After all, while we might be able to absorb a 1% concentration of foreign bloodlines, we certainly can’t absorb 30%.
The restoration of America will happen if we want it to happen. If we don’t, it won’t.
Since we’ve all had “America is for all” drummed into our brains our whole lives, it’s going to be a gigantic task getting enough on board to sell “America is for us.”
National Review could help out by refusing to call JFK a conservative because “muh tax cuts”. JFK’s biggest consequence was being the ADL Shabbos Goy for “nation of immigrants”
National Review is the Official Opposition. They’re doing exactly what they’re meant to do. But it’s a waste of time.
You’re right. It’s a generational process. Baby boomers will not live to see it, because their mentality is the problem.
That’s why the most important thing we can do now is get married, hunker down, and start making soldiers. It’s not about us.
Assimilation requires that foreigners give their daughters to our sons. Contrary to what most of the left believes, giving our daughters to their sons will not create assimilation. European civilization is on the Y chromosome.
You have to understand that people are rather stupid and understand race as skin color, when race is actually much deeper than skin color. It’s why mixed race people are eternally lost and seek to create their own societies, and are purged by both sides eventually.
Ever heard of the Lowry War in North Carolina? Mixed race freemen were pressed into service to spare the black slaves (and political fallout) from having to do dangerous work, kicking off a rebellion.
Well said. Nationality is transmitted by fathers.
Teach your kids that that the Nation of the West have a right and a duty to send the foreign occupiers home
It’s illegal to say things like that in the UK now, and soon will be here.
Who cares?
An interesting and provocative theory.
How would you apply it to these groups?
1. African-Americans. Most can trace roots here back hundreds of years, longer than the average white at this point. Do they still “have to go”. How would they be convinced, how would Africa be convinced to take them? Do you really see miscegenation with them as desirable for the nation?
2. Jews. The miscegenation is happening. For the most part they have already converted to “Christianized agnosticism” (great term, btw!).
3. Third generation north Asian “model minority” types. Japanese-Americans are the poster chlid for high-IQ Asian immigrants fitting into the USA pretty well. Extremely low crime rate, high income & educational achievement. Most are agnostic (not a lot of Shinto temples in the USA). Are they the model for what you are suggesting, or do they have to go too?
4. Irish. I pick on the Irish because they are the group most often picked up by people making the argument “the Irish were viewed this way too, and look at them now” against immigration restriction. You could pick other later arriving immigrant groups from outside the Northern European core: Italian, Greeks, Russians. None of them are Protestants, they brought their Catholic religion (or Orthodox religion) with them. Should they convert or leave, too?
My first-blush analysis says it’s impossible to get the numbers of people you are talking about off the North American continent. But I would like to hear more about who needs to go and how you think it can be made to happen.
If one desires the goal, one desires the means. As long as we get enough people to realize how much better off we’ll be when non-whites are gone a way will be found to make it happen.
Some easy possibilities:
$10,000 transferred to an EBT card w/i 24 hours of getting neutered for any citizen would make blacks a dead race walking within 20 years. Browns wouldn’t be far behind.
Forcibly neutering criminals would speed things along.
Asians are a difficult case, as they would respond to legislation roughly the same as whites. They might need to be put on a boat and asked where they want it to drop them off.
If easy solutions don’t work, then hard solutions will be required.
The nigs and illegal latins have to go back. After that it’s negotiable.
1. First, blacks have NOT been living outside the South (which is a separate nation and should be a separate country) for hundreds of years. The Great Migration (the mass immigration of blacks to Northern states) occurred over the early-to-mid 20th century, and can be reasonably understood as a Great Invasion, and we have every right to remove them. Second, I don’t care about the blacks in the South. They’re the South’s business. But the blacks in the Northern states absolutely have to leave. Third, some blacks are have given up black culture, act white, and are integrated into existing white communities. If their white communities defend them, which they will in most cases, then those blacks will stay. Fine. But the blacks who are not integrated, who exist in their own national enclaves, and have no gun-toting whites who will stand up for them will be deported. Fourth, the question of where they would go is a practical question and irrelevant. I would have no problem annexing some area of Mexico and giving it to the blacks. As far miscegenation goes, the question is quantity. Mass miscegenation is always unacceptable. However, I have no problem assimilating whatever tiny minority of blacks remains, because you’re talking about individuals.
2. Once miscegenation is in play, the remaining problem is the Jewish religion, because religion is the next most important factor in culture/nationality (besides language). Jews have been intermarrying with for over a millennial, but their hatred of Jesus still keeps them separate. And their version of agnosticism isn’t Christian, it’s Jewish. That’s why they side with other Jews and their kids/grandkids revert back to Judaism. To clarify, miscegenation isn’t guaranteed to result in assimilation, it’s just the only process that might result in assimilation. Jews and mulattos demonstrate the reverse: when their culture assimilates yours.
3. They either miscegenate or they go back. If there are too many to absorb, they go back. To clarify, there are two general criteria that I apply to all cases:
1) If you come from a non-Western religion/culture and want to maintain that religion/culture, you have to go back, period. 2) If you embrace Western culture and the Western people, then the question is whether any native Westerners are willing to fight to keep you in the country. If not, you have to go back. Otherwise, you can stay.
4. If the WASPs want to kick out all the Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and EO, it is certainly their prerogative to try. But that’s a WASP problem, not a Western problem, and it is beyond the scope of my concern, since I am not a WASP. The difficulty is that plenty of WASPs have either converted to other Christian sects or have family ties to those sects. In other words, plenty of WASPs would fight to keep us in the country.
If the WASPs want to kick out the non-English, it is certainly their prerogative to try that, too…but you have the same problem.
We’re talking about roughly 100 million people. And it’s not merely possible, it’s inevitable, because most of these foreign groups are now clamoring for elbow room (if they weren’t already). That makes war inevitable, and the idea that we would lose such a war is laughable. Beyond the fact that we have all the real power (aka: guns) and the numbers, we’ve been bred for modern war (i.e., logistics) for thousands of years. The only group that could pose a serious threat are the East Asians, but there are far too few of them here.
It’s like I said. Have kids and teach them. Spread the word that this is the West. Remember the example of the Spanish, who reclaimed their homeland from the Moors only after 700 years of re-conquest. The physical battle is the easy part. Getting your mental priorities in order is the hard part.
The combination of the US rapidly becoming more diverse demographically and the huge chasm between white MAGA-folks and the Trump-haters doesn’t make me optimistic that it stays intact. The tipping point is out there and it will be reached. I just don’t know when, but I do know we can’t keep going on this path without the US breaking up in some way.
The left aims at a generational displacement. Once enough Boomers die off, the entire country will follow the path of California.
White South Africans have refused to unify in the face of ANC/EFF threats. There is no shortage of white liberals eager to virtue signal about how Afrikaans should be eliminated as a language, or how farmers deserve to lose everything.
If they can’t unify in the face of a clear genocidal threat, why are we going to unify for self-determination here?
A great question.
It won’t because enough of us are working on it not happening. SA started off in the hole, with only about a 10% white population. In the US whites are still a clear majority in a vast contiguous swath of land. We have time, we have the internet, and we have shitlibs openly shrieking for white genocide at the top of their lungs.
100 years ago, South Africa was one-fifth white. The youngest generation alive today is 6% white. The Afrikaner governments in the mid-20th century limited the intake of presumably pro-Britain immigrants from Europe. Black fertility was and is higher, while immigration from neighboring black countries has been unrestricted by both the current and former regimes.
White South Africans still have somewhere to run to.
The Alt Right faces two different challenges. In the Old World, where ethnic loyalty is deep, ethno-nationalism is the way. Preserving the 19th century pan-nationalist states is about as large as it gets.
The New World is different. Thanks to the massive influx of races, each race now has a racial consciousness. My favourite example is how well second-generation Korean, Chinese and Japenese immigrants get along and sympathize. Which is just wierd historically. This is part of the Alt Rights struggle, that is to actually create an understanding of what White People are in the post national world. What do (white) Canadians and Americans share, and how can they build a national bond?
There is no such thing as a “post-national” world any more than there is a “post-gender” world.
And this ridiculous state of affairs can only persist insofar as we permit the alien nations to reside here. Once the foreign nationals have been sent home, the so-called “white racial consciousness” will evaporate, and be replaced with the reality that we are all different white nations. There are at least four major white national groupings in America.
They all have to go back.
Fine. I meant post-country world where the nations no longer have control of states or where they are little more than ethnic enclaves around globalist coloniae.
There are two options: balkanization and brazilification. If we Balkanize, the result will be similar to ww2 and forge a white identity. If we go the way of Brazil white people will continue to see they all have similar interests.
I agree but they wont. Hence balkanization or brazilification.
You’re looking at this from the perspective of ‘us versus the xenos’.
But the irreconcilable differences between the white nations of America predate the xeno invasion and predate mass European immigration.
After we have removed the xenos, all the different white national groups can split up peacefully, according to national sovereignty. For example, permitting Yankees or Minnesotans to have a voice in Southern affairs is ridiculous.
Amen, brother. “Minnesota nice” helped get us to this point.
George Friedman published a great book “Flashpoints” back in 2015 that explored just this issue in eastern Europe. His conclusion? You can paper over ethnic differences all you want, but all the way down to the village level, a millennia of history (and grudges) is just under the surface, so ignore at your own peril. Poland and Hungary have, to their credit, refused to join the EU Lethal Dose 50, immigration experiment. One of my finance people is ethnic Polish and still goes back each year–her read is that you’d have better luck barehanding a badger out of a hole than getting the Poles to commit ethnic suicide.
On the last point…reminded of Angell’s “Great Illusion” and the same theory that interdependence was a foolproof bulwark against war and chaos. What was posited in 1909(?) didn’t turn out so well. And the US simply does not have the treasure to spend shoring up every threatened nation state…we spent it all on wars, welfare, and one way trade agreements that bolstered other economies.
I wish I could share the optimism of this post. Countries will not split, because minorities will not be allowed to secede. The plan is different: a former minority of the population, systematically to the left of the distribution in fundamental characteristics (Intelligence and Conscientiousness mostly) will live off transfers from the minority. Forever. Splitting away is not allowed, because it would stop the flow of transfers, which is the purpose of the whole system.
This is what is happening in Venezuela (Maduro will win again the election on May 20 without any irregularity), and what is happening in Argentina. A crucial step in the plan is to disable the army and the police, so that the threat of an intervention is removed. Again Venezuela and Argentina (where the army was destroyed with Alfonsin, 1983 to 1989, the first move of the left after the fall of the dictatorship) lead the way. In the USA they are working on the police, the army will come next.
Final comment: I am using the term plan on purpose: the reality of the reason for social differences is clear to everyone, I think, including the left. To the thinking people on the left, at least.
Here I sit in the most prosperous place probably in human history. Nobody has ever had it so good. Out the office window I can see trucks, cars, and buses full of people and trade goods rushing down the local highway to work. Sometimes I think there’s no way we are dumb enough to screw this up.
Then I look at the news for a few minutes and I’m convinced that we are headed for a crack-up, and not a peaceful one.
The glass might be 95% full, and people will go off because of that last 5% that isn’t there. Emotional thinking will do that to people.
We’re all into biological realism here. Well, our biology is not calibrated to life in the consumer society – and the crisis is at hand. We’re learning harsh lessons about the genetics that got us through the first 200,000 years; those genetics aren’t in sync with life as consumers shopping at Wal-Mart, or as childless post-sexual weirdos walking dogs with plastic bags and pooper-scoopers.
I’m no fan of Genghis Khan, but if he were to ride in with his cavalry, burning towns and raping all the local women, I don’t think even our ICBMs would stop him. We’d be against the mandate of nature itself.
PS – Speaking of Khan, I have to add: an exchange student from a town outside of Rostov lived with us for a year. Perhaps the prettiest girl I’ve ever laid eyes on – a daughter of the Cossacks, a direct descendant of the Mongols, whose family had been Russian for centuries, yet there she was, this lovely and gracious young person, as Russian as Russian can be, bearing the features of an Oriental racial heritage; whatever Russian I know is due entirely to her. And she loved Russia as an idea. Bless her heart.
So what is ‘race’? Just asking.
Ever heard of guns?
Muh anecdote therefore diversity is muh strength!!
The German army came out with a report for future scenarios for Europe before 2040 and it was a brake up of the post-2WW order with the EU and UN as the most likely;
One of them, titled “The EU in Disintegration and Germany in Reactive Mode,” predicts “decades of instability.” It envisages the departure of other states from the EU as well as Britain, an end to the bloc’s expansion, and a world without the current Western international order that looks “increasingly disorderly,” “chaotic,” and “conflict-prone.”
http://www.newsweek.com/eu-collapse-2040-germany-army-703624
One idea that Tainter used in his book was that the ruling elites of a civilization work out a means of rule whereby resources are redirected toward themselves and this mechanism becomes a part of the economy. In order to maintain control, the elite power base has to continue to grow in response to challenges both from within and outside the core of the civilization and this in turn puts pressure on the economy; however, because the power structure is a part of the economy itself, and actually contributed to it’s growth early on, it is not seen as an existential threat, and the status quo is maintained, usually past some point at which there is a recognized ill effect to this growth, either tacitly or overtly, at which point popular support collapses. Collapse can be avoided if new resources or a new source of energy is discovered, but in his studies of desert societies, these things are not available at all and so you see a regular pattern of growth and collapse.
This is similar in some ways to Carroll Quigley’s notion of an “instrument of expansion”. In his model a successful civilization develops one of these, it becomes institutionalized within the ruling structure of the civilization, and when it no longer works under new circumstances, it is so ingrained within the culture and government that it is unthinkable to do away with it and the society collapses due to the sheer weight of maintaining it.
Very similar ideas, probably influenced by the idea that civilizations and empires grow to the point that they are simply unmanageable. Robert Service, I believe.
Applying these to the US empire, you can see a capitalistic and military industrial complex instrument of expansion, an elite class drawing resources to itself in order to maintain a position in the commanding heights, and this being prolonged by new resources and new sources of energy, and by the help of new forms of information aquisition and manipulation.
The idea of magical thinking contributing to all this is still with us. Witness the civil engineer who told me that all those new environmental regulations for road building put through by the Obama administration were great because they “created jobs”.
Witness the civil engineer who told me that all those new environmental regulations for road building put through by the Obama administration were great because they “created jobs”.
Created more parasites to leach off the system… Pretty soon the host is going to keel over because there won’t be enough blood in its system to even function…
Social conservatives traditionally like government cheese jobs that can sustain family life. Capitalists are motivated by sexual aggression to become rich, and show cultural hostility to monogamy. They deliberately scheme to reduce the status of middle class men through suppressed job availability, and a hypertrophy of excess capital is the substitute until this setup crushes human capital and eventually the civilization itself.
The fake opposition right always tries to cut government jobs, but noticeably doesn’t cut away at the welfare state. Neocons are more hostile to family life than the left itself.
Anything that is a leech or a parasite to society needs to be cut away/off…
Monogamy requires beta-male rule (a minority) or heavily religious centralized government. Why would you expect monogamy in a democratic secular state with women’s suffrage?
Sorry, AR, but could you settle down and explain what all this means? You’re pissed off – I get that (we all are here at the Z blog) – yet you’re letting yourself be crushed by abstract categories. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I saw my second scarlet tanager in three weeks today. Things must be looking up for them – hadn’t seen one in years, and now two. Good stuff.
In the long run, I am all for the survival of civilization – But even more for the survival of the scarlet tanager.
What do you think of that?
“Scarlet Tanager” sounds like a fake name you would use at a SF bah house.
This is not hard to understand. Poland is 98% Polish.
That’s mainly because the Soviets forced all ethnic Ukrainians out of Poland and into the newly-formed Ukraine at the end of a bayonet, and vice versa for the Poles living in Ukraine. Until then, ethnic Poles and Ukrainians used to fight like cat and dog in both territories.
Yes. This. The book “A Savage Continent” deals with this and the politics of ethnic cleansing/ forced resettlement in the post WWII World. If you or any of Z’s readers get a chance, this book is a fascinating read…
Savage Continent is indeed excellent, and the source on which I based my comment!
Up until the 1700’s, northwestern Ukraine was part of the Polish-Lithuanian empire. It only came under Russian rule when that empire collapsed. Later, Lithuania and eastern Poland themselves became part of Russia, and they stayed in the Russian Empire until WW I. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact reestablished that world.
The real division in Central European would seem to be Catholic vs. Orthodox. That would put today’s western Ukrainians on the same side as the Poles, and allied against the eastern Ukrainians and ethnic Russians.
The Saker has several posts on that issue.
Ethnic cleansing after WW II was truly massive, and millions of Germans were expelled from Central and Eastern Europe where they had long resided. Only with the reunification of East and West Germany have the Volga Germans come home. The cleansing was done with malice afore thought, but it probably stabilized the newly formed countries.
Was the US ever really a nation-state in the same way a country like France is? By mid-19the century there was already a large German-Irish influx, then by 1925 a large Italian-East European influx, swamping ultimately the Anglo-Saxon founding stock, yet the nation prospered, so you could argue a multi-ethnic society can survive and prosper. Why will the current post-1965 immigration wave destroy the country, while the first two didn’t? This is the question as an immigration restrictionist I always ask myself.
Perhaps room to grow and willingness to assimilate, plus shared European heritage. Africans and Mexicans don’t assimilate as well as Europeans. Among Asians I’ve noticed Japanese and Filipino assimilate more readily than the rest. Long periods of being under American rule probably account for this.
I’d be careful of assuming places like France are very much different from old America. de Gaulle’s crack about ruling a country with 1,000 different types of cheese was not merely a throwaway line; differences in language and culture have been persistent there for centuries. Similar things can be said about Spain, for example, as the Catalans have started insisting they are a separate people from the Spaniards.
Why will the current immigration wave destroy the country? Because they worship foreign gods.
It’s a good question. One, there was “room” for those earlier migrations–railroads were actively recruiting immigrants to line the right of ways and farm unsettled land. Rapid industrialization required relatively unskilled labor. But there was also a lumpiness that allowed for assimilation. Now we simply have the highest foreign born % of population ever. Also remember the 1924 Act was a not an unfounded reaction against the influx of political extremist from post-WW1 Europe. I’ll take my Polish great aunt and Italian (really) barber as examples, both came here after WWII and both wanted nothing more than to leave the Old World far behind and become Americans…period. And other than food, had zero interest in importing anything else. Now we see whole groups showing up increasingly telling us that we need to bend and shape our society around the culture they’ve imported from {fill in the blank}. And no, they are not even interested in citizenship, or want to hold dual passports.
The death of civic religion following the death of Nazi Germany is the cause. There is nothing to assimilate to. If you try to create something than you are a fascist. Marcuse (?) of the Frankfurt school created something called an F-score to that effect. It’s bunk but the American government subsidized it.
What the Frankfurters did was move away from using class as the dividing point and focus on identity. That was the nexus of the rise of identity politics in the US. So when the message becomes “your group is special and does not have to bow to the hegemony of dominant culture–in fact it must bow to you….”
Mass European immigration did destroy America. America “prospered” purely in an economic sense, and that prosperity was temporary.
The price was American national identity.
The price was a total loss of respect for the Constitution.
The price was the political ascendancy of socialism, progressivism, and liberalism.
The price was the Civil Rights Era and the ’65 Mass Immigration Act.
The price was Obama.
WASPs are now a conquered and occupied people.
The fact that we integrated a bit more effectively than those who are alien to Western Civilization is irrelevant. We didn’t integrate effectively enough to preserve the WASP culture and political system, and that’s the inevitable consequence of mass immigration.
Either we learn from history or we repeat history. Period.
Interesting response. Even though I am the descendent of Italian immigrants, I have wondered if America made a mistake in allowing all these people in. I do think assimilation is possible when the immigrants are white, European and Christian, because they are at least part of Western Civilzation, but the further you get from the the more difficult.
I’m descended from German and Slavic immigrants. The important point, for me, is to recognize that we can’t justify future national policy on the basis of how our ancestors got here, or what the WASPs who let them in believed. All national policy must, by definition, serve the interests of the WHOLE nation, not just the capitalists who think they need cheap labor.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the only true assimilation is miscegenation. Anything else leaves the children without blood ties to the native population, and in the end blood ties are the only ties that matter.
And miscegenation can assimilate anyone, because language, culture, tradition, religion, history, etc. are transmitted by the parents. As far as genetics, East Asian, Middle Eastern, and South American characteristics seem to be mostly washed out in the second generation. Even African characteristics wash out in three or four generations.
This illustrates that the only relevant factor is quantity…otherwise the foreigners assimilate you.
Due to the fact that there will be some level of intermarriage anyway for reasons that include normal international relations and war brides, I argue for zero immigration. Pick your own damn cotton, mine your own damn coal, assemble your own damn iPhones, run your own damn call centers, and conscript your own damn armies.
Another lesson America has taught the world is that capitalists are never more than a step away from treason, because they can always increase profits by importing cheap foreign labor or cheap foreign goods.
One factor is that all of the immigrants (with the exception of a few East Asians, who tended to be segregated) pre-1965 were from Christian European countries and they mostly spoke Romance or Germanic languages. Even so, it took the better part of a century and two world wars to finally assimilate them all. Two groups that did not assimilate were Amerinds and the descendents of the former African slaves. Now our elites want to flood the republic with Amerinds (most Mexicans are Amerind or mestizo) and Africans. They also want to import millions of East Asians (not known for integrating) and South Asians (who have maintained their ethnic identities wherever they spread throughout the old British Empire). Maybe with another century and a couple of world wars, most of the newcomers woukd assimilate to something resembling Western civilization. I’m skeptical that we have a century or that we’d be on the winning side in those wars.
“Why will the current post-1965 immigration wave destroy the country, while the first two didn’t?”
Maybe they did, but we just didn’t notice it. Someone at Free Republic said to me many years ago that no ethnic group except the original British founding stock every really understood and supported the original design and ideals of the Republic.
If you take voting Republican as a rough proxy for supporting American project, 2016 was the first election the Irish every voted GOP. Most Irish trace their roots in the USA back over 100 years at this point. The Jews, despite all their financial success, are still supporting Leftism everywhere.
A lot of the social upheaval of the 1960s was fueled by big-city “ethnics”, a term old school political analysts like Chris Matthews still uses to describe the witches brew of Irish, Italians, Polish, Germans and Jews that filled the big cities of East and Midwest, and had fully asserted control by around 1960. The last white mayor of Detroit (who might be said to have “lost” the city to the blacks) was John Kavanaugh.
The wretched Hart-Simpson immigration act was championed by Ted Kennedy, aided by a couple Jewish back-benchers in the House.
The importation of non-WASPs created the original fault lines that the left used to break the organization and unity of the culture. All else has followed inexorably from that.
Little is said here about the conversos, the Jewish stock that left Judaism through forced conversions or “enlightenment”.
“White” people obsess over anybody with Jewish DNA but don’t reconcile it with the fact that people with Jewish DNA were heavily persecuted in Europe and had more reasons to leave for the new world than most.
The eternal back and forth between Jews and Europeans: “You persecuted us!” “You exploited us!”
The Jews didn’t get kicked out of 100+ countries entirely due to innocent misunderstandings or prejudicial malevolence. Separation seems to be the obvious solution.
I’m not defending Judaism i’m talking about DNA. My point is that American founding stock is more crypto Jew than most people realize. Crypto jews are some of the most legitimate “white Anericans”.
Yeah, because nobody cares.
Nobody is forcing Jews to live Western Civilization or any of its subsidiaries. What is the Religion of Western Civ, that replaced Greek paganism and Roman paganism and barbarian paganism? Christianity.
Either they play by whatever rules we set, or they can leave.
Bingo.
There can be no hope for America until the children of European immigrants accept the role our ancestors played in killing the golden goose.
Italians are criminal savages who demonstrated their gratitude through the Mafia.
The Irish were bitter subjects of the British Crown, and helpfully transferred their grudge to the English Yankees. Philip Hart (of the Hart-Celler Mass Immigration Act) was Irish. We should never be surprised when immigrants want to bring in more immigrants.
Worst of all, the German Lutherans are good little statist lemmings who were delighted to join the Yankees in subjugating the South, delighted to advance the stupid socialist policies of the Yankee progressive fringe, and even now are so pathetically cucked that we let card-carrying Muslims run for governor in Michigan.
We hardly even need to mention the survivors of the Holocaust. Jews are the ancient enemies of the Religion of Western Civilization—far predating the Muslims—and the fact that Jews at various points in the West’s history have been more or less troublesome at various is about as relevant as the fact that some Muslims are “liberals”.
The lesson of America is that mass immigration is treason and that immigrant spawn should NEVER be granted citizenship, EVER. Why? Because children are not bound by the commitments of their parents. They are only bound by blood. Heck, look at me. My church, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod was founded in 1847. We contain a district called the “English” district. Wanna know what that means? It refers to a collection of parishes that were absorbed into the LCMS and shared the unique characteristic of speaking English. It gets better. In response to the World Wars, there was a major push to demonstrate allegiance to America (the German desire to conform is strong…), and one consequence (besides changing the services to English) was adopting a lot of American worship styles, in particular to demonstrate that we were not just Catholics without a Pope. (Even though, compared to American Protestants, that is almost exactly what we are.) Well, guess what’s happening now? The trend of “Americanization” is in full retreat. Traditional American Christianity is openly criticized and mocked. We’re going back to our religious roots. And I support this 100%.
Does that sound familiar? That our recent ancestors may have wanted to appear more in step with American religion is irrelevant to us. We don’t care. And we’re just a microcosm of the greater problem created by the blacks and Mexicans and Jews and Muslims and all the rest. The blacks who invaded the northern Midwest to escape Southern oppression didn’t intend to turn our cities into shitholes. But the posterity didn’t care what their parents wanted. So it goes with all mankind.
We already know what the solution is. National identity, national sovereignty, and 1 Country 1 Culture.
Of course, before we worry about all the different white cultures, the xeno cultures have to be removed. No one cares that some of our ancestors marched for Civil Rights. They sold us our future to foreigners. We are not bound to honor the deal.
You ‘always ask yourself this’. The answer stares you in the face, but there you are, perplexed as to why a poor family of Irish or Italians somehow worked out their difficulties and became part of the American mainstream in a generation or two.
Hmm, no difference to be noted here between those sturdy, Christian white European immigrants and (say) the Somalis, the La Raza hooligans, the Muslims, the Syrians, the drug gangs, the ‘lesser breeds without the law’ surging through a compliant enemy country to the south in ‘caravans’.
There’s a Gary Larsen cartoon that describes you – it’s the one where the detectives are investigating a homicide in a clock shop, and the head detective, stroking his chin, says to the other guys, “if we could just determine the time of the murder”, as he is surrounded by bullet-ridden wall clocks all stopped at the same minute.
But by all means, keep asking. Be that detective.
I’m gonna need a cite for the proposition that German-descended Americans were causing lots of problems in the 19th century. Besides speaking German at home, it seems like this population was a net positive from the get go, and one that has had very little trouble assimilating into Americans. Sure, simply adding lots of people all at once an be harmful even if the people are swell.
But let’s remember, the Angles and the Saxons were Germanic tribes that sacked the British isles and reigned for 600 years. Those WASPs were teeming with German blood from day one of the USA. Conflating Germans with Italians (really Sicilians) and Irish is inaccurate from a genetic standpoint, among other things.
One of my relatives — not born in the country she currently resides in (but refusing to call England ‘home’) was dismayed when I said that in the UK there is a fair chance we will sooner or later return to a system of city-states. I pointed out that tribal affiliations are actually still built-in to the population, and with the collapse of logical government and the growth of non-British takeovers of places like Bradford, Rotherham, Wolverhampton and (whisper it) London then there’s a chance groups will seek to safeguard their own interest and draw up their own borders.
The question will then become when does a city state, which either by moral, ethnic or religious (or equally non-religious) agreements start to corrupt itself with ideals of sharing any success and ‘civilisation’ by importing strangers who have no intention following the ethos of the host system. Pretty much like now in many ways, which of course is a problem as the imported newcomers aren’t arriving to make everything better but for a time to get, free, what they can while they can.
Perhaps, as we have an inability to learn from past mistakes, these city-states will soon develop the old idea of walls and gates.
London controls the UK so I don’t see why it might cede that influence.
Issac: London only controls the UK because it is the financial centre; the Monarchy and indeed parliament can relocate anywhere else without notable loss. Once London is eclipsed (as the EU desires) as a financial hub then the place goes down. All we lose are the historic buildings but the Religion of Peace had no real interest in maintaining them anyway.
Already the enclaves of whites are shrinking. Only the Corbyn-supporting area of Islington is holding out for now, but Labour is notorious for not seeing what is in front of its nose. Oh yes, and Corbyn supports the EU destruction of the UK (even though he is widely rumoured to have voted Leave in the referendum. Apparently being Leader of the Opposition means not having thought out consequences) There are no chirpy cockneys in the east end of London anymore and more and more traditional white families are leaving.
The London borough of Tower Hamlets is almost all muslim now and has already stated it wants to be ‘independent’ of London and have its own laws.
The future for traditional UK cities is looking a bit grim, to say the least.
I don’t doubt the future of UK cities is grim, I simply see no evidence that the countryside will secede from their influence. The EU needs and utilizes legacy capitals as centers of managerial influence. Why would the EU want to allow a sovereign British countryside? I submit that they would not either.
So while I could see an increasing amount of autonomy for cities via a vi states (as the latter and becoming legacy to the new super-state entity), I see no end to the general process of governance over territory which entails such power centers being points from which the countryside is extracted and ruled. Ergo a “return to city states,” in the sense of roughly autonomous or confederated cities with only informal relationships to their hinterlands, is very unlikely. Centralization breaking down might lead to that, but centralization breaking down could just as easily lead to nationalism and the revival of old states. The most efficient scale of sovereign operation is unclear in such an event.
It didn’t control the Brexit vote, as much as it tried.
One does not count chickens before they hatch.
I was recently in Eastern Europe and was impressed greatly by the polish. The national unity you describe was palpable. I would add another facet: uniform practiced catholic religion. I sensed this as a strong social factor. The poles have passed a law making it illegal to implicate or blame Poland and polish people in any way for the holocaust! The leftists in our train were caterwauling about free speech and human rights. The hypocrisy was bewildering. So much for all those polish jokes. But then again national unity is strong in China and Japan where organized religion has never really been a thing.
What most struck me was the deterioration in the level of social trust upon entering Hungary. We were warned about pickpockets, the eastern mafia, and various scams such as “consumption girls.” I attribute this to the “diversity,” the presence of gypsies and other groups, not present in Poland. But the scams and crimes were not exclusively perpetrated by these groups, but the low social trust seemed permeative. The Hungarian currency is turning to confetti supposedly due to corruption, so that 1000 is only like four US dollars! The divorce rate is astronomical. Hungarians seemed nasty at times and would for example pretend not to speak German when they really did. Still, with the election of orban and resistance to third world immigration, Hungary would seem to be on a better path than we are.
The Poles were, of course, de-reformed back to Roman Catholicism by repression.
Ever try talking sense in to a Puritan?
“Hungarians seemed nasty at times.” How so?
What kind of angry person downvotes me for a simple question?
Don’t be that guy. Pretend you have some pride.
Don’t be that guy who says don’t be that guy.
“That’s not the America of today. You can probably just lump in the whites as a single ethnic group, the White American, but we have large numbers of non-whites now.”
The break-up of the American nation-state may be a secondary effect of project to reduce the formerly high percentage of “White Americans” in the population of the U.S. But that’s not the primary goal of the project. The primary goal is properly punish White Americans for their wickedness.
Haven’t the architects of the project told us this several times? Why on Earth would they keep repeating to Steve Sailer the same pathetic stories about not being allowed to join the rich Protestants’ Country Clubs? “Entertainment” or “a sincere attempt to elicit sympathy” surely cannot be the answers! They want to let us know of our sin, and why we must submit to an appropriately harsh retribution.
Post-strongman Yugoslavia eventually fractured into pieces, each of which approximate Zman’s idea of a nation state.
It immediately fractured.