We’re condemned to policy stasis because the donor class has constrained both parties’ ability to make policy. Governments come and go but policy remains the same.
If you think Trump's support for the carnage in Gaza is going to lose him the election, then I wonder about the relevance of the rest of your argument. The vast majority of Americans support Israel, as they should; the Democrats have stabbed Israel in the back. But progressives who hate Trump more than they like America or Israel will use anything to vote against him.The best thing that could happen to the Palestinians is total Israeli victory over the country's declared rabid enemies. As for abortion, Trump would probably prefer it go away as an issue; hence his support for leaving it to the states. Not a bad idea given the passions the issue elicits, almost akin to the slavery issue preceding the Civil War. The Supreme Court did not rule on abortion; only on the legal reasoning justifying Roe v. Wade. The justices made it clear that if someone wanted the Supreme Court to rule on abortion, they should bring such a case before them. As for IVF, there are many other considerations, not least fo which is the likely possibility that it will be used, understandably, to select embryos with high intelligence genetic heritage, leading us into a new kind of brave new world. But few want to talk about that. Indeed, few want to talk about any of the thorny issues a modern complex society throws up, since most people, especially social science academics, are caught in the web of critical theory which is anything but critical.
I'm a Brit so can't judge whether most Americans support Israel or Hamas/Palestine. However, I do know that there are otherwise sensible people who will always tend to choose a ceasefire over continued war, partly because they haven't really thought things through (what Thomas Sowell calls 'Stage One thinking') and partly because they think all good people should support a ceasefire, no matter the terms or the long term feasibility of it holding.
By the way, I recommend you don't engage with 'Realist'. The man is a monomaniac who immediately goes nuclear if you hold a position he dislikes. Best ignored.
You are right, it's not a war. It is whatever it is that the IDF, in the wake of the 7 Oct massacre, is trying to do to Hamas, who have embedded themselves and the Isarelis they have kidnapped among the Palestinian people, some of whom are presumably totally on board with Hamas and some whom presumably aren't. That's what it is.
"What I think" is another matter. If you control the flow of information, you can make most people believe almost anything. I learned long ago that the news media is generally a money-losing operation and that people don't invest in it to make a profit; they invest in it to shape public opinion and, ultimately, public policy. That's why I prefer to inform myself from a variety of sources.
According to Haaeretz (a leading Israeli newspaper), the purpose of the Israeli military action is not to "defeat Hamas." It's to depopulate the Gaza Strip as much as possible.
"Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that Israel must control the territory in the Gaza Strip and significantly reduce the number of Palestinian residents in Gaza. ... "If there are 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza and not two million, the whole discourse about the day after will be different," he said."
I could quote other members of the Israeli cabinet. In my opinion, this so-called "military action" will turn world opinion against Israel, if it has not done so already.
On the abortion issue, it would be better if Trump said he opposes late-term abortions while supporting free access to abortion during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.
I have seen polls that say most Americans - up to 80% - back Israel over the Palestinian thugs in Gaza. I would not quote Ha'aretz on anything. It is a left-wing anti-Zionist rag that is stridently opposed to Netanyahu and legitimate Israeli rights to all land west of the Jordan River. Finance Minister Smotrich has been the most intelligent and eloquent defender of Israeli actions and ultimate war aims. This is a war. Hamas along with ordinary Palestinians attacked Israel viciously on October 7 and have declared they will do so again and again, along with Hezbollah, Iran, the Houthis. World opinion as expressed by the antisemitic leaders of the western world has already turned against Israel, so Israel has nothing to learn from them, nor should it commit suicide to please people who know nothing about the Middle East, its history, the history of the Jews, Arab Muslim society, etc. Israel did not start this war. Hamas did, aiming to eliminate Israel and kill its citizens, just as they wantonly did on October 7 and just as Arab Muslims have been doing for over a century to Jews even when the area was under Ottoman and British control. But Israel should finish it, secure life for its citizens, 60 to 80 thousand of whom are displaced from its north. Hamas must be destroyed, Gaza conquered, its population placed under severe control for decades or there will be no peace in the land.
It would be better if Trump said many things differently, but he is what he is and speaks how he speaks. I am writing a piece about that for my next piece on my substack. It is borderline hilarious if it were not so serious how the mainstream media and otherwise apparently intelligent people rise to the bait and increase the volume every time the man speaks. That said, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Biden-Harris administration have been disastrous on almost every front. One has only to look at the news, which I no longer watch. Someone today showed me a clip of Venezuelan gangsters who are now terrorizing a Colorado town. Is this a movie you want coming to a theatre near you?
"The vast majority of Americans support Israel, as they should; the Democrats have stabbed Israel in the back."
If you think the majority of Americans should support the genocide and wanton slaughter of Palestinians, then I wonder about the relevance of the rest of your argument.
There is no genocide, which means a deliberate policy of extermination of a people. There is also no wanton slaughter of Palestinians, in contrast to wanton Palestinian slaughter of Israelis. All you have to do is look at the figures of population growth, proportion of civilian to military casualties, not to mention the historical record of Muslim Arab and now Palestinian deliberate wanton killing of Jews. You might want to note that the current war Hamas unleashed against Israel is called by Hamas the Al-Aksa Flood, the latest repetition of the blood libel "the Al-Aksa mosque is in danger." No fool like an ignorant fool.
So you consider me an ignorant fool because I disagree with you on this issue? That is typical of Zionists. Seventy-six years ago, the UK, with the compliance of the United States, committed a travesty against international law and the Arab people living in the area by forcing the occupation of Jews.
I meant what I said. You're only labeling the Israeli occupation of their historical homeland as a "genocide" because you dislike it and you think that it's "evil", but in reality, "evil" is an incoherent concept. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2020/07/what-is-morality.html
"You're only labeling the Israeli occupation of their historical homeland as a "genocide" because you dislike it and you think that it's "evil", but in reality, "evil" is an incoherent concept."
It is not their historical homeland; people were living there long before the Jews.
I dislike it because the Israelis are expanding their control beyond what was illegally given to them in 1948.
So you don't believe the Nazis were evil because "evil" is an incoherent concept."?
A fabulous article. I myself am a Brit living in Utah surrounded by Mormons. The wife is Californian and although there isn’t much to do out here we are making babies at pace (3rd boy due in a month) and people embrace family out here. It’s like living in the past. When the wife goes back to CA heavily pregnant with a toddler boy in each hand people look at her like she is an insane person or look down on her with pity, wondering what awful man has done this to her. It’s hilarious. White need to get their shit together and get their heads out their arses. Don’t get me wrong I’m lucky. But if you don’t seen yourself as the result of thousands if not millions of those who struggles before you to get you here then that’s a damn shame. Culture starts at home. Make some.
A strangely optimistic take. I hope you’re right! At the very least those who deselect themselves from the gene pool seem to me, reducing anti natal traits from our future generations.
Great article. I think Peter Frost must write very well since I never get lost in, or bored by, his articles. They are just the right level of difficulty and length for me. And they are always on subjects that interest me. I hope his contributions here become a regular feature.
There is literally no evidence whatsoever that Trump will lose the election because of his 'support for the carnage in Gaza'. All polling data shows that this is a voting priority for a very small proportion of the voting population, the vast majority of whom are on the far left. There are far more pro-Israel voters in America than pro-Palestinian. This is just pure hallucination, and the quoted authority is Keith Woods. I do not believe in - and have written against - overuse of the appellation antisemite, but Keith Woods without shadow of a doubt is an antisemite.
I thought about how to phrase this without coming off as a Jewy scold, but perhaps there is no way so I'll be blunt. It's not a secret that the new editor of Aporia, Noah Carl, favours the old Tory anti-Zionist/Israel stance on British foreign policy. That's a perfectly reasonable, if arguably somewhat quixotic, position to hold. No doubt, he has and will come in for unjustified allegations of antisemitism on this score. A really good way of not giving ammunition to unjust allegations of antisemitism is to not straight away turn the magazine you are editing into a forum where antisemites can make outright ridiculous claims. Everyone who has any familiarity with race-realist or white-advocacy politics will be familiar with the entryist tactics of antisemites and how they hollow out the institutions they attack, leaving them ineffective before moving on to a new one. Resisting this without setting up purity checks is genuinely a difficult problem, but you could at least *try* to do a good job at this by not promoting grifting liars like Keith Woods a week after getting the job.
I'm inclined to agree that Trump's stance on Israel is unlikely to cost him many votes. But there is nothing remotely anti-Semitic in the article. (Note that I have worked at Aporia for over a year.)
The article quotes a well-known antisemite saying something nonsensical and obviously false, the only context that makes it explicable being the fact that he is a well-known antisemite.
Keith Woods' article, which Peter Frost linked to, states: "Harris’ position is the popular one: polling has consistently shown strong support for a ceasefire among Americans, including even a majority of Republicans". This is neither anti-Semitic nor "nonsensical" (although, like you, I believe it is an invalid conclusion to draw from the polling data).
The argument that if you publish an article that links to another article by someone who is accused of anti-Semitism (even if that other article doesn't say anything anti-Semitic) then you are turning the magazine into a "forum where antisemites can make outright ridiculous claims" is not a reasonable one.
He is not accused of antisemitism. He is openly and overtly antisemitic (though if you asked him outright he might say something gay like he was a countersemite). The belief that Jews are responsible for the problems of white people, and that these problems can only be solved by fighting Jewish power is a major theme of his writing. That's like saying that Wilhem Marr was 'accused' of antisemitism.
My argument is quite simple: if you say something ridiculous (and, for the record, the abbreviated summary you approved is somehow actually substantially more retarded than the original) about Jews, and you attribute that view to a prolific antisemite principally known for his advocacy of antisemitism, then you are signalling adherence to antisemitism (or are an incompetent editor). To repeat my original comment, this entryism problem is one that all institutions that advocate for race realism and/or white interests have to deal with and often fail to do so with disastrous results for themselves and the cause they purport to promote. Threading that needle is difficult, but you can *try*.
I understand your argument, but I don't think it's reasonable. During the Great Awokening, I came across many arguments with the same logical structure (only replacing "anti-Semitism" with "racism" or "white supremacy"), and I didn't find them reasonable either.
Two arguments can be structurally identical and one can be true and the other not. For example, I might point at two items of food and say 'don't eat that because it's poisonous' and in one case I am correct, and in the other not.
The reason that this is different is that, unlike racism, antisemitism is an identifiable ideology with actual adherents that seek to spread their message and in particular, as a matter of historical record, make a point of glomming on to race-realist and white advocacy organisations. However, there are cases where this would also be true even for racism. For example, take the following two lines from a hypothetical article:
'Many of the segregationist laws and policies in pre-civil rights America were rational, if crude, attempts to protect the majority population from the problems of African American crime'
'Many of the segregationist laws and policies in pre-civil rights America were rational, if crude, attempts to protect the majority population from the problems of African American crime, as explained by Dylan Roof in his manifesto'.
One is a claim that can be debated, and one is something that shouldn't be printed. I agree that this is often a fine line to walk in practice, but in this case I don't think it was particularly difficult.
The Dem leadership supports Israel but say they'd like to see a ceasefire. Have they done anything to force Israel into accepting a ceasefire? If not, there's no significant difference between the Dem and the Trump positions. But maybe there's something going on behind the scenes that I've missed.
I honestly can’t grasp why there are people on the right who think anti-Zionism is some kind of palatable position for their camp as well. You don’t want an US evangelical morbid style relation with Israel? It’s fine and legit but then why gettin mad if IDF makes a carnage in Gaza or whatever? Just say you don’t give a fuck to what happens in Middle East. Getting care of Gaza won’t reduce but on the contrary reinforces pro-Zionist instincts IMO
It comes down to the theory that 3rd world immigration and all of the other problems are a product of Jewish power. So if you combat Jewish power, then you get rid of immigration. You might think that Keith Woods would notice that the country he literally lives in, Ireland, is one of the most pro-Palestine in Europe and also a left-wing nuthouse, whereas the most pro-Israel countries in Europe are also the most successful at restricting immigration. But he can always change the topic to how a Jewish sociologist in 1912 wrote something or some bullshit.
They also tend to be uninterested in internal Jewish divisions. Hence, their caricature of a Jew is an Orthodox Jew in full traditional clothing, and their complaints about Zionist, when all the actual Jews involved in the movements they object to tend to be secular (or a most Reform) anti-Zionists.
I have replied to this argument in a previous comment. Briefly put:
- More Americans disapprove of this military action than approve.
- Keith Woods is an intelligent and astute thinker. If you insult him, you're insulting me.
- I am not anti-Israel. Israel has led the way in many progressive and enlightened policies. It is the only country that has succeeded in raising the fertility rate above replacement — even among nonreligious people. And it has done so without resorting to coercion.
- Nonetheless, I cannot condone what is happening in Gaza and, increasingly, in the West Bank. I am a moral person with a conscience, and I do not hesitate to condemn this so-called "war." This is not a war. This is mass-murder of innocent civilians.
"If you believe, as I do, that Euro-Americans have inherent qualities worth preserving, then you must prepare yourself for a collective effort that will transcend any one party or politician."
I do believe that. But the 'collective effort' you suggest must, at its heart, be the destruction of the Deep State. The Deep State controls this country, so it does not matter who is 'elected' president—they will be titular. The electoral process in the United States is nonfunctional.
Eastern Europe was once ruled by regimes that seemed all-powerful. No regime, however, can save itself from its own contradictions. Reality is the greatest enemy of those who abuse power.
Not remotely. Most activism is not done by actual parties and party members, but by "third party" groups. Moreover, restricting the use of money but not the use of time (or social media) only gives giant advantage to the welfare, activist, and luxury belief camps, all at the expense of the workers and the parents.
There is no way to restrict money without creating more injustice than justice. What is needed is vastly more transparency.
"Isn't the solution to prohibit any and all donations to political parties and to limit membership dues to US$ 100 p.a. per member?"
Yes, but the SCOTUS is a party to the current situation by an incredibly stupid decision.
'The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
These decisions have codified that money is free speech, thereby giving entities of wealth and power total influence in elections.'
"Hint: Citizens United means the little guys are allowed to pull their money together to fight to (sic) big guy."
You say 'we' consider me a fool because my ideas are idiotic, yet you are too stupid to see that each of those decisions supports the narrative that money is free speech, which is a dumbass proposition. As for the idea that Citizens United was to help the little guy, it also allowed the big guys to pool their money. Those decisions are almost fifty years old. The wealth difference between the 1% and the 99% has increased tremendously.
I am talking about changing whatever US statutes govern donations to Political Parties, Political Campaigns etc, by prohibiting these going forward. Once statute law has been changed in this way, the courts have no option to render judgments aligned with the law (unless there is something in the US Constitution saying there is an inalienable right to pay bribes to political parties).
One additional issue re the immigration issue is that the vast majority of immigrants and their descendants in the US will be eligible for affirmative action preferences. I believe there may be similar programs to an extent in Europe. Affirmative action was originaly instituted in the late 1960s, as an allegedly temporary measure, to make up for past legal discrimination, against Black and Native Americans, and then expanded to cover people of Asian and Spanish heritage. It has now been expanded to apply, ad infinitum, to all new arrivals who somehow fit under one of the special classes, never mind that they have zero connection to the pre 1964 Civil Rights Act USA, now 60 years in the past. It makes no sense to me! On top of that, the special class status applies to all people of Spanish heritage. A 100% white Argentinain American, for example, can benefit from affirmative action. The more you look into the implementation of these programs, the less rationality there is apart from always giving European Americans the short end of the stick. People mix now more than ever, but I believe someone who has only one grandparent with special class status can still benefit from affirmative action policies. So say, you have one Welsh Argentinian grandparent and 3 otherwise European American grandparents, your're still eligible for affirmative action. Asian Americans may not typically benefit from affirmative action in college admissions now because they perform so well on tests and GPA, but they still can get extra hiring points for many jobs (outside of tech), and are also eligible for special govetment loans, etc., despite having higher incomes and otherwise being ahead of European Americans in many metrics. The Biden administration, which Harris will no doubt continue if elected, is seeking to expand affirmative action now to people of Middle Eastern heritage, despite them previously being classified as white even in the bad old days. They also seek to make all people in anyway of Spanish heritage, (including Spaniards!), a seperate racial category. It's all nuts! But at the end of the day European Americans (not counting people with any Spanish connection, or at least one qualifiying ancestor in another category) are at the short end of the stick for all this, but many of them (including lots I know), will vote for Harris regardless, who is in the lead at this point, and thereby making life that much more difficult for them and their offspring.
The US was founded by people of Northwest European origin. That population is characterized by weak kinship ties, a high level of individualism, and moral universalism (the idea that rules should apply equally to everybody). Yes, there was slavery, but the movement to abolish slavery came from that same population. Abolitionism didn't develop elsewhere.
Today, the US, like the West in general, is being replaced by populations that think much more along tribal lines. "Affirmative action" began as a high-minded idea but it has since been repurposed to achieve tribal aims. Unfortunately, this will continue until the American people realize what is happening.
If you think Trump's support for the carnage in Gaza is going to lose him the election, then I wonder about the relevance of the rest of your argument. The vast majority of Americans support Israel, as they should; the Democrats have stabbed Israel in the back. But progressives who hate Trump more than they like America or Israel will use anything to vote against him.The best thing that could happen to the Palestinians is total Israeli victory over the country's declared rabid enemies. As for abortion, Trump would probably prefer it go away as an issue; hence his support for leaving it to the states. Not a bad idea given the passions the issue elicits, almost akin to the slavery issue preceding the Civil War. The Supreme Court did not rule on abortion; only on the legal reasoning justifying Roe v. Wade. The justices made it clear that if someone wanted the Supreme Court to rule on abortion, they should bring such a case before them. As for IVF, there are many other considerations, not least fo which is the likely possibility that it will be used, understandably, to select embryos with high intelligence genetic heritage, leading us into a new kind of brave new world. But few want to talk about that. Indeed, few want to talk about any of the thorny issues a modern complex society throws up, since most people, especially social science academics, are caught in the web of critical theory which is anything but critical.
I'm a Brit so can't judge whether most Americans support Israel or Hamas/Palestine. However, I do know that there are otherwise sensible people who will always tend to choose a ceasefire over continued war, partly because they haven't really thought things through (what Thomas Sowell calls 'Stage One thinking') and partly because they think all good people should support a ceasefire, no matter the terms or the long term feasibility of it holding.
By the way, I recommend you don't engage with 'Realist'. The man is a monomaniac who immediately goes nuclear if you hold a position he dislikes. Best ignored.
It's not a "war" — anymore than the Holocaust was a "war." It's an exercise in population reduction.
You are right, it's not a war. It is whatever it is that the IDF, in the wake of the 7 Oct massacre, is trying to do to Hamas, who have embedded themselves and the Isarelis they have kidnapped among the Palestinian people, some of whom are presumably totally on board with Hamas and some whom presumably aren't. That's what it is.
"The man is a monomaniac who immediately goes nuclear if you hold a position he dislikes."
Actually, that is precisely what the two Zionists did to me. And you have in the past.
I give in kind.
It's important to distinguish between "what I think" and "what most Americans think." According to the latest Gallup poll (June 2024), more Americans disapprove (48%) than approve (42%) of Israel's military action in Gaza. https://news.gallup.com/poll/646955/disapproval-israeli-action-gaza-eases-slightly.aspx
"What I think" is another matter. If you control the flow of information, you can make most people believe almost anything. I learned long ago that the news media is generally a money-losing operation and that people don't invest in it to make a profit; they invest in it to shape public opinion and, ultimately, public policy. That's why I prefer to inform myself from a variety of sources.
According to Haaeretz (a leading Israeli newspaper), the purpose of the Israeli military action is not to "defeat Hamas." It's to depopulate the Gaza Strip as much as possible.
"Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that Israel must control the territory in the Gaza Strip and significantly reduce the number of Palestinian residents in Gaza. ... "If there are 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza and not two million, the whole discourse about the day after will be different," he said."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-31/ty-article/100-200-000-not-two-million-israels-finance-minister-envisions-depopulated-gaza/0000018c-bfe8-d6c4-ab8d-fffc0b910000
I could quote other members of the Israeli cabinet. In my opinion, this so-called "military action" will turn world opinion against Israel, if it has not done so already.
On the abortion issue, it would be better if Trump said he opposes late-term abortions while supporting free access to abortion during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.
I have seen polls that say most Americans - up to 80% - back Israel over the Palestinian thugs in Gaza. I would not quote Ha'aretz on anything. It is a left-wing anti-Zionist rag that is stridently opposed to Netanyahu and legitimate Israeli rights to all land west of the Jordan River. Finance Minister Smotrich has been the most intelligent and eloquent defender of Israeli actions and ultimate war aims. This is a war. Hamas along with ordinary Palestinians attacked Israel viciously on October 7 and have declared they will do so again and again, along with Hezbollah, Iran, the Houthis. World opinion as expressed by the antisemitic leaders of the western world has already turned against Israel, so Israel has nothing to learn from them, nor should it commit suicide to please people who know nothing about the Middle East, its history, the history of the Jews, Arab Muslim society, etc. Israel did not start this war. Hamas did, aiming to eliminate Israel and kill its citizens, just as they wantonly did on October 7 and just as Arab Muslims have been doing for over a century to Jews even when the area was under Ottoman and British control. But Israel should finish it, secure life for its citizens, 60 to 80 thousand of whom are displaced from its north. Hamas must be destroyed, Gaza conquered, its population placed under severe control for decades or there will be no peace in the land.
It would be better if Trump said many things differently, but he is what he is and speaks how he speaks. I am writing a piece about that for my next piece on my substack. It is borderline hilarious if it were not so serious how the mainstream media and otherwise apparently intelligent people rise to the bait and increase the volume every time the man speaks. That said, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Biden-Harris administration have been disastrous on almost every front. One has only to look at the news, which I no longer watch. Someone today showed me a clip of Venezuelan gangsters who are now terrorizing a Colorado town. Is this a movie you want coming to a theatre near you?
"The vast majority of Americans support Israel, as they should; the Democrats have stabbed Israel in the back."
If you think the majority of Americans should support the genocide and wanton slaughter of Palestinians, then I wonder about the relevance of the rest of your argument.
There is no genocide, which means a deliberate policy of extermination of a people. There is also no wanton slaughter of Palestinians, in contrast to wanton Palestinian slaughter of Israelis. All you have to do is look at the figures of population growth, proportion of civilian to military casualties, not to mention the historical record of Muslim Arab and now Palestinian deliberate wanton killing of Jews. You might want to note that the current war Hamas unleashed against Israel is called by Hamas the Al-Aksa Flood, the latest repetition of the blood libel "the Al-Aksa mosque is in danger." No fool like an ignorant fool.
Unfortunately, you're wrong.
How so?
"No fool like an ignorant fool."
So you consider me an ignorant fool because I disagree with you on this issue? That is typical of Zionists. Seventy-six years ago, the UK, with the compliance of the United States, committed a travesty against international law and the Arab people living in the area by forcing the occupation of Jews.
> So you consider me an ignorant fool because I disagree with you on this issue?
No, we consider you a fool because your position is idiotic, and frankly not just on this issue.
"No, we consider you a fool because your position is idiotic, and frankly not just on this issue."
Who is 'we'? You now speak for others?
You are a troll.
Who cares? You seem to have a lot of moral confusion: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2023/10/israel-palestine-and-moral-confusion.html
"You seem to have a lot of moral confusion:"
You have posted a non-sequitur. I have no moral confusion. Do you understand what quotation marks mean?
I meant what I said. You're only labeling the Israeli occupation of their historical homeland as a "genocide" because you dislike it and you think that it's "evil", but in reality, "evil" is an incoherent concept. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2020/07/what-is-morality.html
"You're only labeling the Israeli occupation of their historical homeland as a "genocide" because you dislike it and you think that it's "evil", but in reality, "evil" is an incoherent concept."
It is not their historical homeland; people were living there long before the Jews.
I dislike it because the Israelis are expanding their control beyond what was illegally given to them in 1948.
So you don't believe the Nazis were evil because "evil" is an incoherent concept."?
Yes, it is their homeland, and they can absolutely occupy it if they have the force and military might to reconquer it.
Yes, I meant what I said. Your idea of "evil" is incoherent. The Nazis weren't anymore "evil" than the Allied Powers. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2017/11/nazism.html
Please say this louder and more publicly, so that the rest of the world can see how deluded you 21st-century Nazis are.
"Please say this louder and more publicly, so that the rest of the world can see how deluded you 21st-century Nazis are."
Typical of you Zionist assholes to start ad hominems.
I find interesting that U.S. whites' fertility seems most *positively* correlated with income: https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figure1-101-w640.png May have significant consequences long term.
I've written an explanation for this on my website: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/overpopulation-FAQs#rising-wealth-and-fertility
Yes, apparently more so than Asian Americans. That's not what I would expect.
A fabulous article. I myself am a Brit living in Utah surrounded by Mormons. The wife is Californian and although there isn’t much to do out here we are making babies at pace (3rd boy due in a month) and people embrace family out here. It’s like living in the past. When the wife goes back to CA heavily pregnant with a toddler boy in each hand people look at her like she is an insane person or look down on her with pity, wondering what awful man has done this to her. It’s hilarious. White need to get their shit together and get their heads out their arses. Don’t get me wrong I’m lucky. But if you don’t seen yourself as the result of thousands if not millions of those who struggles before you to get you here then that’s a damn shame. Culture starts at home. Make some.
Most people are conformists. If they see other people having kids, they'll want to do likewise.
Unfortunately, the reverse is also true.
A strangely optimistic take. I hope you’re right! At the very least those who deselect themselves from the gene pool seem to me, reducing anti natal traits from our future generations.
Great article. I think Peter Frost must write very well since I never get lost in, or bored by, his articles. They are just the right level of difficulty and length for me. And they are always on subjects that interest me. I hope his contributions here become a regular feature.
Thanks!
There is literally no evidence whatsoever that Trump will lose the election because of his 'support for the carnage in Gaza'. All polling data shows that this is a voting priority for a very small proportion of the voting population, the vast majority of whom are on the far left. There are far more pro-Israel voters in America than pro-Palestinian. This is just pure hallucination, and the quoted authority is Keith Woods. I do not believe in - and have written against - overuse of the appellation antisemite, but Keith Woods without shadow of a doubt is an antisemite.
I thought about how to phrase this without coming off as a Jewy scold, but perhaps there is no way so I'll be blunt. It's not a secret that the new editor of Aporia, Noah Carl, favours the old Tory anti-Zionist/Israel stance on British foreign policy. That's a perfectly reasonable, if arguably somewhat quixotic, position to hold. No doubt, he has and will come in for unjustified allegations of antisemitism on this score. A really good way of not giving ammunition to unjust allegations of antisemitism is to not straight away turn the magazine you are editing into a forum where antisemites can make outright ridiculous claims. Everyone who has any familiarity with race-realist or white-advocacy politics will be familiar with the entryist tactics of antisemites and how they hollow out the institutions they attack, leaving them ineffective before moving on to a new one. Resisting this without setting up purity checks is genuinely a difficult problem, but you could at least *try* to do a good job at this by not promoting grifting liars like Keith Woods a week after getting the job.
I'm inclined to agree that Trump's stance on Israel is unlikely to cost him many votes. But there is nothing remotely anti-Semitic in the article. (Note that I have worked at Aporia for over a year.)
The article quotes a well-known antisemite saying something nonsensical and obviously false, the only context that makes it explicable being the fact that he is a well-known antisemite.
Keith Woods' article, which Peter Frost linked to, states: "Harris’ position is the popular one: polling has consistently shown strong support for a ceasefire among Americans, including even a majority of Republicans". This is neither anti-Semitic nor "nonsensical" (although, like you, I believe it is an invalid conclusion to draw from the polling data).
The argument that if you publish an article that links to another article by someone who is accused of anti-Semitism (even if that other article doesn't say anything anti-Semitic) then you are turning the magazine into a "forum where antisemites can make outright ridiculous claims" is not a reasonable one.
He is not accused of antisemitism. He is openly and overtly antisemitic (though if you asked him outright he might say something gay like he was a countersemite). The belief that Jews are responsible for the problems of white people, and that these problems can only be solved by fighting Jewish power is a major theme of his writing. That's like saying that Wilhem Marr was 'accused' of antisemitism.
My argument is quite simple: if you say something ridiculous (and, for the record, the abbreviated summary you approved is somehow actually substantially more retarded than the original) about Jews, and you attribute that view to a prolific antisemite principally known for his advocacy of antisemitism, then you are signalling adherence to antisemitism (or are an incompetent editor). To repeat my original comment, this entryism problem is one that all institutions that advocate for race realism and/or white interests have to deal with and often fail to do so with disastrous results for themselves and the cause they purport to promote. Threading that needle is difficult, but you can *try*.
I understand your argument, but I don't think it's reasonable. During the Great Awokening, I came across many arguments with the same logical structure (only replacing "anti-Semitism" with "racism" or "white supremacy"), and I didn't find them reasonable either.
Two arguments can be structurally identical and one can be true and the other not. For example, I might point at two items of food and say 'don't eat that because it's poisonous' and in one case I am correct, and in the other not.
The reason that this is different is that, unlike racism, antisemitism is an identifiable ideology with actual adherents that seek to spread their message and in particular, as a matter of historical record, make a point of glomming on to race-realist and white advocacy organisations. However, there are cases where this would also be true even for racism. For example, take the following two lines from a hypothetical article:
'Many of the segregationist laws and policies in pre-civil rights America were rational, if crude, attempts to protect the majority population from the problems of African American crime'
'Many of the segregationist laws and policies in pre-civil rights America were rational, if crude, attempts to protect the majority population from the problems of African American crime, as explained by Dylan Roof in his manifesto'.
One is a claim that can be debated, and one is something that shouldn't be printed. I agree that this is often a fine line to walk in practice, but in this case I don't think it was particularly difficult.
The Dem leadership supports Israel but say they'd like to see a ceasefire. Have they done anything to force Israel into accepting a ceasefire? If not, there's no significant difference between the Dem and the Trump positions. But maybe there's something going on behind the scenes that I've missed.
On the issue of Gaza, the Democratic position is pretty clearly an attempt to straddle the issue.
I honestly can’t grasp why there are people on the right who think anti-Zionism is some kind of palatable position for their camp as well. You don’t want an US evangelical morbid style relation with Israel? It’s fine and legit but then why gettin mad if IDF makes a carnage in Gaza or whatever? Just say you don’t give a fuck to what happens in Middle East. Getting care of Gaza won’t reduce but on the contrary reinforces pro-Zionist instincts IMO
It comes down to the theory that 3rd world immigration and all of the other problems are a product of Jewish power. So if you combat Jewish power, then you get rid of immigration. You might think that Keith Woods would notice that the country he literally lives in, Ireland, is one of the most pro-Palestine in Europe and also a left-wing nuthouse, whereas the most pro-Israel countries in Europe are also the most successful at restricting immigration. But he can always change the topic to how a Jewish sociologist in 1912 wrote something or some bullshit.
They also tend to be uninterested in internal Jewish divisions. Hence, their caricature of a Jew is an Orthodox Jew in full traditional clothing, and their complaints about Zionist, when all the actual Jews involved in the movements they object to tend to be secular (or a most Reform) anti-Zionists.
I have replied to this argument in a previous comment. Briefly put:
- More Americans disapprove of this military action than approve.
- Keith Woods is an intelligent and astute thinker. If you insult him, you're insulting me.
- I am not anti-Israel. Israel has led the way in many progressive and enlightened policies. It is the only country that has succeeded in raising the fertility rate above replacement — even among nonreligious people. And it has done so without resorting to coercion.
- Nonetheless, I cannot condone what is happening in Gaza and, increasingly, in the West Bank. I am a moral person with a conscience, and I do not hesitate to condemn this so-called "war." This is not a war. This is mass-murder of innocent civilians.
Keith Woods is a lying grifter, and I'll happily insult you.
I've written about what the most ideal logistics for keeping America majority European would look like: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#logistics-for-creating-ethnostates.
I don't think it's the most important issue that we're facing, but I would support it if it's possible. And I say that as a mixed-race American.
Find me this free-market advocate who says that culture doesn't matter. Find me just one such person.
The Cato Institute?
"If you believe, as I do, that Euro-Americans have inherent qualities worth preserving, then you must prepare yourself for a collective effort that will transcend any one party or politician."
I do believe that. But the 'collective effort' you suggest must, at its heart, be the destruction of the Deep State. The Deep State controls this country, so it does not matter who is 'elected' president—they will be titular. The electoral process in the United States is nonfunctional.
Eastern Europe was once ruled by regimes that seemed all-powerful. No regime, however, can save itself from its own contradictions. Reality is the greatest enemy of those who abuse power.
Isn't the solution to prohibit any and all donations to political parties and to limit membership dues to US$ 100 p.a. per member?
Not remotely. Most activism is not done by actual parties and party members, but by "third party" groups. Moreover, restricting the use of money but not the use of time (or social media) only gives giant advantage to the welfare, activist, and luxury belief camps, all at the expense of the workers and the parents.
There is no way to restrict money without creating more injustice than justice. What is needed is vastly more transparency.
Yes, it's sad how easily people are manipulated into supporting "anti-elite" policies that will actually give the elites more power.
"Isn't the solution to prohibit any and all donations to political parties and to limit membership dues to US$ 100 p.a. per member?"
Yes, but the SCOTUS is a party to the current situation by an incredibly stupid decision.
'The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
These decisions have codified that money is free speech, thereby giving entities of wealth and power total influence in elections.'
Do you even know what those decisions are about?
Hint: Citizens United means the little guys are allowed to pull their money together to fight the big guy.
The deep state wasn't too happy about that decision, unfortunately they've been rather successful at fooling people into opposing it.
"Hint: Citizens United means the little guys are allowed to pull their money together to fight to (sic) big guy."
You say 'we' consider me a fool because my ideas are idiotic, yet you are too stupid to see that each of those decisions supports the narrative that money is free speech, which is a dumbass proposition. As for the idea that Citizens United was to help the little guy, it also allowed the big guys to pool their money. Those decisions are almost fifty years old. The wealth difference between the 1% and the 99% has increased tremendously.
> As for the idea that Citizens United was to help the little guy, it also allowed the big guys to pool their money.
The big guys don't need to pool their money.
> Those decisions are almost fifty years old.
And you're still saying idiotic things about them.
"And you're still saying idiotic things about them."
They are still allowing the rich to control elections.
The rich don't control our elections.
Yes, they have more influence, but that's always going to be the case.
I am talking about changing whatever US statutes govern donations to Political Parties, Political Campaigns etc, by prohibiting these going forward. Once statute law has been changed in this way, the courts have no option to render judgments aligned with the law (unless there is something in the US Constitution saying there is an inalienable right to pay bribes to political parties).
"I am talking about changing whatever US statutes govern donations to Political Parties, Political Campaigns etc, by prohibiting these going forward."
But, that would require Congress's approval and Congress is controlled by the Deep State. This will not happen peacefully.
One additional issue re the immigration issue is that the vast majority of immigrants and their descendants in the US will be eligible for affirmative action preferences. I believe there may be similar programs to an extent in Europe. Affirmative action was originaly instituted in the late 1960s, as an allegedly temporary measure, to make up for past legal discrimination, against Black and Native Americans, and then expanded to cover people of Asian and Spanish heritage. It has now been expanded to apply, ad infinitum, to all new arrivals who somehow fit under one of the special classes, never mind that they have zero connection to the pre 1964 Civil Rights Act USA, now 60 years in the past. It makes no sense to me! On top of that, the special class status applies to all people of Spanish heritage. A 100% white Argentinain American, for example, can benefit from affirmative action. The more you look into the implementation of these programs, the less rationality there is apart from always giving European Americans the short end of the stick. People mix now more than ever, but I believe someone who has only one grandparent with special class status can still benefit from affirmative action policies. So say, you have one Welsh Argentinian grandparent and 3 otherwise European American grandparents, your're still eligible for affirmative action. Asian Americans may not typically benefit from affirmative action in college admissions now because they perform so well on tests and GPA, but they still can get extra hiring points for many jobs (outside of tech), and are also eligible for special govetment loans, etc., despite having higher incomes and otherwise being ahead of European Americans in many metrics. The Biden administration, which Harris will no doubt continue if elected, is seeking to expand affirmative action now to people of Middle Eastern heritage, despite them previously being classified as white even in the bad old days. They also seek to make all people in anyway of Spanish heritage, (including Spaniards!), a seperate racial category. It's all nuts! But at the end of the day European Americans (not counting people with any Spanish connection, or at least one qualifiying ancestor in another category) are at the short end of the stick for all this, but many of them (including lots I know), will vote for Harris regardless, who is in the lead at this point, and thereby making life that much more difficult for them and their offspring.
The US was founded by people of Northwest European origin. That population is characterized by weak kinship ties, a high level of individualism, and moral universalism (the idea that rules should apply equally to everybody). Yes, there was slavery, but the movement to abolish slavery came from that same population. Abolitionism didn't develop elsewhere.
Today, the US, like the West in general, is being replaced by populations that think much more along tribal lines. "Affirmative action" began as a high-minded idea but it has since been repurposed to achieve tribal aims. Unfortunately, this will continue until the American people realize what is happening.
Where did you find this guy?