ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, September 09, 2018

Darkstream: Identity Politics - cause or consequence?



From the transcript of the Darkstream:

If you have the idea that America is an ideal, that America is for everyone, you're wrong, you're flat-out wrong. You are subscribing to 19th-century propaganda and it's 19th-century immigrant propaganda. As a general rule, immigrants have a very difficult time addressing the truth. They don't like to believe they don't belong, they don't like to believe that they are guests, they like to believe that they're the same as everyone else and they have the same rights as everyone else, but the fact of the matter is that democracy is totally incompatible with mass migration, with mass immigration, and even with successful large-scale integration. And so the the reality is that the more immigration you have, the less democracy is possible and the more vicious the struggles for power are going to be.

There is there is no way, no way whatsoever, for the United States system to survive what has been, in historical terms, the largest invasion in human history. Every single invasion you've read about, every single mass migration in human history that you've read about, is smaller than the mass immigration into the United States after 1965, and so there is no possible way for the United States to survive in its current format. If you believe that America was a good place, if you believe that the America was a great place, then you need to understand that it has already been destroyed.

Yeah, the fact that it still looks like it's in place, the fact that it looks like it still functions, doesn't mean that it actually does. Remember, everyone believed that the Soviet Union was as powerful as it had ever been at the very moment that it collapsed. None of the experts saw it coming. Do you think the experts see the collapse of the United States coming?

Q: Is America the greatest system ever?

A: No, I don't think so. I think that it had some excellent points going for it but I think the main reason that the United States was so successful for so long is mostly because of its geographic isolation and the large amount of space it had to allow the sort of large-scale immigration that people mistakenly concluded was viable.

In a comment to a previous post, Hammerli280 notes: I read Cuckservative. Underneath an easy read there's a serious study of how immigration affected American politics. Which brings up an interesting thought: The Democrats, since the Civil War, have been the party of The Newcomers. They were the party of Wave 4b (Irish) and Wave 5 (Italian/Polish/Eastern European Jews) immigration during the 20th Century. They are now trading those groups in on Wave 6 (Mexican/Central American) immigrants. The Democrats haven't been an American party since before the Civil War.

Labels: , ,

42 Comments:

Blogger tz September 09, 2018 8:42 AM  

But wasn't Vichy France still "French" even under Nazi occupation? Or did they Frankly have to expel the invaders to stay French? Like the Amercans need to expel the unAmericans.

That 1% of immigrants are mutants that are pre-assimilated, and that 10% that under heavy social pressure will addapt and assimilate doesn't mean that the random invader will have the temprament of even the American 2.0 of 1965. Even the higher IQ groups that have much higher in-group references and a thousand years of eastern civilizational (conform but cheat without pity, not tolerate and innovate with charity). They are actually worse.

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2018 8:57 AM  

> Is America the greatest system ever?

For the people who created it, yes. No one else as ever even understood it much less been able to successfully re-implement it. Those people are a small percentage of the US population today.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 09, 2018 8:58 AM  

It occurs to me that immigration of this sort is adultery writ large.

Compare to the parable told to King David by Nathan, in Second Samuel chapter twelve:

“There were two men in one city, one rich and the other poor. “The rich man had exceedingly many flocks and herds. But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb which he had bought and nourished; and it grew up together with him and with his children. It ate of his own food and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom; and it was like a daughter to him. And a traveler came to the rich man, who refused to take from his own flock and from his own herd to prepare one for the wayfaring man who had come to him; but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.”

And it can be easily seen that there are many, many parallels, particularly if one replaces the lamb in the parable with one's descendants -- and their inheritance.

Really, David himself lost descendants over that sin, and many other things besides.

Blogger VD September 09, 2018 8:59 AM  

But wasn't Vichy France still "French" even under Nazi occupation?

Of course Vichy France was French. The larger part of it wasn't even subject to the occupation. That was why the capital was moved to Vichy, because Paris was occupied.

Nations are people, nations are not geography or political structures.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 09, 2018 9:03 AM  

It is theft, and it is subversion and corruption.

But there it is, the rich man stealing the inheritance of the poor man for the convenience of a quick buck, or for a momentary virtue-signaling high, for political clout, or perhaps because he himself is a foreigner and theft from the natural inhabitants of the land is his own nature as an invader.

Blogger Lurker September 09, 2018 9:50 AM  

"It occurs to me that immigration of this sort is adultery writ large."

Yep, that's why with the boomer generation at the helm for the last 40 years it has picked up steam.

Blogger Gettimothy September 09, 2018 9:51 AM  

When Christendom expels/kills the globalists and their invaders, the analysis of "what happened" should be good reading.

Blogger Unknown September 09, 2018 10:16 AM  

Does anyone have any thought as to what regions in the US will fare better than others in the break up?

--Unknownsailor--

Blogger Sam September 09, 2018 10:18 AM  

"The Democrats haven't been an American party since before the Civil War."

The US constitution was implemented by the Federalists seeking to gain power for themselves. They were opposed by the anti-Federalists, who subsequently became the Democratic-Republicans (eventually the Democratic party).

Tensions came to a head under John Adams and to fight the DRs the Federalists... restricted the voting rights of recent immigrants.

Democracy is innately vulnerable to importing new voters. This is one of the many reasons democracy is unstable and destroys itself.

Blogger Sam September 09, 2018 10:19 AM  

Unknown wrote:Does anyone have any thought as to what regions in the US will fare better than others in the break up?

--Unknownsailor--


It depends on how many nuclear weapons are still viable and who gets their hands on them.

Blogger marco moltisanti September 09, 2018 10:31 AM  

I took my daughter to the water park a few weeks back on a day off from work. It was crowded and I only saw only two other people, an older fellow with his granddaughter, speaking English. Everyone else was speaking Spanish, Portuguese, or what I assume was Urdu or Farsee (the women were wearing hijab but their language didn't sound guttural like Arabic). Nice enough people and I suppose I wouldn't have thought of it as a problem before finding Vox Popoli, or at least not been able to articulate the problem. What most "normies" don't get about immigration is that yes while it's true as any Daily Show Democrat will tell you that most immigrants are not gang members or terrorists, even the decent ones are not Americans and don't think like we do.

I lived in the former USSR for years and speak and read Russian at a fairly advanced level. I have a lot of Russian and Ukrainian friends here in the US and while I like them a lot, I read their musings in their native language on social media and it's clear where their loyalty lies: with their home countries. Just the other day I saw a conversation between two first-generation Russian immigrants who presumably have US citizenship and vote on how capitalism must be curbed to beautify our city and make it look more European.

Once in a while I'll bring things like this up with my family and get blank stares as they filter out what I'm saying as too dangerous to think about. Another thing I wouldn't have thought significant before finding Vox: we have a huge amount of Scandinavian ancestry.

Blogger Lazarus September 09, 2018 10:34 AM  

If Trump is successful in his MAGA campaign, what effects will this have on the nature of the inevitable break-up?

Blogger Chris Mallory September 09, 2018 10:37 AM  

I didn't read his comment when he made it, but Hammerli280 is wrong on his conclusion. The until the current year, divide is as it has always been geographical.
The Republicans started as a progressive, Anti American party and have never changed.
Southern Democrats stayed pro America up until the regime of Clinton the Philanderer.

The KKK founded by Southern Democrats to defend Southern Americans.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 passed with the only Nay votes coming from Northern Republicans.

The Immigration Act of 1924 passed, but Nay votes were overwhelmingly from Yankees.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, but the vast majority of Nay votes came from Southern Democrats.

The Immigration Act of 1965 passed, again the vast majority of Nay votes came from Southern Democrats.

Two of the most destructive pieces of legislation came from Yankee Republicans, they would not have become law if only Southern Democrats had been voting.

Blogger Shane Sullivan September 09, 2018 10:45 AM  

@13 Did Southern Republicans support them?

Blogger The Observer September 09, 2018 10:54 AM  

I took my daughter to the water park a few weeks back on a day off from work. It was crowded and I only saw only two other people, an older fellow with his granddaughter, speaking English. Everyone else was speaking Spanish, Portuguese, or what I assume was Urdu or Farsee (the women were wearing hijab but their language didn't sound guttural like Arabic).

I'd wager on the water there being heavily contaminated with urine.

Blogger Dave September 09, 2018 10:59 AM  

Lazarus wrote:If Trump is successful in his MAGA campaign, what effects will this have on the nature of the inevitable break-up?

Define successful. Will he succeed in forcing millions of New Americans to go back?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd September 09, 2018 11:05 AM  

Unknown wrote:Does anyone have any thought as to what regions in the US will fare better than others in the break up?

--Unknownsailor--


The part where your ancestry matches everyone else's ancestry is where you will fare best.

Blogger Amy September 09, 2018 11:09 AM  

The thing I always recognize is how immigrants-turned-“citizens” will always say “back home” as in “this is a recipe from back home” or “we do it like this back home” or “I’m sending this (money, etc,) to my family back home.

So obviously, this is not their home. THTGB.

Blogger Chris Mallory September 09, 2018 11:15 AM  

Shane Sullivan wrote:@13 Did Southern Republicans support them?

Until recently there was no such thing as a "Southern Republican". Unless you count the Negros put into power during Reconstruction.
Republicans started as an Anti American party opposed to the Southern American people.
Nixon lost 9 of 13 Southern States in 1960, 6 of 13 Southern states in 1968. Texas went for Humphrey.
1972 was an aberration with Nixon winning 49 states.
In 1976 Carter won every Southern state except for Virginia.
It isn't until 2000 that you see the South go solid Red.

Blogger Lazarus September 09, 2018 11:21 AM  

Dave wrote:Define successful.

Globalists defeated, Economic recovery, Swamp drainage, Wall built, Immigration reform and enforcement, renewed patriotism.

Blogger English Tom September 09, 2018 11:23 AM  

@Unknownsailor

Joel Skousen has written a book about what areas will do better than others. I haven't read it but he was interviewed by Alex Jones 2 to 3 years ago about this topic.

Blogger Pioneer Spirit September 09, 2018 11:30 AM  

Hillbillies working in northern cities said the same thing. They lived in Ohio for decades but always talked about 'back home' (Kentucky or WVa.)

Blogger InformationMerchant September 09, 2018 11:33 AM  

I have a tactical nuke for use against pro Rothbard Libertarians that claim identity politics is new.

In 1986 at the New York Polytechnic University, Rothbard gave a lecture about a big political shift that was put in motion around 1890 and came to pass about 6 years later.

https://youtu.be/0sxfMjKD_Ao?list=PLCF2A693AD6EDEFE1&t=1817

(Link 1, on the basic mechanics of German migrants giving Democrats votes forcing Republicans to adapt or die.)

You can listen to it from there, he doesn't stop talking about identity politics, but if you want to jump around a bit, there's another part that's interesting:

https://youtu.be/0sxfMjKD_Ao?list=PLCF2A693AD6EDEFE1&t=3593
(Link 2, on women, public vs private schools and preventing schools from teaching in German.)

Youtube automatic transcripts are bad at the best of times, throw in Rothbard's accent and Youtube not recognizing the word "pietist" and we have something that's very near useless, but they're the only transcripts that exist, to my knowledge.

Transcript for link 1: https://pastebin.com/gLysuj84

Transcript for link 2: https://pastebin.com/Qcw9PtXZ

Transcript for whole thing: https://pastebin.com/UtJnmWvn

Blogger InformationMerchant September 09, 2018 11:35 AM  

I tried to split up my wall of text a bit, that last post was the useful one, this is just a collection of my thoughts.

Democracy is awful, it ruins everything. Hoppe has done good work on that score and suggested physical removal for people that advocated democracy, voting, etc. Monarchy clearly has advantages over democracy and if the regions are small, people can move 100 miles away to get a different king if they want.

There are tremendous similarities between people that think identity politics is 10-20 years old and invented by Marxists from that time and the comics people that claim they don't want politics in comics.

The problem with both sets of the above people is they leave out the key word. -Explicit- identity politics or -explicit- politics in comics is the thing they hate. They're fine with -implicit- identity politics or implicit politics in comics.

The other layer is the direction the identity politics or politics in comics goes. Captain America punching Hitler or "truth, justice and the American way" isn't going to be a problem for those that would never question that narrative. Likewise, explicit identity politics wasn't a problem for those that agreed with what was being pushed.

Implicit politics in comics is unavoidable. Does your superhero use a gun or does he never ever use guns and destroy them all? Are the police helpful, violent or incompetent? Are rich people good, bad or a mix? Does your superhero kill? If not, why not?

The cuckservative and cuck-libertarian notion that explicit identity politics and explicit politics in comics are bad yet implicit identity politics and implicit politics in comics are fine is frustrating.

If you slowly boil a cuckservative and mistakenly heat up the water too quickly, he'll politely request that the water be made slightly cooler and will happily give you another chance at boiling him slowly.

"I don't care that you have no white superheros at all. I just don't like that they say "as a Black Muslim" before every statement."

Blogger Shane Sullivan September 09, 2018 11:44 AM  

@19 Isn't the term "American" an imperialist (union) moniker that come into common usage in the late 19th century as a way to bring together North/South and assimilate immigrants?

Those voting records are really interesting. Clearly they're based more on party loyalties then the positions these candidates held; I'd hardly consider Carter a conservative. Did Southerners like Reagan?

Blogger Dave September 09, 2018 11:50 AM  

Lazarus wrote:Dave wrote:Define successful.

Globalists defeated, Economic recovery, Swamp drainage, Wall built, Immigration reform and enforcement, renewed patriotism.


You're aware that Trump is the God Emperor, not the Messiah, right? Let's talk again after the midterms.

Blogger Hammerli280 September 09, 2018 12:12 PM  

@23: Identity politics predates the Civil War...and arguably the American Revolution. Certainly there was great resistance to the idea of Irish immigration in the 1850s (the "Know-Nothing" movement), and there were also concerns about Germans in Wave 3 immigration...in the 1750s.

Blogger clean your cider-press bucko September 09, 2018 12:13 PM  

Chris Mallory wrote:In 1976 Carter won every Southern state except for Virginia.

It isn't until 2000 that you see the South go solid Red.


Don't forget that 1980, '84 and '88 were all Southern landslides for the Republican presidential candidate.

Blogger Lazarus September 09, 2018 12:40 PM  

Dave wrote:

You're aware that Trump is the God Emperor, not the Messiah, right?


Hence my use of the word "If".

Blogger InformationMerchant September 09, 2018 1:18 PM  

@27: Sure. There are plenty of founders warning about German immigration too. The reason I like that one though is it is an old lecture that takes a group and describes it by nationality and denomination then says how it will vote in an American election and what the two parties can do in response.

This concept seems familiar: "drop prohibition as a Republican policy to get the German Lutheran swing vote."

Blogger Mark Stoval September 09, 2018 1:35 PM  

"Nations are people, nations are not geography or political structures." ~ Vox Day

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Blogger GammaCatch September 09, 2018 3:05 PM  

Some of these comments know history, some are still repeating the Fabian Socialist view of American History. Interesting, but not stupid. I saw some points right from Dialectic of Enlightenment. Dummies like Glenn Beck, Zudi Jasser, and Daniel Lapin were good for one thing, and it was for rewriting that specific revision of the USA's history. I recommend reading W. Cleon Skousen's books.

Blogger Homesteader September 09, 2018 3:45 PM  

A nation is blood, soil, language, and culture.

An extended family of cousins, speaking the same tongue, abd sharing the same culture, to the farthest borders.

A Tower of Babel amalgamation is not a "nation".

The last time the American diaspora was a "nation" was before the large scale German immigration Franklin complained of.

Thus, as Vox has noted, breakup is inevitable, because, as Pournelle noted, there will be war, because, as Heartiste noted..
diversity + proximity = war.

Blogger Robert Pinkerton September 09, 2018 4:31 PM  

I do not know whether this is web-wide or a bug in my OS, but when I try Heartiste, I get a {Problem Loading Page} card, saying the site's security certificate is invalid. George Ure's {Urban Survival} gets the same, as do a few other stops on my daily web patrol.

Am I expeiencing an olfactory hallucination here, or does something really stink?

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2018 5:18 PM  

> I do not know whether this is web-wide or a bug in my OS

It's either your OS or your browser. But with a security certificate error on multiple sites, the most likely cause is that your date is not correct.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 09, 2018 6:07 PM  

@25

"Isn't the term "American" an imperialist (union) moniker that come into common usage in the late 19th century as a way to bring together North/South and assimilate immigrants?"

No. Lincoln was shot in the head while watching a play with the title "Our American Cousin"

Two years BEFORE the Declaration of Independance, Jefferson was tasked by the Virginia House of Burgesses to write a letter to King George III telling him to knock if off, or there will be war. This letter was titled by Jefferson as:

A Summary of the Rights of British America.

In a 1941 movie about the Battle of Britain, there are a number Canadian characters (who came to the RAF from the RCAF). The British pilots refer to them as "the Americans" -- they are NOT referring to US Citizens who joined the RAF.

Blogger RusticFederalist September 09, 2018 6:35 PM  

VD mentions South Africa, and that is an illustrative example of the dangers of civic nationalism. Maybe starting Apartheid wasn't efficient or right, but the way it ended has been a disaster. I suspect if the white vote was broken down into Brits vs Boers then we would see a big difference in support of Apartheid, and the same for white flight emigration.

Blogger Silly but True September 09, 2018 8:51 PM  

Saladin Ahmed proves he’s either a good Muslim or a bad Muslim, depending on which version of Islamic practices are good or bad:
https://twitter.com/saladinahmed/status/1038419946039123968?s=20

Blogger DJT September 09, 2018 8:53 PM  

Don't forget that SA was largely an empty wasteland when the white man first came. SA's mistake was not Apartheid, but letting the Sub-Saharans move in from the north.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( We The Pepe 9001 - 0 Rick Wilson ) September 09, 2018 11:49 PM  

13. Chris Mallory September 09, 2018 10:37 AM
Two of the most destructive pieces of legislation came from Yankee Republicans,


Prohibition and Women's Suffrage?

Blogger Lucius Cincinnatus September 10, 2018 1:53 AM  

While all Darkstream broadcasts have been excellent, this was particularly good. It's a very sobering topic. It's been on my mind since I was a child, making observations about how human populations interact with one another, and it's clear America is dead. It just doesn't know it yet. I've explained this to people for decades and I'm met with either violent opposition, with no actual rebuttals, or a reluctant acceptance.

One of the best microcosms of how groups inhabiting the same geographic area, naturally self-segregate is in schools. There is no exception to this: go into any public school and you will see crystal clear groups self-segregating upon racial lines. Whites with whites. Blacks with blacks. Hispanics with hispanics. Asians with Asians.

The most irritating part about all of this is that it was predictable and entirely avoidable. "The Greatest Generation" was anything but. They were the ones in power that allowed this invasion and the poisonous seeds to germinate. Now we have to deal with the consequences we didn't cause.

Blogger Obama's boyfriend September 13, 2018 7:20 AM  

Strange, history shows it was the Democrat party that was the nativist party not the GOP. That those areas that were dominated by the Democrats, generally the South, were not the destinations of immigrants cited.

The immigrants were located for the most part in the urban areas of the country and while nominally machine dominated (Democrats) they were part of the uniparty that we see in operation today, think Senators Sasse, McClusky or Collins and especially McCain.

Immigration can work, this country reached its peak in the fifties, but it was a nation comprised of those that would embrace the old Protesant work ethic. Today we encourage people who do not share the traditions of our nation who indeed are dedicated to destroying them to recreate Mexico, Yemen, Iran, Congo or Russia.

This is tribalism.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts