Jim's Blog

is that it is demotic. The trouble with our brahmins is that they are demotic.

If, seeking power, you propose to give all white people a microslice of power, you will be outbid by those seeking power who propose to give everyone a microslice of power.

White nationalism is moderate leftism, and moderate leftism will always be outbid by immoderate leftism

Today’s white nationalism is yet another variant on the Republican program of backing away from the left singularity in infinitesimally tiny steps. This runs contrary to the natural ever leftwards dynamic, so always turns into program for heading into the left singularity at a slightly slower pace which in turn turns into a program for heading into the left singularity at an ever accelerating pace – mainstream republicanism.

White nationalism, being demotic, tends to become national socialism. National socialism kills people not because it is nationalist, but because it is socialist.

It is necessary to apply different laws to different people on the basis of superficial characteristics. For example a black man taking certain drugs is overwhelmingly likely to be markedly more dangerous than a white man taking the same drugs. So, in practice, we have very restrictive laws that are theoretically applied to everyone, but are, in practice, applied selectively – the alternative to racially aware enforcement being suicide.

Would it not be a lot fairer to openly issue identity cards, and openly have different laws for different groups, with some groups having laws that were simpler, harsher, more restrictive, and more swiftly enforced?

Of course that would be fairer, more just, more effective, than our current hypocritical system.

And if we had that, would not white nationalism be part of the air you breathed, so that all whites would be white nationalist without thinking about it or being aware of it?

Obviously it would. And obviously that is the system that we used to have. We used to all be unthinkingly and naturally race nationalist, the alternative being obviously stupid and suicidal. And we drifted away from that system, replacing it with elaborate hypocrisy and pretense, because white nationalism is leftist, and Cthulhu swims always left.

You can move leftwards from that system to socialism, and wind up murdering people by the truckload, or move leftwards from that system to what we have now, and white people wind up being ethnically cleansed. On the whole, the latter leftwards movement is markedly preferable to the former leftwards movement.

Whites are not naturally a tribe. To make them a tribe, you would need an identitarian religion. That religion would have to become the state religion, and then forcibly convert all whites to that state religion.

But state religions that forcibly convert everyone are intolerably oppressive, and tend to have extremely bad economic effects. A more workable program is what we have now, where the official religion is high status, all deviations from it are low status, and if you want to get a job in government, or quasi government, or go to the more prestigious universities you have to pretend to subscribe to the official religion.

Now if we had an identitarian religion, and it was the state religion, then after a few hundred years or so, nearly all whites would subscribe to it, much as they subscribe to our current official state religion, and then rule of that religion would effectively be white nationalism.

But, lacking such a religion, whites lack tribal identity, so white nationalism will always fail the way it has already failed.

Been there, done that, prohibited from wearing the t-shirt.

We tried going back to the 1950s, time to try 1660.

We have been discussing the demographic transition – the tendency of peoples to fail to reproduce, examining varying nations, religious groups and such to see what makes a difference and what does not.

Sunshine Mary has proposed a theory which I think fits all our data.
Ten changes that need to happen in order to promote society-wide traditional sex roles.

The only way that it is safe for women to engage in traditional sex roles – keeping the home, nurturing the young, caring for the old, ministering to the sick and the poor – is if they can depend on the support of a husband and kin network. And the only way it is safe for men to engage in traditional sex roles – providing for and protecting women and children – is if their investment in their families is protected from destruction and theft by corporations, governments, and the women themselves.

One might suppose Saudi Arabia to be a counter example, but Saudi women are exposed both to easy divorce, and to state intervention to raise the status of women.

One might suppose China to be a counter example, but the excess of males caused a rise in the status of women, and an ensuing sexual revolution, since those females could play around, and still get married.