Richard likes to dunk on conservative whites who watch tv instead of reading, are fat, low IQ, and resist the browning of America. But apparently he wants to teach them how silly they are by bringing in even lower IQ brown people, who are fat, who don’t read, and have higher crime rates relative to whites. Seems like an own goal to me.
“Given the unabashed racial nationalism now commonplace among Hispanic and black political leaders and the animosity exhibited toward whites, it would not be unreasonable to predict the outright political and racial persecution of whites as the political power of non-whites becomes en-trenched. Indeed, historian William McNeill has argued that what he calls "ethnic hierarchy" - the domination of some ethnic groups by another - has been the norm throughout most of human history, and only in the white majority United States of the late 20th century has a dominant ethnic group (whites) expressed any concern for the political equality of other ethnicities. The emergence of outright ethnic, national, religious, and racial conflicts in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa since the end of the Cold War suggests an impending return to "ethnic hierarchy" and an abandonment of the American deviation from it in the last few decades. Whatever the degree of non-white dispossession and persecution in a non-white future, it is clear that the white minority will be entirely dependent on the non-white majority for continued respect for its constitutional rights and liberties.”
"But apparently he wants to teach them how silly they are by bringing in even lower IQ brown people, who are fat, who don’t read, and have higher crime rates relative to whites. Seems like an own goal to me."
It's not like Hanania made a personal decision to start bringing in the immigrants who were previously excluded. The decision was made back in 1965.
The question is not "bring them or not bring them," it's "what do you want to use your political capital to do?" What are your priorities?
I was only pointing out his apparent contradiction of ridiculing low IQ whites while simultaneously displaying equanimity regarding our slide towards Brazil.
He is Jordanian. I am fan of his writing in general but Richard completely ignores the fact that mass non-white immigration was essentially rammed down our throats. It was an elite project. As someone attuned to economics, he should recognize that immigration has tremendous costs in that the homogeneous nation is a highly-valued consumer good and that this loss is a huge cost, but he ignores this because the preferences of rubes simply don’t matter. This is akin to elites abolishing cigarettes and gambling because they don’t like it.
I'm very much against mass immigration, even if it is white. However I'll tell you why he has his views. if what you consider most important is capital then of course you're for mass immigration. What does mass immigration do? Increases GDP, lowers wages for low skill labor and it raises consumption because you have more people consuming. With increased consumption you get higher prices. From a capital perspective this is a dream scenario. Lower cost for labor and higher prices for products and services at the same time. The profit potential there is substantial. It's not good for the middle or working class who are most people but it's good for some people. Not to mention mass immigration has been used to crush unionization and white areas tend to have higher wages and higher rates of unionization so from a capital perspective you don't want areas to be white. You want them diverse.
This is the distinction between a fiscal conservative and a nationalist. A fiscal conservative will look at what I just said and say wonderful. A nationalist will be horrified. A fiscal moderate will have mixed feelings.
A democrat wants the diversity to for votes. The extreme far left who see the democrats as too much of a compromise wants the diversity because they see them as potential revolutionaries against the system
No it wasn’t. The two transformative changes in American immigration law were the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty. Both were passed by Congress and signed by the then-president. Democracy in action. The INA was extremely popular when it was passed and as far as I know so was Simpson-Mazzoli. By the 1990s a majority-nonwhite future was guaranteed and Bill Clinton was saying how great that was. No one who mattered contradicted him as far as I can recall.
In 1965 no one knew what the consequences of the INA would be. That includes the "elites" who (according to the person I was responding to) "rammed mass immigration down our throats."
However, by the 1990s it was quite clear what the consequences of mass immigration would be: a majority non-white U.S. population. Bill Clinton was enthusiastic about the prospect. Republicans tried to make immigration an issue in '92 and '96, but of course they lost both times. So I wouldn't say that the majority of whites were keen to be a minority, but it is undeniable that most didn't feel very strongly about it.
Assuming most knew what was happening, it’s hard in today’s political climate to openly protest against non-white immigration without getting roasted by the media.
It's not outrage.....he is factual in areas that being factual is considered a "hate crime", or if want, the fancier, "malinformation". And he is direct.
No doubt he would have a response but I would likely find it glib. The basic issue (as I see it) is that he seems to share the paternalistic (and somewhat contemptuous) attitude of the elites when it comes to immigration because racial homogeneity has no value for him; yet, it has tremendous value for millions of whites. As one (very unwoke) libertarian friend framed it, the nation (racially speaking) is a consumer good. Under libertarian anarchy, all roads, streets, etc. would be owned by private citizens/groups who could determine who enters their property. In the absence of full private property, these properties are held in trust by the state. Unfortunately, the state is controlled by elites who don’t care about the preferences of the rabble; hence, anti-discrimination laws, abolishment of racism covenants, etc. This is anti-economics and anti-cost/benefit when you consider how strongly some people feel about these issues and akin to abolishing cigarettes/gambling. You might even say that when it comes to immigration, many ant-woke classical liberals/libertarians have a sadomasochistic relationship with alien phenotypes, many of whom would earn their contempt if they were white.
I think most libertarians can agree (despite their preference for privatization) that infrastructure is a necessary public good that can benefit almost everybody without causing anybody misery. And that the lack of such infrastructure can result in a poor quality of life for most of society.
Immigration is very different. If somebody has an icky feeling at seeing several dark skinned people in their neighborhood grocery stores, that's their personal problem, not a societal one. There's no discernible and meaningful harm caused simply by the presence of those people (though individuals may cause harm or good relative to the average).
And the notion that immigrants are bad because they predominantly vote Democratic is utterly dumb. Good on Ron Unz to call out the Collier lady and others on that. He said it all, and succinctly; I'd encourage you to re-read it in the above article. The Democratic Party is squarely within the American mainstream, and unless you want to abolish it like it were some alien presence, you shouldn't have a problem even if a given immigrant group voted 100% Democrat. Which would not be my personal preference, but Republicans can easily solve that problem by not being open contemptuous of (or even hostile to) people of other races and religions.
Libertarians are not opposed to infrastructure (who said otherwise?), but we would like it privatized in the long run. However, in the absence of privatization, these properties are held in trust by the state and the natives can control who enters their property. It is not strictly a “personal” problem to be offended by alien phenotypes given that the PC state has abolished discrimination, including racial covenants. Privilege for blacks, women, etc. has been institutionalized and people who dare to defend freedom of association are attacked by an illiberal media. Non-white mass immigration was rammed down whites’ throats.
There are two main types of Hispanica though. There are brown Hispanics and white Hispanics. White Hispanics are moving right while brown Hispanics are basically staying where they are at. Brown Hispanics commit crime not as high as blacks but at higher rates than white Hispanics who commit crime as similar rates to non Hispanic whites because they basically are white....to me the term Hispanic means nothing because it's a term that is far too broad. Hispanics have even fought down racial lines since Hispanics existed. That's what communism in many cases was in Hispanic countries. Brown racial resentment against white Hispanics. Bring in enough brown Hispanics and you'll have that in America. Unless you're bringing in the white Hispanics. Then it's not a big deal. Perhaps we should do that.
I've observed the opposite. Working class (meaning trades types not culinary union workers) browner Hispanics tend to like Trump for the machismo factor and for the border, and hate blacks because they have to live next to them. Wealth/status-aspiring white Hispanics trend towards the exact same neoliberal technocratic milieu that most of the top ~quartile have been trending towards post-2016. The hard swing of Hispanics in 2020 came strongest on the border counties of Texas, which are overwhelmingly browner. Fair-skinned mestizo girls living in affluent diverse suburbs dating white boys with engineering degrees may as well be from India or Korea.
I think what you're describing is brown Hispanics who do vote republican but I don't think they're the majority of the ones who vote republican. Take Florida for example the only state where Hispanics have voted majority republican as a whole. They have a very high cuban population. The vast majority of Cubans that live in America, especially in Florida are white Cubans. Why are they here? Because of the communists coming after the white Cubans in Cuba. The anti white agenda as well as the anti Communist agenda resonates with white Hispanics exspecaly and they're both linked for them. Even more so if they're cuban because they probably got the biggest dose of communism of all.
With that said I think it is possible for the republicans to pull a majority of even brown Hispanics at least sometimes. Especially if the democrats don't ease off the black worship.....which they likely won't. However if democrats are smart politically they will figure something out to keep so called Hispanics in their camp. Will they though? Who knows we will have to wait and see.
BTW the whole working class vs affluent thing is complicated. However typically wealthier people do still tend to vote republican. Although the wealthy have trended democrat in recent years. It's the super rich wealthy elites that vote democrat. Far more wealthy than some affluent suburbanites. Who would be considered poor compared to the truly wealthy elites. The suburbs tend to vote republican just not at the same high rate as rural areas so. The whole electoral map is complicated AF at this point though. Because the democrats definitely do attract a certain type of wealthy person just how they attract a certain type of poor person. Same goes for the republicans, they have their type of wealthy person and their type of poor person as well. The poor people from both parties absolutely hate each other.
"Hispanic" isn't a voting bloc, but a Census Bureau designation. They don't view themselves as "Hispanics" in the way that black Americans do. I grew up in FL, and Cubans and Puerto Ricans would mock each other mercilessly, and they both mock Mexicans even more so. Because "Hispanic" educational attainment is on the low side, they are less likely to go to the sort of schools where they'll imbibe progressive ideology. So the majority of even "brown Hispanics" are available to Republicans, esp. macho, populist-flavored ones like DeSantis / MAGA, and esp. to the extent that the political flashpoints focus on culture war issues rather than economic ones (where Hispanics do trend more statist).
I'd also add that DeSantis has managed to do what once seemed impossible by getting around even with Puerto Rican Floridian voters, who've traditionally been heavily Democrat.
Yeah i agree with a lot of that but Florida has a high white Hispanic population which is basically just white people. White people feel attacked by the democrat party so obviously white Hispanics are going to shift republican. Brown Hispanics sure Hispanic doesn't really mean anything but they still have a link to their skin color. Every race makes fun of other people in their race but at the end of the day the majority of them are going to side with their skin color over someone of another skin color. Brown people vote democrat because the democrats are seen as the non-white party and the republicans as the white party. However democrats in recent years have focused far too much on black non-whites. This has alienated not only brown Hispanics but also Asians.....so yes i would agree they have the potential to shift republican and the republicans will turn into the brown/white/Asian alliance. The democrats will then become the black/jew alliance.
I disagree that it has much too do with what republicans have done right though and more to do with what democrats have done wrong. Although desantis is one of the few republicans willing to use government power to push socially right wing issues so for desantis it is what he's done right. He's one of the few competent republicans out there. Even if i do strongly disagree with some legislation he's recently passed which I dont even think is constitutional.
I would not add trump there for me Trump is a bafon to be honest. He's just another republican who monitors the situation, whines and complains but does little to nothing about anything. Desantis is someone who does things so even when I disagree with what he's doing i can't help but respect the things he's done that i do agree with....i dont understand why so many political people i like are still so strongly in the trump camp. Ill give trump one thing the ability for him to keep supporters despite not deserving it is absolutely amazing. He hasn't earned their votes at all
Kind of like Scott Alexander’s bit with the classes alternating. I thought Michael Lind’s bit in Tablet with the six classes in the hexagon made the most sense, you have the super rich, Republican and Democrat elites of professionals and small business owners, Republican and Democrat masses of evangelicals and minorities, and lots of people too poor to care.
Good point but our census doesn’t track that, brown Hispanics get counted as white Hispanics for statistical purposes. As a result, we can’t really tell.
Well they do a bad job of distinguishing between white and brown Hispanics. Sometimes counting very brown people as white Hispanic. However I've seen someone use data to breakdown the Hispanic category down by race and crime. It's not a perfect distinction by any means but it basically showed what I stated. White Hispanics committed crimes at a similar rate to non white Hispanics and brown Hispanics a lot more. Black Hispanics committed crimes even higher. Similar to African Americans.
I'll have to see if I can find that. I think I took a screenshot. Perhaps I'll just do the math myself if I can remember how he did it.
Ron Unz's COVID theory is that the US secretly attacked China, Iran and maybe Italy (for signing up with the BRI) under the "cover" of a military group with a virus that is extremely contagious and would guaranteed spread around the world, and certainly the borderlwass Schengen zone, while calling anyone "racist" for trying to shut the US border and not having any sort of cure or prophylactic in place. His evidence is some Israeli TV channel and that the US was running a pandemic preparation exercise the year before, which they run every year. Because of course an Israeli channel would be informed, as supposedly would all of NATO, and no one would do anything and all would keep it a complete secret, even Turkey, because why not...
The man is an idiot, even if he is still less stupid than the utterly deranged commenters on his site, who spend most of their time accusing each other of being secret Jews for disagreeing with each others' lunacy.
Having said all this, he's right that Hispanic immigration has not led to the end of the world, but this will only seem like a smart insight if you don't the realise that 99% of everyone agrees because they're not utterly hysterical. Including near everyone who opposed the immigration in the first place, and it was because it would not be good for their living standards, rather than any apocalypse. Certainly California would be much nicer with half of the population. Or 1950s demographics, at least for those demographics, which was the point.
Otherwise he's wrong in his article about Hispanic crime, which actually is higher than white crime, because he calculated his figures based off the assumption that the average age of someone in prison was like the average Hispanic age at the time rather than what it was, which was older and more like he white age. This led him to adjust his numbers in the opposite direction and is such a basic mistake that it seems like a deception, but he is too personality disorded even for that, he just can't admit when he is wrong, except that annoying fake schtick he does at beginning of his bloviating and insane articles. Yet I still quite like him. He's like Peter Pan, if Peter Pan had been a child who poured his sociopathy into being a nerd.
Ron lies a lot. He lies about the 65 immigration act as well. I don't necessarily have an issue with Hispanic Immigration in small numbers but it has been a net negative in large numbers. Also you able to the whole narrative of Mexicans wanting to reclaim the land that was conquered from them. If you go to some cities close to the border it's hard to claim they're actually still American cities. If we ever had a war with Mexico again it's difficult to imagine these cities siding with America to be honest
As for Jews I think some people obsesses about the JQ a bit too much however there are a lot of real criticisms there that should definitely be discussed more. Without the claiming everyone is a jew speediness
Unz is quirky and I disagree with him about a lot of things, but he is most definitely NOT an idiot. He's a highly intelligent dilettante and independent researcher.
Nazis, communists, Russian nationalists on copium, and Steve Sailer. That is a pretty good description of the site. Poor Steve!
Andy Romero is Nick Fuentes, Allison Collier is Ann Coulter, Moldy Marius is Mencius Moldbug, who is Brahmin Hitler? Razib Khan? He’s not far right at all.
Another great piece and honestly better written than usual. I was tempted to ask if you had Sam Kriss guestwrite it for you, but that would be flattery. As usual, you're right about American conservatives. But, arguably for the wrong reasons. This is an example of the tails coming apart as Scott Alexander puts it. So the things that American conservatives previously were attempting to conserve were proxies for racial homogeneity and at earlier stages of American history, even ethnic homogeneity. This project, of course, is lost beyond any possibility of recall, but people have to do something to justify getting up every morning so they go on fighting the proxy wars.
An excellent question. Scott Alexander's original post talks about multidimensional correlation, but without looking it up, I just said 'proxy war'. I suppose it would be more precise to say that there were a variety of different dimensions that correlated with ethnic homogeneity. It is impossible to say how much of the average support for keeping out Italians was actually about ethnicity in the minds of the voters and how much of it was about religion or culture or anything else. As long as the tails didn't come apart, it didn't really matter. But now, of course, we can see that they have entirely parted ways, and someone whose ancestors would not have at all cared how various non-white immigrants might vote now feels obligated to argue that this is important.
I find that use of the term 'dog whistle' has profoundly negative effects on credibility. Usually it translates into something like "I'm good at reading minds, but only when the hidden truth makes people I don't like look bad".
As the Hispanic percentage of the population increases, do you think the "Black worship" will decrease or continue to play out along fault lines similar to today? I'd love to see it disappear but our elites have no intention of letting that happen, IMO.
I grew up in a city composed mostly of whites and Hispanics and we got along just fine, as I think the case will continue to be long-term.
Blue collar Hispanics and blue collar whites get along well. White collar whites hate working class whites out of reverse racism. I was the blue collar white in Southern Colorado two decades ago working alongside working class Hispanics. I can tell you that whites and Hispanics would be just fine if left alone by the elites. It's probably what terrifies the liberal white bosses at the DNC the most.
For me, learning about the gun-loving, Bible-thumping, truck-driving, police-supporting, Trump-voting Tejanos in Texas was quite encouraging. Maybe the Great Replacement won't be so bad after all.
You remind me of the folks I once hung out with when I was younger. The Hispanic rodeo cowboys who loved dance halls and Copenhagen chewing tobacco come to mind. I think we'll see many surprises in the years ahead. Whether the powers that be like it or not, this country is a gigantic pressure cooker, and new things will emerge to replace the old things, and those new things aren't going to be all bad.
As romans-à-clef go, I'd give this one four stars. If anything you've done Ron's love for Hispanic gentrification a disservice; he wouldn't be so lazy as to draw a direct causal relationship between the declining murder rate in CA as a whole and the increase in the Hispanic population. Then again he might have been distracted by the fake breasts. (This is not to include Allison, of course.)
Ron is a jew and Jews like to take all sides so they can't lose. Ron is a far right Jew who wants to convince the far right that immigration is benefiting them. He even lies about the 65 immigration act..... that's not to say Jews are all bad I'm sure there's wonderful Jews out there but there's a tendency for Jews to not have good intentions. Especially towards groups they view as a threat. Many of them obviously view western people as a threat.
Some political people in my circle like him because he does say some based things. However I can typically smell a bullshit artist a mile a way and Ron is full of shit.
The whole concept of the term Hispanic is ridiculous. It's just a culture. There's brown Hispanics and white Hispanics. Hell there's even black Hispanics. The term is essentially meaningless. They speak Spanish as their first language, they're Hispanic that's all it really means.
I was going to reply to your earlier comment and say that being provocative doesn't count if you're an obvious troll, but now I see that you are being genuine.
More or less, I think it's bad optics and cringe to say that shit in public or wear any of their symbolism which is German in my view. However yeah I think there's a lot the right can learn from him. Take inspiration from him. Look I like a lot of what desantis is doing in Florida. Take out the Israel and jew worship, build on what he's done and you really got something there to be honest. Democrats are right about one thing. Some of what desantis has done could be interpreted as inspiration from mustache man. However a toned down very lite version of it.
It's stupid to sperg out in public but there are real critiques to be made about Jewish power and what they choose to do with it. Shouldn't fall into the trap of hating all Jews and no I don't support murdering innocent people but understanding that it doesn't have to be all to be a serious problem. A good start is Hollywood and who created Hollywood and what kind of movies they created and how they portrayed the majority population of America. Not just whites but Christians as well. This is something that all right wingers need to be exposed to. I would start with Kevin McDonald who is a conservative btw. Just one that understands the JQ. As well as blackpilled on bitchute. He goes through Hollywood movies and breaks them down as well as other things. He's just amazing and one of the big factors in my political evolution that I'm so happy I went through. Once you do you realize just how ridiculous normie mainstream conservatives and mainstream conservatism truly is.
Oh and we should talk more about what many of the small hats where doing in Germany. Why did Germans respond how they did? Is the mainstream narrative really correct? They just irrationally flipped out for no good reason? Or course not. The whole narrative is cherry picked and sensationalized to discourage nationalism
They are parodies of various dissident right/alt right people. Collier is Ann Coulter, Andy Romero is Nick Fuentes, Moldy Marius is Mencius Moldbug, Precambrian Pederast is Bronze Age Pervert, I am not sure who Brahmin Hitler is supposed to be-Richard Spencer? My first thought was Razib Khan but he wouldn’t be in the same room with those people.
Though Modly Marius loves Precambrian Pedarast, I bet the Trad Catholics love the PP even more.
Now that the Nietzschean Right has been explored. perhaps Hanania and Unz can next enter a dreamscape in which they meet some podcasters from the Christian Right. It's only fair.
____
I was wiping away tears after reading Hanania's satirical take on Yarvin, Moldy Marius. Yarvin claims that one can prove anything with a single primary source; this approach leads him to some crazy places at times, and RH's impression is I-kid-you-not indistinguishable from some actual paragraphs on Yarvin's old Unqualified Reservations blog.
I appreciated this pieces' exploration of statistical illiteracy and confused tribal boundaries. Great work, Richard!
It’s a good priest joke (they really need to let them marry), but I doubt tradcaths really have that much in common with Bronze Age Pervert-he’s pagan after all.
And like the Reactionary says, I’m not sure what it says about my life choices that I actually have an opinion about this.
Ron Unz beats around the bush in order to communicate the following idea to the Right, should it listen carefully and read between the lines: "Browns — be they Hispanic, Asian, or Middle Eastern — are actually beneficial to America because they dilute the black demographic and the problems that accompany it. They're also fairly amenable to right-wing politics. So you're better off with them than without them."
Richard likes to dunk on conservative whites who watch tv instead of reading, are fat, low IQ, and resist the browning of America. But apparently he wants to teach them how silly they are by bringing in even lower IQ brown people, who are fat, who don’t read, and have higher crime rates relative to whites. Seems like an own goal to me.
It should not be controversial to support a complete moratorium on all immigration for a decade until the political situation in America cools off
Excerpt from Sam Francis essay:
“Given the unabashed racial nationalism now commonplace among Hispanic and black political leaders and the animosity exhibited toward whites, it would not be unreasonable to predict the outright political and racial persecution of whites as the political power of non-whites becomes en-trenched. Indeed, historian William McNeill has argued that what he calls "ethnic hierarchy" - the domination of some ethnic groups by another - has been the norm throughout most of human history, and only in the white majority United States of the late 20th century has a dominant ethnic group (whites) expressed any concern for the political equality of other ethnicities. The emergence of outright ethnic, national, religious, and racial conflicts in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa since the end of the Cold War suggests an impending return to "ethnic hierarchy" and an abandonment of the American deviation from it in the last few decades. Whatever the degree of non-white dispossession and persecution in a non-white future, it is clear that the white minority will be entirely dependent on the non-white majority for continued respect for its constitutional rights and liberties.”
Hard to disagree with that except insofar as a lot of Hispanics are white
Is racial animosity commonplace amongst everyday Hispanic immigrants (from any country)? I don't think so.
Latin America would be a better example and they didn't have that much ethnic conflict.
"But apparently he wants to teach them how silly they are by bringing in even lower IQ brown people, who are fat, who don’t read, and have higher crime rates relative to whites. Seems like an own goal to me."
It's not like Hanania made a personal decision to start bringing in the immigrants who were previously excluded. The decision was made back in 1965.
The question is not "bring them or not bring them," it's "what do you want to use your political capital to do?" What are your priorities?
I was only pointing out his apparent contradiction of ridiculing low IQ whites while simultaneously displaying equanimity regarding our slide towards Brazil.
What's his ethnic background btw? I don't even know how I came across this guy but he really has some bad takes
He is Jordanian. I am fan of his writing in general but Richard completely ignores the fact that mass non-white immigration was essentially rammed down our throats. It was an elite project. As someone attuned to economics, he should recognize that immigration has tremendous costs in that the homogeneous nation is a highly-valued consumer good and that this loss is a huge cost, but he ignores this because the preferences of rubes simply don’t matter. This is akin to elites abolishing cigarettes and gambling because they don’t like it.
I'm very much against mass immigration, even if it is white. However I'll tell you why he has his views. if what you consider most important is capital then of course you're for mass immigration. What does mass immigration do? Increases GDP, lowers wages for low skill labor and it raises consumption because you have more people consuming. With increased consumption you get higher prices. From a capital perspective this is a dream scenario. Lower cost for labor and higher prices for products and services at the same time. The profit potential there is substantial. It's not good for the middle or working class who are most people but it's good for some people. Not to mention mass immigration has been used to crush unionization and white areas tend to have higher wages and higher rates of unionization so from a capital perspective you don't want areas to be white. You want them diverse.
This is the distinction between a fiscal conservative and a nationalist. A fiscal conservative will look at what I just said and say wonderful. A nationalist will be horrified. A fiscal moderate will have mixed feelings.
A democrat wants the diversity to for votes. The extreme far left who see the democrats as too much of a compromise wants the diversity because they see them as potential revolutionaries against the system
No it wasn’t. The two transformative changes in American immigration law were the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty. Both were passed by Congress and signed by the then-president. Democracy in action. The INA was extremely popular when it was passed and as far as I know so was Simpson-Mazzoli. By the 1990s a majority-nonwhite future was guaranteed and Bill Clinton was saying how great that was. No one who mattered contradicted him as far as I can recall.
So the majority of whites were keen to eventually be a minority? I highly doubt it. This article suggests few were aware of the changes to come from chain migration. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/09/20/in-1965-majority-of-americans-favored-immigration-and-nationality-act-2/
In 1965 no one knew what the consequences of the INA would be. That includes the "elites" who (according to the person I was responding to) "rammed mass immigration down our throats."
However, by the 1990s it was quite clear what the consequences of mass immigration would be: a majority non-white U.S. population. Bill Clinton was enthusiastic about the prospect. Republicans tried to make immigration an issue in '92 and '96, but of course they lost both times. So I wouldn't say that the majority of whites were keen to be a minority, but it is undeniable that most didn't feel very strongly about it.
Assuming most knew what was happening, it’s hard in today’s political climate to openly protest against non-white immigration without getting roasted by the media.
Hanania isn’t Jordanian. It’s a Christian Palestinian name, most likely from close to Jerusalem, around Bethlehem
Palestinian Christian. Hanania is great
Great how? I don't know that much about him but I've seen some pretty odd takes from him so far
Mostly it's that he's a great writer not afraid to outrage.
It's not outrage.....he is factual in areas that being factual is considered a "hate crime", or if want, the fancier, "malinformation". And he is direct.
It's why alot of people call him a troll.
I'm not sure you know what 'outrage' means.
Fair enough, outrage can be good lol
Very telling that richard has no response to this
No doubt he would have a response but I would likely find it glib. The basic issue (as I see it) is that he seems to share the paternalistic (and somewhat contemptuous) attitude of the elites when it comes to immigration because racial homogeneity has no value for him; yet, it has tremendous value for millions of whites. As one (very unwoke) libertarian friend framed it, the nation (racially speaking) is a consumer good. Under libertarian anarchy, all roads, streets, etc. would be owned by private citizens/groups who could determine who enters their property. In the absence of full private property, these properties are held in trust by the state. Unfortunately, the state is controlled by elites who don’t care about the preferences of the rabble; hence, anti-discrimination laws, abolishment of racism covenants, etc. This is anti-economics and anti-cost/benefit when you consider how strongly some people feel about these issues and akin to abolishing cigarettes/gambling. You might even say that when it comes to immigration, many ant-woke classical liberals/libertarians have a sadomasochistic relationship with alien phenotypes, many of whom would earn their contempt if they were white.
I think most libertarians can agree (despite their preference for privatization) that infrastructure is a necessary public good that can benefit almost everybody without causing anybody misery. And that the lack of such infrastructure can result in a poor quality of life for most of society.
Immigration is very different. If somebody has an icky feeling at seeing several dark skinned people in their neighborhood grocery stores, that's their personal problem, not a societal one. There's no discernible and meaningful harm caused simply by the presence of those people (though individuals may cause harm or good relative to the average).
And the notion that immigrants are bad because they predominantly vote Democratic is utterly dumb. Good on Ron Unz to call out the Collier lady and others on that. He said it all, and succinctly; I'd encourage you to re-read it in the above article. The Democratic Party is squarely within the American mainstream, and unless you want to abolish it like it were some alien presence, you shouldn't have a problem even if a given immigrant group voted 100% Democrat. Which would not be my personal preference, but Republicans can easily solve that problem by not being open contemptuous of (or even hostile to) people of other races and religions.
Libertarians are not opposed to infrastructure (who said otherwise?), but we would like it privatized in the long run. However, in the absence of privatization, these properties are held in trust by the state and the natives can control who enters their property. It is not strictly a “personal” problem to be offended by alien phenotypes given that the PC state has abolished discrimination, including racial covenants. Privilege for blacks, women, etc. has been institutionalized and people who dare to defend freedom of association are attacked by an illiberal media. Non-white mass immigration was rammed down whites’ throats.
Came for the Precambrian Pederast but stayed for the COVID-19 as a US bio-weapon attack on China.
He talked about this take in, for instance, his "From The New World" podcast episode.
It *does* make you pause... but after looking up some specific claims, I think it's more on the "insane" side of the "brillant / insane" dichotomy.
I actually listened to that whole 3+ hour interview. Ron Unz is definitely interesting.
There are two main types of Hispanica though. There are brown Hispanics and white Hispanics. White Hispanics are moving right while brown Hispanics are basically staying where they are at. Brown Hispanics commit crime not as high as blacks but at higher rates than white Hispanics who commit crime as similar rates to non Hispanic whites because they basically are white....to me the term Hispanic means nothing because it's a term that is far too broad. Hispanics have even fought down racial lines since Hispanics existed. That's what communism in many cases was in Hispanic countries. Brown racial resentment against white Hispanics. Bring in enough brown Hispanics and you'll have that in America. Unless you're bringing in the white Hispanics. Then it's not a big deal. Perhaps we should do that.
I've observed the opposite. Working class (meaning trades types not culinary union workers) browner Hispanics tend to like Trump for the machismo factor and for the border, and hate blacks because they have to live next to them. Wealth/status-aspiring white Hispanics trend towards the exact same neoliberal technocratic milieu that most of the top ~quartile have been trending towards post-2016. The hard swing of Hispanics in 2020 came strongest on the border counties of Texas, which are overwhelmingly browner. Fair-skinned mestizo girls living in affluent diverse suburbs dating white boys with engineering degrees may as well be from India or Korea.
I think what you're describing is brown Hispanics who do vote republican but I don't think they're the majority of the ones who vote republican. Take Florida for example the only state where Hispanics have voted majority republican as a whole. They have a very high cuban population. The vast majority of Cubans that live in America, especially in Florida are white Cubans. Why are they here? Because of the communists coming after the white Cubans in Cuba. The anti white agenda as well as the anti Communist agenda resonates with white Hispanics exspecaly and they're both linked for them. Even more so if they're cuban because they probably got the biggest dose of communism of all.
With that said I think it is possible for the republicans to pull a majority of even brown Hispanics at least sometimes. Especially if the democrats don't ease off the black worship.....which they likely won't. However if democrats are smart politically they will figure something out to keep so called Hispanics in their camp. Will they though? Who knows we will have to wait and see.
BTW the whole working class vs affluent thing is complicated. However typically wealthier people do still tend to vote republican. Although the wealthy have trended democrat in recent years. It's the super rich wealthy elites that vote democrat. Far more wealthy than some affluent suburbanites. Who would be considered poor compared to the truly wealthy elites. The suburbs tend to vote republican just not at the same high rate as rural areas so. The whole electoral map is complicated AF at this point though. Because the democrats definitely do attract a certain type of wealthy person just how they attract a certain type of poor person. Same goes for the republicans, they have their type of wealthy person and their type of poor person as well. The poor people from both parties absolutely hate each other.
"Hispanic" isn't a voting bloc, but a Census Bureau designation. They don't view themselves as "Hispanics" in the way that black Americans do. I grew up in FL, and Cubans and Puerto Ricans would mock each other mercilessly, and they both mock Mexicans even more so. Because "Hispanic" educational attainment is on the low side, they are less likely to go to the sort of schools where they'll imbibe progressive ideology. So the majority of even "brown Hispanics" are available to Republicans, esp. macho, populist-flavored ones like DeSantis / MAGA, and esp. to the extent that the political flashpoints focus on culture war issues rather than economic ones (where Hispanics do trend more statist).
I'd also add that DeSantis has managed to do what once seemed impossible by getting around even with Puerto Rican Floridian voters, who've traditionally been heavily Democrat.
Yeah i agree with a lot of that but Florida has a high white Hispanic population which is basically just white people. White people feel attacked by the democrat party so obviously white Hispanics are going to shift republican. Brown Hispanics sure Hispanic doesn't really mean anything but they still have a link to their skin color. Every race makes fun of other people in their race but at the end of the day the majority of them are going to side with their skin color over someone of another skin color. Brown people vote democrat because the democrats are seen as the non-white party and the republicans as the white party. However democrats in recent years have focused far too much on black non-whites. This has alienated not only brown Hispanics but also Asians.....so yes i would agree they have the potential to shift republican and the republicans will turn into the brown/white/Asian alliance. The democrats will then become the black/jew alliance.
I disagree that it has much too do with what republicans have done right though and more to do with what democrats have done wrong. Although desantis is one of the few republicans willing to use government power to push socially right wing issues so for desantis it is what he's done right. He's one of the few competent republicans out there. Even if i do strongly disagree with some legislation he's recently passed which I dont even think is constitutional.
I would not add trump there for me Trump is a bafon to be honest. He's just another republican who monitors the situation, whines and complains but does little to nothing about anything. Desantis is someone who does things so even when I disagree with what he's doing i can't help but respect the things he's done that i do agree with....i dont understand why so many political people i like are still so strongly in the trump camp. Ill give trump one thing the ability for him to keep supporters despite not deserving it is absolutely amazing. He hasn't earned their votes at all
Kind of like Scott Alexander’s bit with the classes alternating. I thought Michael Lind’s bit in Tablet with the six classes in the hexagon made the most sense, you have the super rich, Republican and Democrat elites of professionals and small business owners, Republican and Democrat masses of evangelicals and minorities, and lots of people too poor to care.
Good point but our census doesn’t track that, brown Hispanics get counted as white Hispanics for statistical purposes. As a result, we can’t really tell.
Well they do a bad job of distinguishing between white and brown Hispanics. Sometimes counting very brown people as white Hispanic. However I've seen someone use data to breakdown the Hispanic category down by race and crime. It's not a perfect distinction by any means but it basically showed what I stated. White Hispanics committed crimes at a similar rate to non white Hispanics and brown Hispanics a lot more. Black Hispanics committed crimes even higher. Similar to African Americans.
I'll have to see if I can find that. I think I took a screenshot. Perhaps I'll just do the math myself if I can remember how he did it.
Ones in Florida tend to be Cubans or others alienated by communist/socialist regimes. New York has more Caribbeans.
I don’t know what it says about me that I know all these characters and got all the little in-jokes.
Yeah, it caused some serious self-examination on my part, too
Who’s the leggy blonde? Coulter?
Yes. Muerte de la America = her book Adios, America.
Ron Unz's COVID theory is that the US secretly attacked China, Iran and maybe Italy (for signing up with the BRI) under the "cover" of a military group with a virus that is extremely contagious and would guaranteed spread around the world, and certainly the borderlwass Schengen zone, while calling anyone "racist" for trying to shut the US border and not having any sort of cure or prophylactic in place. His evidence is some Israeli TV channel and that the US was running a pandemic preparation exercise the year before, which they run every year. Because of course an Israeli channel would be informed, as supposedly would all of NATO, and no one would do anything and all would keep it a complete secret, even Turkey, because why not...
The man is an idiot, even if he is still less stupid than the utterly deranged commenters on his site, who spend most of their time accusing each other of being secret Jews for disagreeing with each others' lunacy.
Having said all this, he's right that Hispanic immigration has not led to the end of the world, but this will only seem like a smart insight if you don't the realise that 99% of everyone agrees because they're not utterly hysterical. Including near everyone who opposed the immigration in the first place, and it was because it would not be good for their living standards, rather than any apocalypse. Certainly California would be much nicer with half of the population. Or 1950s demographics, at least for those demographics, which was the point.
Otherwise he's wrong in his article about Hispanic crime, which actually is higher than white crime, because he calculated his figures based off the assumption that the average age of someone in prison was like the average Hispanic age at the time rather than what it was, which was older and more like he white age. This led him to adjust his numbers in the opposite direction and is such a basic mistake that it seems like a deception, but he is too personality disorded even for that, he just can't admit when he is wrong, except that annoying fake schtick he does at beginning of his bloviating and insane articles. Yet I still quite like him. He's like Peter Pan, if Peter Pan had been a child who poured his sociopathy into being a nerd.
Ron lies a lot. He lies about the 65 immigration act as well. I don't necessarily have an issue with Hispanic Immigration in small numbers but it has been a net negative in large numbers. Also you able to the whole narrative of Mexicans wanting to reclaim the land that was conquered from them. If you go to some cities close to the border it's hard to claim they're actually still American cities. If we ever had a war with Mexico again it's difficult to imagine these cities siding with America to be honest
As for Jews I think some people obsesses about the JQ a bit too much however there are a lot of real criticisms there that should definitely be discussed more. Without the claiming everyone is a jew speediness
It really seems impossible to find reasonable discourse on the JQ.
Want to have an honest conversation on the JQ? Let's do it
Unz is quirky and I disagree with him about a lot of things, but he is most definitely NOT an idiot. He's a highly intelligent dilettante and independent researcher.
There's no lack of highly intelligent idiots. Unz just happens to epitomise them.
He had me at Moldy Marius. Lol.
Nazis, communists, Russian nationalists on copium, and Steve Sailer. That is a pretty good description of the site. Poor Steve!
Andy Romero is Nick Fuentes, Allison Collier is Ann Coulter, Moldy Marius is Mencius Moldbug, who is Brahmin Hitler? Razib Khan? He’s not far right at all.
Its Indian Bronson not Razib. PP is BAP also
Thanks, hadn't heard of Indian Bronson.
I couldn’t figure out if it was real or not until Moldy Marius showed up.
Then I spewed milk out my nose.
I haven’t laughed that hard since grade school. Well done.
Another great piece and honestly better written than usual. I was tempted to ask if you had Sam Kriss guestwrite it for you, but that would be flattery. As usual, you're right about American conservatives. But, arguably for the wrong reasons. This is an example of the tails coming apart as Scott Alexander puts it. So the things that American conservatives previously were attempting to conserve were proxies for racial homogeneity and at earlier stages of American history, even ethnic homogeneity. This project, of course, is lost beyond any possibility of recall, but people have to do something to justify getting up every morning so they go on fighting the proxy wars.
Great comment. I wonder is it a proxy war or a completely surrogate activity?
An excellent question. Scott Alexander's original post talks about multidimensional correlation, but without looking it up, I just said 'proxy war'. I suppose it would be more precise to say that there were a variety of different dimensions that correlated with ethnic homogeneity. It is impossible to say how much of the average support for keeping out Italians was actually about ethnicity in the minds of the voters and how much of it was about religion or culture or anything else. As long as the tails didn't come apart, it didn't really matter. But now, of course, we can see that they have entirely parted ways, and someone whose ancestors would not have at all cared how various non-white immigrants might vote now feels obligated to argue that this is important.
I find that use of the term 'dog whistle' has profoundly negative effects on credibility. Usually it translates into something like "I'm good at reading minds, but only when the hidden truth makes people I don't like look bad".
Lol, fair. But I clarified that I meant correlates.
What’s the Tldr
On what?
Funny and on point, particularly the Curtis Yarvin impression. I can't read more than 2 paragraphs of that guy . . .
As the Hispanic percentage of the population increases, do you think the "Black worship" will decrease or continue to play out along fault lines similar to today? I'd love to see it disappear but our elites have no intention of letting that happen, IMO.
I grew up in a city composed mostly of whites and Hispanics and we got along just fine, as I think the case will continue to be long-term.
San Jose, El Paso... If anything, white-collar whites seem to get along with Hispanics even better than they get along with blue-collar whites.
Blue collar Hispanics and blue collar whites get along well. White collar whites hate working class whites out of reverse racism. I was the blue collar white in Southern Colorado two decades ago working alongside working class Hispanics. I can tell you that whites and Hispanics would be just fine if left alone by the elites. It's probably what terrifies the liberal white bosses at the DNC the most.
For me, learning about the gun-loving, Bible-thumping, truck-driving, police-supporting, Trump-voting Tejanos in Texas was quite encouraging. Maybe the Great Replacement won't be so bad after all.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/17/trump-latinos-south-texas-tejanos-437027
You remind me of the folks I once hung out with when I was younger. The Hispanic rodeo cowboys who loved dance halls and Copenhagen chewing tobacco come to mind. I think we'll see many surprises in the years ahead. Whether the powers that be like it or not, this country is a gigantic pressure cooker, and new things will emerge to replace the old things, and those new things aren't going to be all bad.
It really won’t be. Funnily enough, it was the Tejanos who got Great Replaced first. The border crossed them in 1848, after all.
As romans-à-clef go, I'd give this one four stars. If anything you've done Ron's love for Hispanic gentrification a disservice; he wouldn't be so lazy as to draw a direct causal relationship between the declining murder rate in CA as a whole and the increase in the Hispanic population. Then again he might have been distracted by the fake breasts. (This is not to include Allison, of course.)
Ron is a jew and Jews like to take all sides so they can't lose. Ron is a far right Jew who wants to convince the far right that immigration is benefiting them. He even lies about the 65 immigration act..... that's not to say Jews are all bad I'm sure there's wonderful Jews out there but there's a tendency for Jews to not have good intentions. Especially towards groups they view as a threat. Many of them obviously view western people as a threat.
Some political people in my circle like him because he does say some based things. However I can typically smell a bullshit artist a mile a way and Ron is full of shit.
The whole concept of the term Hispanic is ridiculous. It's just a culture. There's brown Hispanics and white Hispanics. Hell there's even black Hispanics. The term is essentially meaningless. They speak Spanish as their first language, they're Hispanic that's all it really means.
I was going to reply to your earlier comment and say that being provocative doesn't count if you're an obvious troll, but now I see that you are being genuine.
More or less, I think it's bad optics and cringe to say that shit in public or wear any of their symbolism which is German in my view. However yeah I think there's a lot the right can learn from him. Take inspiration from him. Look I like a lot of what desantis is doing in Florida. Take out the Israel and jew worship, build on what he's done and you really got something there to be honest. Democrats are right about one thing. Some of what desantis has done could be interpreted as inspiration from mustache man. However a toned down very lite version of it.
It's stupid to sperg out in public but there are real critiques to be made about Jewish power and what they choose to do with it. Shouldn't fall into the trap of hating all Jews and no I don't support murdering innocent people but understanding that it doesn't have to be all to be a serious problem. A good start is Hollywood and who created Hollywood and what kind of movies they created and how they portrayed the majority population of America. Not just whites but Christians as well. This is something that all right wingers need to be exposed to. I would start with Kevin McDonald who is a conservative btw. Just one that understands the JQ. As well as blackpilled on bitchute. He goes through Hollywood movies and breaks them down as well as other things. He's just amazing and one of the big factors in my political evolution that I'm so happy I went through. Once you do you realize just how ridiculous normie mainstream conservatives and mainstream conservatism truly is.
Oh and we should talk more about what many of the small hats where doing in Germany. Why did Germans respond how they did? Is the mainstream narrative really correct? They just irrationally flipped out for no good reason? Or course not. The whole narrative is cherry picked and sensationalized to discourage nationalism
You sound like a lunatic.
Yeah, only a lunatic would say "I like a lot of what desantis is doing." Get with the times, man, it's Trump 2024 or bust.
Trump lost in 2020 when he was the most powerful man in the world. What's he going to do in 2024?
Trump is the only Republican available who'd manage to lose to Biden.
Some real inside-nutball stuff here. I didn't get 90% of it.
They are parodies of various dissident right/alt right people. Collier is Ann Coulter, Andy Romero is Nick Fuentes, Moldy Marius is Mencius Moldbug, Precambrian Pederast is Bronze Age Pervert, I am not sure who Brahmin Hitler is supposed to be-Richard Spencer? My first thought was Razib Khan but he wouldn’t be in the same room with those people.
I think Brahmin Hitler is Indian Bronson.
Yes, most likely.
My favorite part of this is when Richard and his attorney crashed the police convention and told the cops tall tales about California druggies.
Though Modly Marius loves Precambrian Pedarast, I bet the Trad Catholics love the PP even more.
Now that the Nietzschean Right has been explored. perhaps Hanania and Unz can next enter a dreamscape in which they meet some podcasters from the Christian Right. It's only fair.
____
I was wiping away tears after reading Hanania's satirical take on Yarvin, Moldy Marius. Yarvin claims that one can prove anything with a single primary source; this approach leads him to some crazy places at times, and RH's impression is I-kid-you-not indistinguishable from some actual paragraphs on Yarvin's old Unqualified Reservations blog.
I appreciated this pieces' exploration of statistical illiteracy and confused tribal boundaries. Great work, Richard!
TradCaths hate BAP lol. He lives up to his name of being a pervert, and he is a Jewish Zionist.
It’s a good priest joke (they really need to let them marry), but I doubt tradcaths really have that much in common with Bronze Age Pervert-he’s pagan after all.
And like the Reactionary says, I’m not sure what it says about my life choices that I actually have an opinion about this.
In order to make myself feel better about Richard's level of talent and success vs. my own, I'll point out that he misspelled "die" as "dye".
Ron Unz beats around the bush in order to communicate the following idea to the Right, should it listen carefully and read between the lines: "Browns — be they Hispanic, Asian, or Middle Eastern — are actually beneficial to America because they dilute the black demographic and the problems that accompany it. They're also fairly amenable to right-wing politics. So you're better off with them than without them."