OT, but I would love for you (and Ricky H) to write more about dating as an alt-right. You sound like a great sommelier of people (“alt-right goes well with art hoes”). I had thought of it as a contradiction that so many of my great relationships were with artsy, tattooed, septum-adorned women. I now see that both groups are high intelligence, openness, and low agreeableness.
I will become a paying subscriber when I get the money by the way (I am living stock vest to stock vest 💸).
RE your point about Jews and blacks, yes. Groups like Jews and Blacks who lean Dem are likely gonna be the most conservative members of the Dem coalition. Because many moderate and conservative Jews and Blacks vote Democrat whereas basically every conservative White goy votes Republican.
I liked the bit in your analogy where martian IQ was 130 instead of 115 (the implication being that perhaps human IQ on mars would be 115). that was sly.
anyway though I think the big readjustment of the late 20th century wasn’t mass incarceration, it was white flight, and that’s where your cyclical theory fails. entire cities permanently changed hands; this is more how you act when you’re paying a war indemnity. the deal that whites took simply would not have flown anywhere outside of the most grotesquely over-resourced country on earth where anyone of merit can buy their way out of any problem. a lot of civilizations would’ve just went “hmm no, de jure segregation is back now so we can have urbanism again.” america on the other hand can be made to work around almost any societal wrinkle to the point where you have to go out of your way to even put a name to the costs.
it’s no mystery why societies that are vastly materially poorer than the US (like most of europe and japan) are able to be comparably if not surpassingly “first-world” in important ways: lowest-common-denominator amenities in these countries are actually acceptable to most if not all classes of people, because you won’t have to navigate sharing them with an assertive rival culture. this is something americans happily pay a premium to avoid doing, and their ability to do so relies on a physical and social infrastructure we’ve made a point of building out.
some of this is shell shock from eras when actual ethnic violence was the deciding factor (it’s not off the table today but it’s not the main reason whites prefer their own company) while a good chunk of it can be chalked up to squeamishness and class signaling. details aside though, this dynamic is the rosetta stone of Why The US Is Like That, and it feeds into a racial resentment that I think hits deeper than taxes or affirmative action ever could, albeit harder to put into words.
I think it’s possible to engineer things so these grievances start to disappear WITHOUT triggering our cultural antibodies about the evils of the color line. school choice is the most obvious part of the platform, and that alone could go a long way towards making diverse cities more hospitable to whites of modest means (and even rich liberal whites like my parents who moved me to the suburbs because they didn’t like the image of a snooty private school). race aside people actually do deserve a healthy ecosystem of available school environments to match all sensibilities and have a basic right to an appropriate peer group setting for your child, and it’s incredibly fucked that government has gotten away with forcing public schools onto people for so long (and I say that as someone who is generally not that sympathetic to right-wing taxpayer gripes, but this one is a fucking outrage).
I wonder if you're downplaying how demographic shifts will alter the relationship between Blacks and the rest of the country. Other non-Blacks don't carry the same cultural baggage as Whites, and often straightforwardly resent them (Hispanics/Boat People Asians), or are literally afraid of them (new Asians). People talk about White flight all the time, but I've literally never in my life seen an East Asian or Indian in an inner-city neighborhood, even just walking around.
You're implicitly assuming that non-White immigrants will basically imbibe the Black-White relationship as they assimilate and become "White," in the same way the descendants of the Irish/Italian/Germans immigrants did, despite their having nothing to do with slavery.
This might prove true, and you see it among elite 2nd-generation Asians as they try to embody elite White culture. But even these people do not retain the same level of visceral discomfort discussing Blacks you see among Whites.
As it stands now, non-Whites are often the most explicitly racist against Blacks, partly because they have more social permission, but also because they are more accustomed to thinking straightforwardly in racialized terms. Note that every MENA immigrant is coming from a culture that is fiercely tribal, every Eastern European and East Asian immigrant is coming from a literal ethnostate, and every Indian immigrant comes from a caste system within an ethnostate within an ethnostate. A lot of these folks simply have zero moral hang-ups about in-group preference and ethnic nepotism.
It might be selection bias given your politics, but notice that your three choices exemplifying "new Whites," Hanania, Anna, and Fuentes, are among the three most prominent WN or WN-adjacent intellectuals today. It's a meme that modern WN is full of Hispanics and Arabs, but this simply demonstrates the fact that non-Europeans are just way more comfortable thinking in terms of identity.
All this to say that if immigration continues, I wouldn't be surprised to see a future coalition of "new Whites" and conservative "old Whites" that is willing to crack down on crime and affirmative action among Blacks in a way normie "old Whites" are simply uncomfortable doing or even talking about.
1) I agree that making the Democrats "the black party" is the best way to win. Steve Sailer said as much long ago.
2) I don't believe you can break the cycle with blacks. They see any accommodation as weakness and demand more. Only fear keeps them in line, its the only language they can understand.
3) "misattributed Obama’s victory to Hispanic immigration, when it was actually caused by secular but culturally conservative white people in the Rust Belt hating Romney for being an effete rich guy."
Romney got 59% of the white vote in 2012. Basically Reagan numbers, he would have won a landslide with 1980 demographics.
57% in PA, 57% in OH, so that's the Rust Belt.
Whites didn't turn on Joe the Plumber, but Hispanics really wanted free healthcare. The effect of inviting more Hispanics is to enlarge the part of the bell curve in the low 90s, which is not productive enough to pay for their own government benefits.
And Asians, while higher earning, and more communitarian and prefer government solutions to economic and social issues.
The GOP adapted to this reality by becoming more left wing on economics (they will tax the middle class more to pay for it, probably via debt and inflation). They will become a party that targets median White Hispanics in swing states, which is another way of saying that its rhetoric will drop 10 IQ points and it will be less responsible at governing. This might still be better then Democrats, but its shitty all around.
This is literally what Charles Murray said in The Bell Curve. That to avoid California level irrelevance, the GOP would become a Latin American right wing party, which is to say a much less Conservative Party.
What the Reagan GOP thought was that if you gave Hispanics amnesty they would become middle class whites and join the Reagan coalition. Not only was this no true, it was the opposite of true (yesterdays immigrants hate todays immigrants). But it was a cheap way of not dealing with the fact that you have to choose between cheap illegal labor and small government, so they bought into it out of wishful thinking.
Richard talks about living in California, but California sucks. Hispanics turned it into a one party Dem state where government is a fucking shitshow, nobody can afford anything, and Americans net move out en masse every year.
Speaking as a mixed person, I don't think non-black mixed people usually identify as white. The incentives still push people to identify as non-white because white is seen as boring and unexotic as well as lacking in a desirable subculture. Even people who have one Hispanic parent and look as white as Siberian winter often try to claim minority status. Nonetheless, this kind of identification seems mostly non-political and more of just a claim of belonging to an exotic subculture.
Also not sure that black genes are phenotypically dominant. Society just tends to notice less common features more easily. When you see photos of Obama with his father, you can easily tell Obama's mixed. It's just that black features stand out more in a majority-white country like the US.
When i read something like this i'm reminded of why i joined Substack and why i read opinion pieces in the first place. This article displays a huge amount of social, cultural and historical intelligence that is sadly missing from nearly everyone i read. The only other blogger who made me feel like i was reading something truly intelligent was Curtis Yavin (Moldbug) and he is not writing a lot these days.
Your summarization of the Civil War is so well done i don't think i ever saw any right winger or left winger get it as right as you did. Makes me wonder if most people lie and omit CW history to justify their causes or they simply don't know what truly happened. It's a dishonest world out there.
Anyways, there's only so much i can say before i start sounding like an idiotic fanboy. Great stuff! earned yourself a paid sub!
I am curious about the racial grift part. I am noticing a lot of Black women work in the DEI space and Shelby Steele talks explicitly about how Black people leverage white guilt. Like the whole Claudine Gay thing. John McWhorter talks about how she was hired simply for being Black and whites wanting to prove they are not racist.
I have been thinking a lot about Black people as diversity hires (especially to do DEI work) in white liberal dominated spaces. And white liberals show no signs of stopping this. So what does it take to push white liberals into resenting college educated Blacks?
There is also the question of Black people's politics, and how a lot of Black people view the world through a racial lens and are deeply committed to identity politics. Black conservatives are shunned by both white and Black liberals.
There seems to be no push or incentive to take Black people seriously, instead choosing to fixate on deranged white liberals in blue cities/states even though their politics directly come from some Black political talking points.
OT, but I would love for you (and Ricky H) to write more about dating as an alt-right. You sound like a great sommelier of people (“alt-right goes well with art hoes”). I had thought of it as a contradiction that so many of my great relationships were with artsy, tattooed, septum-adorned women. I now see that both groups are high intelligence, openness, and low agreeableness.
I will become a paying subscriber when I get the money by the way (I am living stock vest to stock vest 💸).
RE your point about Jews and blacks, yes. Groups like Jews and Blacks who lean Dem are likely gonna be the most conservative members of the Dem coalition. Because many moderate and conservative Jews and Blacks vote Democrat whereas basically every conservative White goy votes Republican.
I liked the bit in your analogy where martian IQ was 130 instead of 115 (the implication being that perhaps human IQ on mars would be 115). that was sly.
anyway though I think the big readjustment of the late 20th century wasn’t mass incarceration, it was white flight, and that’s where your cyclical theory fails. entire cities permanently changed hands; this is more how you act when you’re paying a war indemnity. the deal that whites took simply would not have flown anywhere outside of the most grotesquely over-resourced country on earth where anyone of merit can buy their way out of any problem. a lot of civilizations would’ve just went “hmm no, de jure segregation is back now so we can have urbanism again.” america on the other hand can be made to work around almost any societal wrinkle to the point where you have to go out of your way to even put a name to the costs.
it’s no mystery why societies that are vastly materially poorer than the US (like most of europe and japan) are able to be comparably if not surpassingly “first-world” in important ways: lowest-common-denominator amenities in these countries are actually acceptable to most if not all classes of people, because you won’t have to navigate sharing them with an assertive rival culture. this is something americans happily pay a premium to avoid doing, and their ability to do so relies on a physical and social infrastructure we’ve made a point of building out.
some of this is shell shock from eras when actual ethnic violence was the deciding factor (it’s not off the table today but it’s not the main reason whites prefer their own company) while a good chunk of it can be chalked up to squeamishness and class signaling. details aside though, this dynamic is the rosetta stone of Why The US Is Like That, and it feeds into a racial resentment that I think hits deeper than taxes or affirmative action ever could, albeit harder to put into words.
I think it’s possible to engineer things so these grievances start to disappear WITHOUT triggering our cultural antibodies about the evils of the color line. school choice is the most obvious part of the platform, and that alone could go a long way towards making diverse cities more hospitable to whites of modest means (and even rich liberal whites like my parents who moved me to the suburbs because they didn’t like the image of a snooty private school). race aside people actually do deserve a healthy ecosystem of available school environments to match all sensibilities and have a basic right to an appropriate peer group setting for your child, and it’s incredibly fucked that government has gotten away with forcing public schools onto people for so long (and I say that as someone who is generally not that sympathetic to right-wing taxpayer gripes, but this one is a fucking outrage).
supplementary links:
leftoid does a neurotic deep dive into the worst second-order effects of american stratification (without mentioning the elephant in the room, but still thought-provoking): https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/7263.html and https://drafts.interfluidity.com/2023/06/04/quietly-expensive-desperation/index.html
chuds explore the concept of a social credit system as a means of reclaiming ceded or contested space: https://rdrama.net/post/221206/marseyxi-social-credit-as-a-replacement
I wonder if you're downplaying how demographic shifts will alter the relationship between Blacks and the rest of the country. Other non-Blacks don't carry the same cultural baggage as Whites, and often straightforwardly resent them (Hispanics/Boat People Asians), or are literally afraid of them (new Asians). People talk about White flight all the time, but I've literally never in my life seen an East Asian or Indian in an inner-city neighborhood, even just walking around.
You're implicitly assuming that non-White immigrants will basically imbibe the Black-White relationship as they assimilate and become "White," in the same way the descendants of the Irish/Italian/Germans immigrants did, despite their having nothing to do with slavery.
This might prove true, and you see it among elite 2nd-generation Asians as they try to embody elite White culture. But even these people do not retain the same level of visceral discomfort discussing Blacks you see among Whites.
As it stands now, non-Whites are often the most explicitly racist against Blacks, partly because they have more social permission, but also because they are more accustomed to thinking straightforwardly in racialized terms. Note that every MENA immigrant is coming from a culture that is fiercely tribal, every Eastern European and East Asian immigrant is coming from a literal ethnostate, and every Indian immigrant comes from a caste system within an ethnostate within an ethnostate. A lot of these folks simply have zero moral hang-ups about in-group preference and ethnic nepotism.
It might be selection bias given your politics, but notice that your three choices exemplifying "new Whites," Hanania, Anna, and Fuentes, are among the three most prominent WN or WN-adjacent intellectuals today. It's a meme that modern WN is full of Hispanics and Arabs, but this simply demonstrates the fact that non-Europeans are just way more comfortable thinking in terms of identity.
All this to say that if immigration continues, I wouldn't be surprised to see a future coalition of "new Whites" and conservative "old Whites" that is willing to crack down on crime and affirmative action among Blacks in a way normie "old Whites" are simply uncomfortable doing or even talking about.
1) I agree that making the Democrats "the black party" is the best way to win. Steve Sailer said as much long ago.
2) I don't believe you can break the cycle with blacks. They see any accommodation as weakness and demand more. Only fear keeps them in line, its the only language they can understand.
3) "misattributed Obama’s victory to Hispanic immigration, when it was actually caused by secular but culturally conservative white people in the Rust Belt hating Romney for being an effete rich guy."
Romney got 59% of the white vote in 2012. Basically Reagan numbers, he would have won a landslide with 1980 demographics.
57% in PA, 57% in OH, so that's the Rust Belt.
Whites didn't turn on Joe the Plumber, but Hispanics really wanted free healthcare. The effect of inviting more Hispanics is to enlarge the part of the bell curve in the low 90s, which is not productive enough to pay for their own government benefits.
And Asians, while higher earning, and more communitarian and prefer government solutions to economic and social issues.
The GOP adapted to this reality by becoming more left wing on economics (they will tax the middle class more to pay for it, probably via debt and inflation). They will become a party that targets median White Hispanics in swing states, which is another way of saying that its rhetoric will drop 10 IQ points and it will be less responsible at governing. This might still be better then Democrats, but its shitty all around.
This is literally what Charles Murray said in The Bell Curve. That to avoid California level irrelevance, the GOP would become a Latin American right wing party, which is to say a much less Conservative Party.
What the Reagan GOP thought was that if you gave Hispanics amnesty they would become middle class whites and join the Reagan coalition. Not only was this no true, it was the opposite of true (yesterdays immigrants hate todays immigrants). But it was a cheap way of not dealing with the fact that you have to choose between cheap illegal labor and small government, so they bought into it out of wishful thinking.
Richard talks about living in California, but California sucks. Hispanics turned it into a one party Dem state where government is a fucking shitshow, nobody can afford anything, and Americans net move out en masse every year.
Speaking as a mixed person, I don't think non-black mixed people usually identify as white. The incentives still push people to identify as non-white because white is seen as boring and unexotic as well as lacking in a desirable subculture. Even people who have one Hispanic parent and look as white as Siberian winter often try to claim minority status. Nonetheless, this kind of identification seems mostly non-political and more of just a claim of belonging to an exotic subculture.
Also not sure that black genes are phenotypically dominant. Society just tends to notice less common features more easily. When you see photos of Obama with his father, you can easily tell Obama's mixed. It's just that black features stand out more in a majority-white country like the US.
When i read something like this i'm reminded of why i joined Substack and why i read opinion pieces in the first place. This article displays a huge amount of social, cultural and historical intelligence that is sadly missing from nearly everyone i read. The only other blogger who made me feel like i was reading something truly intelligent was Curtis Yavin (Moldbug) and he is not writing a lot these days.
Your summarization of the Civil War is so well done i don't think i ever saw any right winger or left winger get it as right as you did. Makes me wonder if most people lie and omit CW history to justify their causes or they simply don't know what truly happened. It's a dishonest world out there.
Anyways, there's only so much i can say before i start sounding like an idiotic fanboy. Great stuff! earned yourself a paid sub!
i needed this. thank you.
I am curious about the racial grift part. I am noticing a lot of Black women work in the DEI space and Shelby Steele talks explicitly about how Black people leverage white guilt. Like the whole Claudine Gay thing. John McWhorter talks about how she was hired simply for being Black and whites wanting to prove they are not racist.
I have been thinking a lot about Black people as diversity hires (especially to do DEI work) in white liberal dominated spaces. And white liberals show no signs of stopping this. So what does it take to push white liberals into resenting college educated Blacks?
There is also the question of Black people's politics, and how a lot of Black people view the world through a racial lens and are deeply committed to identity politics. Black conservatives are shunned by both white and Black liberals.
There seems to be no push or incentive to take Black people seriously, instead choosing to fixate on deranged white liberals in blue cities/states even though their politics directly come from some Black political talking points.