Posted by Rollory on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:20 | #

Well I’ll tell you what is GOING to happen: nothing and more of the same, only a lot more so.

Every single piece of evidence I have seen so far - including the discontinuity in serial numbers - has a plausible, stupid-human-beings-doing-stupid-things sort of explanation.  The text being broken up across multiple layers really bothered me, but I am assured that this is a normal result of an Adobe rasterization process, where it explicitly attempts to figure out algorithmically what is text and what is not and puts different things on different layers, and doesn’t get everything correct.  For the serial numbers on the forms, that’s easy; they had one big stack of those forms, they split them into some smaller piles, they just grabbed the first one that came to hand, and didn’t worry if it was exactly in order or not.  After all, what does it matter?  Who’s going to expect that fifty years down the road a bunch of sperging obsessives are going to demand to know why you didn’t pick up those pieces of paper exactly in the order they were labeled?  This is exactly the sort of thing that, if someone was going to make a fake, they would make a point of getting it right.  The Nordyke form is a known factor.  To someone thinking criminally, it is obvious what sort of comparisons would be made.  To someone thinking “oh gee whiz won’t these retards shut up”, coupled with a narcissistic sense of “I don’t have to follow your rules if I don’t want to” - well, such a person could engage in precisely the series of pratfalls we have seen.

But all this is secondary.  Secondary because none of it will force Obama out of office, nor will it convince the 40% of the country that unreservedly supports him that they were disastrously wrong in doing so.  Secondary also because - assuming the document is legit - no matter what explanations are provided for the strange aspects of it, no explanation or reasonable chain of events that could have resulted in such oddities will be believed.  Too many people have seen this question evaded too many times and are too sure that there must be SOMETHING behind all the smoke, and the explanation that the guy is full of himself and just didn’t want to simply will not suffice for them.  Even posting a high-res unmodified photo of the original piece of paper in the book in Hawaii, at this point, is going to get people jumping on details they don’t think fit.  It could have been released in such a format (high-res photo) any time up to last week, but the way this was done, even that won’t be believed now.

So the fringe right keeps at it, sure that so much effort must hide a really good secret, and every attempted and semi-flubbed explanation just makes it seem juicier - and the mainstream right thinks maybe they have a point.  The left meanwhile becomes more and more sure that the right is incurably insane.  The right is sure the left is incurably dishonest and power-mad.  And the course to civil disintegration and war proceeds.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 02:08 | #

It’s win-win imo.
1) Obama stays, white people get more radical.
2) Obama gets pushed out after one term, black people go nuts, white people get more radical.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 03:27 | #

every attempted and semi-flubbed explanation just makes it seem juicier

Sure, because either way it all begs the question that being an “American” is contingent on location of birth, and independent of race.

It’s should be self-evident to any sane White man that Obama is an African, so the longer this charade goes on, the more deluded and demoralized the White public will become.

Posted by svensson on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:10 | #

The writing is on the wall. We know Obama is born in Kenya.

But for the masses this is a total no-question, it doesn’t exist. Obama will probably get re-elected just like that.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:58 | #

I know nothing about the birther controversy, and care even less - though I suppose I like how it distracts and dicomfits Obama. It does not appear to me to be a huge deal to most Americans, however. The Left doesn’t care because Obama is their man, and perhaps even more, because they reject any nationalist divisions, even between American citizens and foreigners. They mostly think it an “oppressive” outrage that a document ratified in the 18th century should have any bearing or restraint on contemporary political life.

The Right doesn’t care for the most part because we are the patriots as well as the producers in our land, and as such, have much greater worries than whether this awful man is actually Constitutionally permitted to serve in his current capacity. The nation is going down the toilet much faster than even many of us on the Pessimist Right had thought likely a few short years ago. Bad as things are racially, as well as morally (a set of issues very important to a large segment of the broader Right), the main immediate worry for most of us is the parlous state of the economy, especially as it is effected by our gargantuan and seemingly untamable federal budget deficit (and concomitant staggering national debt).

With the economy so weak, and public finances so out of control, Obama’s birthplace is only a sideshow for the serious among us. Moreover, it is not wholly Constitutionally clear that Obama, even if physically born in Kenya or elsewhere outside of the US, would automatically be disqualified from the Presidency. Yes,  a requirement for the Presidency is US birth. But like so much else, the “plain meaning” of the text is not altogether so plain; intent must be examined (in this conservative jurisprudes could find themselves ironically hoist on their own “original intentionalist” petards).

It is generally agreed that the intent of the Framers in putting in that requirement was to ensure first, that only “real Americans” at the time of the Constitution’s ratification (1787) could hold the Presidency (thus ensuring that no England-born, or other newly arrived colonist, whose loyalties might remain with the Mother country, could get elected - and thus possibly jeopardize the nascent Republic by seeking to reestablish formal ties with Britain; in other words, the Framers sought to preserve the Revolution in perpetuity, and did not fully trust the sentimental attachments of those who had not been resident in the American colonies for at least a generation); and second, to ensure that no future immigrant could ever be President - a very sound requirement for any nation, in my opinion.

The first concern was only such for a generation or two following ratification. Nowadays, the birthplace requirement would be interpreted ex post facto (that is, considering the Framers’ intent for the indefinite future) as a disqualification of immigrants. The problem this poses for conservative “birther” fanatics is that, according to our citizenship statutes, there has never been any doubt that Obama is a lawful American citizen, regardless of his birthplace, because no one denies that his mother was an American citizen when he was born - and any person is an automatic American citizen if only one of his or her parents was an American citizen at the time of his or her birth.

So the real issue (if Obama’s birthplace was outside the US) is a genuine Constitutional one. Is an American who a) was an automatic citizen at birth by virtue of having had at least one American citizen parent at the time of his or her birth, and b) was born outside the US, disqualified from the Presidency?

I don’t think there has been a Constitutional case addressing this issue, and I have no idea how the Supreme Court might rule on one. I merely point out that, even if it could be demonstrated that Obama’s birthplace was not in the US, such a demonstration alone is prima facie insufficient to guarantee Obama’s disqualification from the Presidency on Constitutional grounds.

Posted by Rollory on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:24 | #

The mainstream right is just as bad as the left on the matter of defining American.

http://northshorejournal.org/our-best-commander-shanti-sethi
(might have to go to google cache, site seems to be down right now)

Of course the man’s not American, for any rational meaning of that word, regardless of where he was born.  Of course that is what is behind birther sentiment.  The left even gets it mostly right on this, although they relabel it racism.  But the right doesn’t dare admit this to itself, because doing so means permanently rejecting one of the foundational ideologies of the modern USA, that of unrestricted individual potential.

We will need to see a full generation come to adulthood in complete disbelief of the myth before it can start getting rolled back in any meaningful sense.  I am not sure we have that kind of time.

Posted by Trainspotter on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 04:55 | #

Wandrin: “It’s win-win imo.
1) Obama stays, white people get more radical.
2) Obama gets pushed out after one term, black people go nuts, white people get more radical.”

Yes, that’s about the size of it.  The take home is that, from this point on, all roads lead to conflict and radicalization.  If I had my choice, I’d take four more years of Obama, but the Republicans will not be able to put Humpty together again.  So…either way is cool. 

The fundamental problem is that government spending in unsustainable and rapidly hitting the crisis point.  Throw in rising energy prices, international instability in areas that affect the American economy, the dollar’s decline, etc.,  and you’ve got a nice cocktail for interesting times.  (you know a system is in trouble when you have to throw an “etc.” in because it becomes absurd to list all of the crises/potential crises, any one of which could sink this rickety boat). 

At a very basic level, government here is basically one giant transfer scheme, extracting enormous amounts of wealth from white America and distributing it to non-whites, and blacks more than most.  Most Americans have absolutely no idea just how much wealth is being stolen/distributed, but it goes way beyond the storied welfare queens of yore.  For example, hundreds of billions of dollars a year are spent to “educate” non-whites, but whites pay - by far - most of the tax bills.  And the best that can be produced from this “education” is more government employees, for a lifelong feast at taxpayer’s expense.  What a deal!

Point is, it costs an awful lot of money to keep 100 million third worlders at a first world standard of living.  One can almost hear Atlas groaning.  Will he shrug? 

Blacks are so overrepresented in government employment that, when combined with a thousand other scams and schemes, it can fairly be said of them that they have become wards of the state. 

Wards of the state indeed, and an increasingly bankrupt state at that.  A state that will find it progressively more difficult to keep even basic promises. 

Yet this government has made the most extravagant of promises, namely a world in which blacks will forever take twenty cookies out of the jar for every one that they put in (and that is a generous estimate).  A world in which whites are to be mocked, insulted, dispossessed, discriminated against and reduced in numbers - but somehow will be able and willing to pay for the party, forever.  What could possibly go wrong?

For starters, the government could go broke. 

We have already entered opening stages of Kunstler’s “The Long Emergency.”  Whoever wins in 2012 won’t change that, or the dynamics that are being set into motion.  Racially blind libertarians or Tea Party types will, of course, try to dance around all of this, but ultimately to no avail.  The fundamental conflict of interest is a racial one, and claims of color blindness cannot change the flesh and blood reality. 

Cutting government spending would not only hurt non-whites, it would be devastating to them.  For example, there would pretty much be no black middle class without literally massive infusions of government cash/benefits/anti-white discrimination.  They know this…only the dimwitted “I don’t care about race” types fail to grasp what is actually at stake here.  Stay tuned!

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:09 | #

The fundamental problem is that government spending in unsustainable and rapidly hitting the crisis point.

America’s elites will not in the end countenance the total ruination of their basis for power.  If it comes to it, they will enact more radically directed spending cuts as opposed to merely cosmetic budget slashing “across the board”.  Military expenditures in furtherance of the American empire will be the likely target.  “Entitlement” programs are the indispensable factor for the maintenance of relative domestic tranquility.  If the checks stop going out, America’s elites will have ceased to serve any useful purpose for the mass of the American people.  If the latter perception comes to dominate, it is game over for the American elite.

Posted by Rollory on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:55 | #

CC, the math doesn’t work.  It is not possible to avoid the crisis - specifically, the exponential increase in interest payments on the federal debt, and the consequence of either utter devaluation of the dollar or default and a general stop to sales of Treasury bonds and thus any deficit spending at all - without cutting entitlements.  You could cut every single non-entitlement item in the budget to zero and it wouldn’t be enough.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:19 | #

Rollory,

The nationalist solution in principle ... and I can’t say more than that because matters of national and international debt-finance are nothing if not complex, and I am certainly over-simplifying, but ... in principle the capital component of the debt could be repaid electronically immediately, since once repaid it disappears on the lenders’ ledgers anyway.  There is no reason why the borrower should repay fiat loans from the fruits of actual man-hours of labour.  The interest, maybe, in lieu of the service provided by the lender.  But not the capital sum.

That would leave indebted economies struggling with compound interest issues, but nothing more.  This would be preferable to total default, I think - particularly for debtor nations who cannot manage their insurance status.

I should add that keeping the capital sum in the economy in this way is not inflationary if it is used for investment (whether at national infrastructure level or family and individual expenditure level).  It only becomes an inflationary issue if it is maintained in or returns to a convertible (circulatory) form.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:05 | #

I’d say I’m a pretty hard-core political type, but predictions of imminent Armageddon are almost always wrong. The ones above will be proven wrong, too.

The US has a tremendous genius for ‘managing’ decline. That’s hardly something to be proud of, but it is a fact. The reason for this, which is extremely difficult for ideologues of ANY persuasion to grasp, is that people are not unidimensional (here, the study of serious literature helps - really). Libertarians think that anyone who is not a libertarian must be a socialist radical. WNs think anyone who supports ‘civil rights’ and ‘family reunification’ immigration policies must want to give away the whole country to violent minorities. Evangelicals think anyone supporting legal abortion must also support the entirety of the sexual revolutionary agenda. Etc etc.

In reality, white race liberals are more often simply naive than actively treasonous or malicious. And every radical change begets resistance. More of it, more rapidly, produces faster resistance, as we’ve seen with the Tea Party and the GOP House takeover which resulted from it.

Not all non-WN whites are raving race liberals, or economic fools. Yes, overall, the country is in terminal decline, and I doubt there will be a UNITED States in 2100. It is possible (but unlikely) that the US will collapse into poverty and mass anarchy by 2050. Assuming no substantial reductions in immigration, which is sadly likely but hardly guaranteed, even after nonwhites become a residential majority (I predicted way back in the late 80s that the Racial D-Day would be 2020, and I stand by my claim), it will be at least a further decade until they become a citizen majority, and then another 5-10 years until they reach an electoral majority. These are very grounded and realistic claims (which I’m certainly unhappy about, however).

Thus, we have about 25-30 years in which the majority of Federal legislators will be elected by whites. Obviously, an ever growing number of officeholders will be nonwhite. However, the white turn to conservatism might keep gathering pace, especially as the continuously deteriorating conditions lead the Right to focus ever less on secondary social as well as foreign policy issues, and ever more on issues of economics, on the one hand, and race and public order (crime, immigration, affirmative action and the spoils system), on the other. I suspect that whites will be moving further to the Right (and to our Right) over the next few decades.

In other words, ‘dire straits’ analyses are always too linear. They fail to recognize that people can and do change based on circumstance. I have a friend, a liberal New York Zionist Jew, nearly the embodiment of the type WNs despise, who characteristically voted Obama in 08. However, this gentleman, a very successful commercial attorney, has been so incensed at the sheer fiscal mismanagement of the Obama admin that he finally ‘crossed the line’ and voted GOP in 2010. There will be many, many more such persons in the coming decades.

A similar problem with WN apocalyptic scenarios is that they falsely assume that all nonwhites vote lockstep for liberalism. That is simply untrue. My next door neighbors are Filipinos, quite polite, and deeply Catholic. Do I want them here, in the US or the OC? Of course not! My race built America, and I want the territory for my people - forever!

But my neighbors are hardly destructive radicals or (more usually black) hooligans. They keep up their property, and cause me no headaches. Indeed, based on a complaint the husband made some months back to me about a tax reassessment he suffered, I suspect this man might even be Republican. Even if not, I can imagine him voting against new bond measures for increased welfare spending.

Indeed, back in 1994, we had the very ‘controversial’ (read ‘ridiculously moderate’) Prop 187, which sought to deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens (it passed, but was later voided by a Paki federal judge). Much was made (including by me at the time) of the fact that a majority of every nonwhite group voted against it, while whites voted heavily but not overwhelmingly for it (about 61%). However, only Hispanics, who comprise the vast bulk if illegals, voted overwhelmingly against it (77%-23%). Blacks voted about 47% for it; Asians, about 43% for it - despite all the cries of “racism” and “economic damage”, etc from all the usual suspects, from professional nonwhite nationalists, to Chamber of Commerce types, to media liberals.

My point, then, is simple. America is going down, but the decline is unlikely to be sharp and violent, unless the macroeconomic managers of our economy really screw up (as they did wrt the housing bubble, which however, was mainly a monetary phenomenon). Impending problems create countervailing forces for solutions (another example is the crime drop in the 90s, which had nothing to do with any liberal uplift, but merely resulted from the passage of state level “three strikes” laws across the country, which have dramatically increased convict populations, sometimes needlessly, but concomitantly reduced crime rates - again, hardly my ideal, which would be widespread violent criminal extermination, but tolerably effective nonetheless).

White extinction in America is far more likely to issue from slow but gathering race-mixing than race war.

Posted by anon on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:38 | #

Leon:

Didn’t you say not long ago that you were to be on VoR or some such program? did that ever materialize and if so where can I hear it?

Posted by Alaric on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:33 | #

Who would interview the dullard? For what reason? ‘Tis laughable.

Posted by Trainspotter on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:31 | #

CC: “If the checks stop going out, America’s elites will have ceased to serve any useful purpose for the mass of the American people.  If the latter perception comes to dominate, it is game over for the American elite.”

True.  Probably the most likely outcome is that the checks will still go out, they simply won’t buy very much, regardless of nominal value.  Six of one, half dozen of the other.  Either way, the legitimacy of the American elite declines.

Leon Haller: “The US has a tremendous genius for ‘managing’ decline.”

I’m not so sure.  For the vast majority of its history, the U.S. has been a power on the upswing, with each generation wielding more power and wealth than the previous.  For us, decline is a new thing, and I don’t see that our elites are handling these relatively uncharted waters all that well.  We’ll see, but to me it appears that they are quite incapable of undertaking the necessary reforms to keep their ruinous and destructive system in place.  They seem unable to change course, and insist upon heading straight at the iceberg while insisting that their ship is unsinkable.  It’s not just a matter of their worldview being at odds with reality, though it is certainly that.  It’s also just a matter of basic math.  The numbers simply don’t work, and the ship is not unsinkable. 

The reality is that previous generations created an enormous amount of wealth in this society, and the current System has been blowing through it like a drunken sailor on leave.  What we are witnessing today is not genius at managing decline, but rather a squandering of our inheritance.  It will take some time to run through the fat of the land, but they seem determined to do so. 

At one time, and whatever we might think of certain practices that they followed, the elites actually played a role in improving the society.  They actively supported the construction of beautiful buildings and monuments (not to mention art), they participated in the creation of a high quality public education system, libraries, anjd so forth.  They enhanced our infrastructure and improved the public realm, of which all whites could partake. 

Henry Ford bragged that he would make the American worker the best paid in the world, and then he pretty much did.  The vast majority of people lived in safe, friendly and appealing neighborhoods, whether the housing itself was modest or grand.  There was a real culture, an impressive and steadily improving infrastructure, and an economy based on real productivity and wealth creation instead of usury, Ponzi schemes and assorted scams and grift. 

In the past, even bad practices were notably better than today.  For example, the much maligned “company town.”  At least they built the company town, and brought whites in to work.  Now?  They simply hijack an existing white community, de facto stealing it.  They build a huge meat processing plant near a small American town, knowing full well that they are going to bring in thousands of mestizos to do the work (and that the town’s existing labor force wouldn’t be sufficient anyway).  Even a small town might have many billions of dollars in infrastructure - utility systems, sewers, schools, roads, not to mention private residences and improvements.  Our current elites don’t build any of that stuff, instead they in effect steal the town and turn it into Tijuana.  This makes it utterly unliveable for the whites who, through taxes and private equity, built the town from scratch.  What a great deal.  What progress. 

While I’d rather have neither, the old style company town wins hands down.   

That’s the problem: elites simply don’t contribute much of anything positive today.  Certainly not beautiful art or wonderful buildings or well functioning civic institutions.  Many make their fortunes by ruining the livelihoods of their “fellow Americans,”  destroying white towns and neighborhoods, and in general making life worse for the typical citizen.  As society gets worse, the elites simply buy out of the problems.  The public education system declines, but their kids go to private schools.  Crime is a problem? Not for them.  Nothing that living in an expensive neighborhood, perhaps supplemented by a gate and a private security force, can’t fix.  And so it goes. 

I don’t see any particular evidence that our so called elites have the slightest idea how to manage this decline, other than simply letting things crumble and buying their own private infrastructure, security, etc.  Over the coming years we’ll certainly find out, one way or another, but I’m optimistic that we are going to get more and more of an opening over time.  The old quid pro quo is gone, and the current elites simply don’t offer society meaningful benefits in exchange for society protecting and facilitating their obscene levels of wealth. 

There is going to be plenty of opportunity for us in the coming years.  Whether we are able to capitalize on that opening is another question.  While I’m not much on conspiracy theories, I do find it interesting that there seem to be more and more attempts to sidetrack and derail white nationalism, just as the ground starts to become more favorable to the spread of our ideas.  Notice how those that seek to derail don’t simply go off and do their own thing - they instead insist that we stop doing ours - even if it’s just scholarly or at least erudite writing on political theory. 

They are often venemous.  It’s not that our numbers are all that great, or that they really need us for mainstream projects where we would be nothing but a drop in the bucket at best.  It’s our ideas that bother them, because they are ideas suited to the coming era.  Maybe we’re doing something right, however small in scale at present.  In any event, the potential is there. More and more of our opponents understand this, and they are right.

Posted by John Archer on Sun, 01 May 2011 00:38 | #

Guessedworker, Thanks.

This site was recommended to me and this is my first visit.

I just want to say it’s very impressive. And the quality of the comments is a joy.

In particular, to Leon Haller: I really like the way you think.

Posted by NV on Sun, 01 May 2011 01:41 | #

“White extinction in America is far more likely to issue from slow but gathering race-mixing than race war.”

The biggest issue by far in most white countries is that the white birth rate is below 2.1 - the level required to hold white numbers steady. If the birth rate falls below 2.1 permanently that is the path to extinction, and race mixing will only accelerate an existing trend.

So any discussion of the effect that race mixing has is academic if the birth rate is blow the replacement level. It is only of interest if the b.r. is above 2.1.

Race mixing means that this number needs to be even higher to hold the numbers steady to compensate for the effect of racial defectors. However, for complete extinction in a scenario where the white b.r. is greater than 2.1, the mix rate would have to be large enough to reduce the net b.r. below 2.1. If it reduces it to 2.1 exactly then the population of whites would at worst stagnate.

Of course this analysis ignores ‘recycled’ whites, who have non-white blood in them, and whose ancestors bred back in with whites. Such people look white but whether they are considered white by WNs is a matter for another day. Apparently, Iain Duncan Smith is 1/8th Japanese. He looks white enough to me but whether he is white enough to satisfy the hard core is a moot point. I think 1/8th max is acceptable when you talk about East Asian blood.

It is racial identity rather than racial purity that is of interest to most whites. If you have someone who is 1/8th Japanese but identifies with whites and self-identifies as white then that is probably enough. You do run into problems when you have someone with repulsive (i.e. Jewish or Islamic) cultural baggage, though, and then of course there is the thorny issue of where you draw the line with people who have negroid blood in their recent past. Personally I draw the line at 1/32nds. For South Asians I think 1/16th is more like it, though all bets are off if they retain any unpleasant cultural baggage.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 02 May 2011 12:09 | #

anon,

Afraid not. I said somewhere that someday I (and a business partner) intend to try to break into American radio, perhaps sooner than later (though that depends on my friend’s actions, for the moment, more than mine). At various conservative conferences I’ve attended, I have had a number of attendees over the years inquire of me whether I was or ever had been on radio, and to suggest I ought to be.

John Archer,

Thank you. I hope you will add your voice to the comments. For what it’s worth, I completely disagree with what might be called the Radical Racial Right, which I define, in essence, as those who reject either Christianity, or at least the West’s historic, secular traditions (themselves ultimately rooted in Christianity). Specifically, my position is that the findings of both modern racial science, and the sociology of race, need to be incorporated into traditional/modern (ie, post-Enlightenment) conservatism (pre-Enlightenment conservatism was really about the defense of feudalism, the alliance of Throne and Altar, the conditions for which no longer obtain, and will almost certainly not be resurrected). I see no need to reject the immense body of traditionalist thought, and formulate something completely new; indeed, I think that would be a huge mistake, both morally and politically (as Nazism was). The findings of modern science in fact bolster the case for traditional conservatism, properly understood. But the integration of racial realism into traditionalist political philosophy has not yet been fully articulated or even theorized.

I call my position “biological Occidentalism”. It sees the preservation of Western Civilization as the ultimate goal of political conservatism (really, of Western politics). It recognizes that Western Civ is the unique product of the white race (in the biological terminology perhaps overly favored in these parts, we could say “Western Civ is a phenotype of the white man’s (Aryan) genotype”), and that there is no scientific or historical reason to suppose that it can be successfully transferred to or perpetuated by nonwhite communities.

Thus, if we wish to save the West, we must, among other tasks, keep its homelands preponderantly white. 

Trainspotter,

I find little with which to disagree in your rejoinder to me. Perhaps I expressed myself inartfully. I merely was referring to the amazing historical stability of the Anglosphere over the past century and a half - but also, it’s true, with an eye to what I think will be the continued (and tolerably successful) managed decline of the US in the future. I think I was thinking not of successful preservation of the civilization through a period of declining power (for whatever reason, though in our case it’s clearly self-induced by bad (liberal) policies, beginning with coercive racial integration and mass nonwhite immigration), but rather with the peaceful transference of political and economic power from one group to others.

Here is one example of American adaptation to decline. Starting in WW2, lots of Southern blacks moved north. Their innate criminal proclivities were kept in check by a still racial traditionalist set of crime control policies. These were upended by the sainted ‘civil rights’ movement in the early to mid-Sixties. Rapidly thereafter came a huge Negroid crime explosion, first in the form of riots and mayhem, and later in a massive and continuing crime wave cum low level guerrilla war against whites.

But this did not destroy America, or even our way of life for very many of us. Why not? Both individuals and the government made various accommodations. ‘White flight’ got many whites away from criminal blacks on a daily basis. Welfare and affirmative action were inaugurated as ongoing Negro pacifiers. Later, when crime kept going up (though not as much as would have been the case without liberal government attention), white people took matters into their own hands at the state levels, passing ‘three strikes’ laws, which got lots of blacks into an expanding prison system.

Of course, from my uber-traditionalist perspective, none of this addressed the root problem, which was the racial integration of violent Negroes with decent whites. Racial integration was an example of American civilizational decline (and a precipitator of still greater decline over time: granting equality to blacks, we could no longer plausibly maintain racial segregation at the level of international immigration). Yet we ‘managed’ it such that it lowered our quality of life, but did not destroy us.

I think the system will keep managing our ongoing ruin for sometime (though we all know that our future is a slightly upscale Tijuana, if not Detroit) - much longer than racialists tend to think possible (incidentally, I made this same argument to a sceptical Jared Taylor in 1993, before I’d started reading American Renaissance, and thus far, I’ve been proven right vis a vis the racial ‘catastrophists’).

NV,

I agree with you completely. Again, I was inartful of expression. By “race-mixing” I meant everything but race war. That is, whites are likely going to go extinct because of nonwhite immigration/crowding, and hence loss of living space, which lowers birthrates; all other factors causing below replacement birthrates (the main one being the social/national insanity called “feminism” or, worse, its harpy adjunct, “female careerism”); and increasing miscegenation.

I think whites will go “gently into (their) goodnight”, as opposed to being violently extirpated. If we were being violently targeted en masse, we might actually wake up!

Posted by Rollory on Tue, 03 May 2011 12:15 | #

My catastrophe argument is not racial, but economic.  In 1983 nobody was predicting that the Soviet Union had less than 10 years left.  Yes, Russia “only” really lost the central Asian territories and Ukraine, the breakup chain stopped in Chechnya; the USA need “only” lose California and other parts of the southern tier, while the inner cities become no-go zones ... “USA” will still exist, for a time.  But such an event is myth-shattering, and belief in the myth - acceptance of the myth, and support of the government that claims to represent it by the broad base of the white population - that is what gives the USA its power.

When a third of the former middle class is having trouble feeding itself, and it becomes common for police departments across the country to engage in “revenue generation” aka highway robbery because that is the one dependable source of money they can produce and thus justify their headcount and budget - this is already the case in certain towns in Michigan; the alternative being what is going in California and Mexico, cutting the police departments entirely and leaving the stage to the drug gangs - that drastically hollows out the foundation upon which the US government depends.  When it becomes common knowledge that the cops are nobody’s friends, that law is a system to be abused by the rich, that government handouts are over and done with and no matter what happens they just take money without the ordinary guy ever seeing any of it back - that’s when respect for the system disappears and apathy sets in.  Apathy is what makes local revolt possible.

The Western Roman Empire wasn’t conquered militarily.  It hollowed out from the inside until the local populations either didn’t care or actively preferred barbarian rule.  The emperor’s sovereignty existed in name long after it had disappeared in fact.  Aetius at the Catalaunian plains depended on an army that was Roman only in name - and yet in Valentinian’s day the imperial power was a matter of fact, not wishful thinking.  Augustine hearing of the sack of Rome was horrified, but didn’t understand the larger pattern, because the forms of the old pattern were still there, illusory as they were.

That said, I agree that predictions of imminent doom tend to be overblown.  If I am wrong on the matter, so be it.  I can only take the facts in front of me and draw conclusions from them.  If there is some factor I am not properly evaluating, it will become clear with time.

Posted by Rollory on Tue, 03 May 2011 13:03 | #

People stand on street corners and chant “USA!” because USA means “winner”.  But what if it doesn’t mean that anymore?  I do not love France because France wins; I love France because of what it is, what it has been, because of the villages and the people and the habits of life and the history and the music and everything that is only and uniquely French and could not have been made by any other people.  What is “USA”?  What is “American”?  The liberal definition is “anybody who signs up” - that is, an overgrown corporation.  Who will give their last full measure of devotion for that?  Even actual corporations are past the point of inspiring any loyalty from their employees; people jump ship at the slightest opportunity, chasing the paycheck, and only the paycheck.  That is the national model.

A nation can not truly be said to exist until after it has been defeated in war, yet survives.  Neo-Confederate sentiment and Aztlan revanchism are the only two such examples within the modern USA.  The USA itself has no such animating force.  In a hundred years, after the crisis? - yes, then perhaps there might be an “American” nation, harkening back to the days of their forefathers, and reclaiming what was so hastily lost.  But that’s hypothetical.  Right now, it’s Patton and Charlie Sheen: Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.  If America itself is a loser, it doesn’t matter if on the merits that losing can be graceful and survivable.  The American mindset does not know how to deal with that.