Rep. Steve King, the nativist Republican congressman from Iowa who has likened illegal immigrants to "livestock," is just asking questions. In a New York Times interview, he says:

"White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive?" Mr. King said. "Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?"

In the recent past (2017) King insisted that "we can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies," and only a few years before that (2013) he insisted that "there isn't anyone that can fairly characterize me as anti-immigrant." Which pretty much tells you what kind of bubble the guy is living in: He's openly hostile to immigration, both legal and illegal, but refuses to admit as much.

Still, even if the Vietnam draft-dodger can't be swayed, it's worth at least pointing out to those who might be open to discussion that equating America with whiteness is fundamentally un-American. The United States has a deeply troubled history with race and racism, but one of the few things that makes our country different is that we aspire to be a nation that aspires (and often achieves) a sense of identity that goes far beyond blood and soil. Take it away, Jean de Crevecouer in Letters from an American Farmer (1782):

What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.

He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.



I've noted elsewhere that Crevecoeur has his limits (among other things, he speaks only of men and he owned slaves for a time). But he accurately captures a process by which America is a country that has long aspired to be a place where people could be judged, in Martin Luther King's phrase, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

It's disturbing that members of the federal government, such as Steve King, persist in identitarian politics. Yet in a country that is more genuinely diverse and less racist than ever, his sort of thinking signals nothing more than the death rattle of the racial collectivism that has always stained American history.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Movie ending is one of the biggest nut punches EVER. I heard from someone somewhere that after King saw the new ending, he said he wished he would of thought of that ending. Not sure if that’s true…but it should be.

his sort of thinking signals nothing more than the death rattle of the racial collectivism that has always stained American history.

Anyone who thinks that racial collectivism is undergoing its “death rattle” hasn’t read the slobbering over Ta-Nehisi Coates or glanced a roster of Humanities/Social Science majors in our nation’s universities.

It’s typical Nick. White Nationalism has been waning for decades while celebrating black and other nationalisms under the banner of diversity has been the norm. Now that white nationalism reveals itself as being just shy of ‘not dead yet’ he likes to pretend it is because white nationalism (but not black, or Mexican/latino, or Chinese, or Korean, etc., etc.) is icky.

Yup. Ethnic solidarity is something that is FORCED on people when they’re in close contact with other ethnic groups, who inevitably act collectively in what they deem to be their groups interest.

The reason white identity politics is becoming a thing, is exactly BECAUSE we have so many other ethnic blocks actively attacking whites, and trying to push agendas that favor their people.

A thing I find HIGHLY amusing is Europeans. They always ragged on Americans as being horrible for being racist against blacks. Now that Europe basically for the first time has enough non whites there to matter, enough to finally start winning political power, enough to start making demands that the natives give up their traditions, do this that and the other… They’re fucking freaking out!

Welcome to the club boys, this is the shit Americans have been dealing with since the founding of the country. They’re complaining about no go zones in cities, which American cities have had since slavery ended.

I came to the conclusion a while ago that if you want a stable, functional, peaceful society… It needs to be at least 80-90% homogenous. It’s fine to throw a little “spice” in there… But once there is no longer a super majority group calling the shots, everything turns to massive infighting. History shows this to be true in basically all cases. And it’s where the USA is now. So we’re basically fucked as a nation. Oh well.

However if you get people of different identities to at least focus on the one important thing a nation rather than their own groups self interest then a nation can survive much like China is doing now by abolishing muslims and christians. its a great example.

If you depend solely on cultural homogeneity to maintain the peace, there’s no amount of conformity that will suffice. People who want to fight will fight over the most trivial thing.

If you depend solely on cultural homogeneity to maintain the peace, there’s no amount of conformity that will suffice. People who want to fight will fight over the most trivial thing

It’s not the sole means, but it is a primary one. It’s not exactly a coincidence that a lot of African nations fell to tribal infighting after the colonial era–because those countries’ borders were drawn up in contravention to established tribal territories.

Ron, in theory. But in practice Civic Nationalism has basically never worked, sarc meter blaring or not!

sharmota4zeb, here’s the thing bro: People can deal with problems. The question is HOW MANY problems can people deal with, and still be functional as a society?

So, it in fact GREATLY helps with keeping a nation stable and happy. People will always argue about things to be sure, but removing a ton of points of conflict reduces the number of issues.

How much racial strife does Japan have right now? How many race riots have they had? How many identity politics groups do they have that explicitly demand the Japanese give up aspects of traditional Japanese culture? How many laws do they have that explicitly favor non Japanese people over Japanese people?

The answer is basically none. They have none of those issues, or tons of others, because they’re mostly homogenous.

People who think like you are forgetting that ethnicity and religion are THE 2 biggest causes of wars in history… And you want to import EXACTLY those 2 problems into the west. You can see the shit show of results we’re getting.

You’re demanding everybody turn off one of the core features of human nature… And it just ain’t working. If you worth WITH human nature, instead of demand people fight it 24/7, you usually get better results. Live in the real world dude, it’s not such a bad place.

It honestly seems to be about right. Makes sense. At 90%, that group is so obviously in charge, everybody knows you aren’t going to win an argument with them. When it’s 80/70/60%, all of a sudden it seems possible.

A classroom with a teacher clearly in charge can maintain order… You take the teacher away, and with nobody CLEARLY in charge, it all descends into chaos.

Yes, “white identity politics” are only just now becoming a thing in reaction to what other ethnic groups started. That’s a great summarization of the history of racial politics in the US.

America could function fine with a super majority of constitutionalists. It’s not race, but commitment to procedure that keeps America united.

You’re saying that humans could walk on the sun, if only we had heat resistant suits. Maybe, but such suits have never existed, do not exist now, and probably never will.

Every single ethnic group in America leans strongly left… Except whites. If you want to get into the psychology, it’s probably because white Americans can IDENTIFY with the founders. To others they’re just “old white guys,” “RACIST old white guys,” or “whatever.”

White Americans say WE did this, that, or the other. We do the same about European accomplishments. Blacks, Asians, etc DO NOT say that. They say THEY did that in many instances. It is a telling thing.

That psychology plays into it. It is fundamental to human nature to favor our family, and then extended family, and our “tribe,” and this instinct extended itself to ethnicity/race as we lived in larger groups.

You’re premise is the same as the communists: Why can’t we just do this thing that has never worked before? All you have to do is ignore fundamental parts of human nature, and we can have the new Soviet Man!

You ask the same of people, and it ain’t working. When I see blacks, Hispanics, etc stop acting in their group interests, THEN I will consider it is MAYBE possible to have a functional society based on Civic Nationalism… Until then, not so much.

Blacks, Asians, etc DO NOT say that. They say THEY did that in many instances. It is a telling thing.

Sometimes! Between the two, that is almost better though… At least it seems to indicate they’re trying to be a part of our civilization, and not seeing themselves as an other.

Being totes down with pimping the beltway creatures over at the Bulwark as the ‘true voice’ of conservatism.

This is an unfair smear of Steve King. He is not a white supremacist. He can’t be – he is an ally of Israel and the Jews!

He’s probably not… Most people that get called that are really white nationalists, if even that. Which is NOT an inherently bad thing.

Half the wars in recent memory could have been avoided if people had simply allowed those with different ethnicities, cultures, or religions to peacefully secede to create their own nation states. Forcing people that have wildly disparate world views to live together is what makes problems.

This guy is funny. Give him a show! Wedge him between Meyers and Kimmel. And make Silverman his first guest.

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization?how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said.

It’s lovely how the good representative conflates white supremacism and Western civilization by insinuating that they’re together in shame, when they’re actually not.

Not really. White nationalism doesn’t have anything to do with being a supremacist, per se. And it certainly wasn’t considered offensive in the past. It was the de facto position basically everybody in the entire country held until WELL into the 20th century. It was enshrined in law until 1965.

The Japanese have decided they want to remain Japanese… Does that automatically imply they’re Japanese supremacists? Or maybe, just that they don’t want to have all the ethnic tensions that Europe and America have brought on themselves by letting in so many foreigners?

Because we have really created massive problems in the western world by allowing in tons of people who have thus far not fit in well. Maybe the kinks will work themselves out over time… Maybe they never will. Either way, if Japan doesn’t want to take the chance, that doesn’t mean they’re inherently evil or “offensive” as you put it.

The only people not fitting in well in America are those that are perpetually offended about how other people look and act and think. Some “cousinfucking white rednecks” (note the you’re acting like a version of Lester Maddox with the use of that phrase) are in that group. So are the indentarians on the left.

The bigotry has a silver lining, though. It is going to make the current Republican-conservative electoral coalition inconsequential over time.

My cousin who always needs help is staying in a temporary location for a week to give me a break, and I have no intention of fucking the guy. He’s straight, and I don’t want to be a paramour with his baby mama.

Now, if one’s cousin from the hood introduces one to his blood relative who wants to settle down with a nice man and be a housewife, is that so bad? What if one’s brother from another mother suggests the same thing?

Sorry dude, I’ve never fucked any of my cousins! I do, however, live in a large coastal city, make far more money than the average American, and clearly have about 75 IQ points on you… So not all people with common sense fuck their cousins.

Another problem with your thesis is that cousin fucking white rednecks aren’t fitting in. They’re doing fine. They’re far better off by any metrics one wants to choose than black Americans, Hispanics, etc. So you’re fighting an imaginary problem in your head.

I did take naked baths with some of them when we were toddlers though. But nothin’ ever got stuck in any bodily orifices.

Yup. Those Arabs were evil bastards. They castrated virtually 100% of their black slaves, and were far more prone to just executing them.

How come I didn’t get dun learnt about that in the guvmint schools? Or that blacks and Arabs maintained slavery long after it was abolished in the west? Hell there are STILL slaves in Africa.

Oooh, they weren’t teaching me history… They were just trying to indoctrinate me. It all makes sense now. You can’t make somebody feel guilty if you tell them they’re not worse than any other bunch of asshole humans, you have to lie to them and tell them your people were uniquely evil… Even if it’s not true.

Maintained? Like in the past tense? Because this stuff is still going on. Slavery is still an issue in many parts of the world including Africa, Haiti and the Middle East.

This may come as a shock to you, but the Japanese are as famous for their race-based notions of supremacy as anyone.

Since you’re too retarded to get the abstract point, let me give you another example that fits in with victim hood mentality.

Is if wrong for Fiji to not want to become a minority in their own nation? Because this is a thing, and a worry, in many south pacific island nations. Many of them have tightened up on rules for moving to those countries.

These are, of course, not affluent, brown-ish people… So since there’s a sympathy play, you HAVE to understand THEIR plight right?

It wouldn’t be fair for Chinese to move to some African number until they outnumber the natives, and destroy their culture right?

My point being that simply wanting YOUR civilization to continue, DOES NOT mean you hate anybody. It doesn’t even imply you think you’re any better. Just that you want your society to continue to exist. In the current world, it is impossible for many nations to continue to exist as they always have, because there are too many potential immigrants.

Cultures don’t have rights or responsibilities. At least not if you’re a Libertarian or non-collectivist, who are individualists.

The American culture, is what MADE America exist. If you like freedom, and the libertarian leaning ideals America had… That could not exist without the American culture. Chinese culture DID NOT make America. Nor did Ottoman culture. Or German culture. It was all British American culture that did it. Culture matters, A LOT.

You can be an individualist, and still accept that things BEYOND the individual exist. That’s basically what I am.

I’m also pragmatic, and realize that you can’t be 100% purist in the real world sometimes. Sometimes practical realities butt up against morals, and you have to choose between the two.

Should I starve to death, or should I steal a loaf of bread? Should I allow this person to screw me over BAD (but not physically harm me), or should I kill them?

That type of choice pops up all the time in the real world. I think it’s pretty easy to balance out practical with moral, and make a choice that is not horribly immoral, but has good results IRL.

You would apparently prefer to destroy the only civilization on earth that actually cares about many types of freedom, in order to protect a single very minor freedom, international freedom of movement.

When one obtains citizenship, one obtains a right to vote. That power to vote enables one to impose one’s will upon others. So immigration is more than just freedom of movement. It is also about political control.

Cultures have changed and shifted throughout time and will continue to do so. To try to keep them from changing is impossible and dangerous.

To a couple posts up: That EVERYBODY gets to vote is half the problem. The founders were smart enough to put limits on WHO could vote, limiting it to only those that tended to be somewhat intelligent, and educated.

And yes cultures change… But to try to keep them from changing in BAD WAYS is NOT “impossible” or “dangerous.”

If cannibalism was becoming en vogue for some weird reason… Would it not be smart to try to suppress such a weird/deviant behavior? Of course that would be smart.

So if there are NEGATIVE changes happening, one should fight them tooth and nail. Depending on how dangerous the change, saaay going to full communism… It may well be worthwhile to kill people that are pushing for those changes, as it will avert an even greater disaster in the future.

But we’re already enormously more diverse than Japan. Even among different groups of white people there are huge cultural differences.

Well, the Japanese government has anyway. And, within Japan, that does mean they are Japanese supremacists. They have a long history of that sort of thing. At least they don’t apply it to the rest of Asia anymore.

See my above post. You don’t have to be a supremacist or hater to want your civilization to continue to exist.

Why the hell people think nations have an obligation to let in people who want to radically transform their society is beyond me… If you LIKE your culture, why would you want to let it be radically transformed?

People in Asia have seen the disaster this has caused in the west, and want no part of it. Over 500K Koreans protested the other day because some prog tard in their government decided to let in a few thousand so called refugees. The government backed down. As such, Asia will continue to exist. Europe and America may be destroyed for all eternity. It’s very sad.

America is not being destroyed by immigrants. That’s been the “sky is falling” rallying cry for generations and it’s never happened. As long the government upholds the rule of law and protects individuals rights, we will be fine no matter what culture people decide to enjoy. So our destruction will come at the hands of those people who dilute the rule of law and the rights of individuals through government policies. I would put white supremacists at the top of that list along with progressives. It’s very sad.

I don’t have a problem with letting in 50 million doctors, engineers, programmers, scientists, etc etc etc over the next couple decades… But 50 million people with elementary school educations, in a world with ever less employment for uneducated people… That will cause an ENTIRELY different situation to arise.

Scenario one, we would probably dramatically increase the economy and quality of life in the USA. There may be political issues, since immigrants are ALL leftists… But at least we’d have a strong economy.

Scenario two, would make the country poorer and shittier. AND poor people tend to vote even MORE left wing, because they’re the ones actually getting all the handouts.

If people like you get your way, and this country turns into a 2nd world, or even 3rd world, hellhole… Just remember that smarter people like me warned you.

White peoples should be proud of being white just like everyone else should be proud of what they are. The left wants to make it so white level feel ashamed of their own skin.

The “West” refers to nations that stayed Catholic during the Great Schism about 1,000 years ago. It’s the Protestant-Catholic nations. In my view, Western civilization includes many nations where White people are a minority. Plenty of Americans freak out over Eastern Europeans, because they can’t understand how some White Christians might not feel responsible for Western history.

The West has shifted over time, sometimes expanding, sometimes contracting. Largely based on where Europeans were politically ruling at the time, which included all kinds of shit around the Mediterranean. Now the majority European colonies around the world like the USA. Even Latin America is Western, they’re just a slightly more dysfunctional branch.

The near east and Europe are historically intertwined to the core though. The thing is, just as nobody would mistakenly believe the Middle East is the same as Chinese civilization, we are quite distinct too. Eastern Europe has strong overlap, with their own quirks.

“Motte-and-bailey argumentation”. Something new I recently learned about. It seems applicable.LINK

His kind spews hate against the transgender and the spewing is spread across the USA so that these things happens…

I would argue that his nationalism is deeply American. This is the country that enslaved black people for 300 years. This is the country that passed laws to prevent Chinese people from getting in. This is the country that basically exiled Indians (woo woo kind, not the dothead kind) to crappy land.

Its all you ‘diversity’, ‘equality’, ‘tolerance” (but only if you agree with me) whackos who are un-American.

That’s what happens when you teach prophets to write instead of letting the court scribe document all the news.

That’s all true… And all the same as every other fucking ethnic group on earth. We took over land! We enslaved people! OH NOES!

That’s HUMAN history, not just white history. We just happened to be the most badass ones at doing it, and everybody loves to hate the star quarterback!

I’m pretty sure this insane level of self hatred and tolerance to a fault is going to be ending soon anyway… It can’t survive in a country where 40% of the population is attacking the other 60% of the population vigorously. White people will be forced to fight back, which will bring in a big can of “fuck those fucking fuckers!” into the mix.

Yup. I love that they’re finally proving via DNA the theory that was developed based on bone structure in parts of the Americas. For those that don’t know, people related to the Aborigines of Australia AND Polynesian peoples both seem to have got to at least south America before the folks we call native Americans. They were replaced, probably with a combo of killing them off and interbreeding.

The ethnically cleansed my ancestors!!! A mere 3-10% of my poor, oppressed ancestors survived the African genocide in Europe, as is shown in modern European genes.

And yes indeed, the indigenous people of the Americas (the “Indians”) are one of the world’s greatest historical object lessons in the extreme potential danger of having open borders and not being able to sufficiently defend your territory.

Depending on how you want to count… Declaration of Independence was 1776 (243 years ago) Signing of the Constitution was 1787 (232 years ago)

Yup. There is a famous Indian, I think it might have been Russel Means, who has come out and said the last several years “White people, wake up. You don’t want to let the same thing happen to your people that happened to my people. It is not a good fate.”

And he is essentially spot on. Whites are a global minority by a HUGE amount already. There are more Ethnic Chinese OR Indians alone than ALL European peoples combined. So the idea that we’re uniquely undeserving of having homelands, just because we happen to make really nice countries, is a bunch of bullshit. We’re a minority. And it is all but guaranteed that Asia is going to dominate the shit out of global politics this century no matter what we do.

Something tells me most of the voters we are importing aren’t going to be real considerate of those ‘historic treaty obligations.’

I’ve actually heard some REALLY interesting stuff from some honest speaking black folks over the years too.

“Back in the day American basically had 2 groups of people to please: White people, and black people. It was rough, don’t get me wrong. But we only had to hash stuff out between us two. That was it. Now we have dozens of different special interest groups pouring in here, demanding a whole lot of different stuff. It complicates things. Not to mention the Mexicans, which are pouring in here literally fighting with the black community in gang wars, shooting our people… Taking our jobs, because we compete for the same kinds of work. But also now outnumber us that have been here for centuries, and muscling us out politically. Immigration is NOT good for black Americans.”

Essentially things along those lines. And it struck me that he is right. With 2 groups to haggle with, it’s not THAT complicated. Think now. Immigration bitching is spearheaded almost entirely by illegals and children of illegals… It would be a non issue if we’d kept that shit in check the last few decades.

Another black dude also brought up the fact that when whites are a minority, that NOBODY is going to give 2 fucks about helping blacks, because they won’t feel guilty for anything. Which is PAINFULLY honest on his part, but also true.

That’s true. And blacks are not going to be in any position to become the demographic majority at any conceivable time in the future.

I mean globally, blacks are the only ethnic group projected to massively grow in population over the next several decades. All other regions of the world have fertility trending downwards fast. Even places like India and South America are on track to be below replacement rate.

But not Africa! But yeah, if they ever wanted to take over here demographically, it would require them 10 folding immigration directly from Africa for decades on end. That just doesn’t seem likely.

The English, through colonialism, are the cause of that. Tossing off the yoke of said colonialism takes a while, just ask Haiti.

How could this country have enslaved anyone for 300 years when it’s only been in existence for 240 years (or thereabouts)?

This country enslaved black people for 89 years. The other 211 years belongs to that country, England.

(And the ones prior to those – e.g. the Dutch or the Swedes – largely preceded the wholesale importation of slave labor.)

The first Africans who came here to cultivate tobacco were actually free men. That they were literally sowing the seeds of wholesale enslavement is not ironic, it’s entirely apropos.

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization?how did that language become offensive?”

The scary thing is, modern leftists ARE demonizing the very idea of Western Civilization as being an outright evil thing nowadays…

Which is quite ironic since western civilization is the only one that could have produced modern leftists.

Western civilization has had plenty of dark chapters, but it’s not worse than any other civilization that has ever existed. Probably better than most. The reason it has been so successful is as much because it works as it is because of colonialism and things like that.

The reality is the “Europe is rich because of colonialism” trope is largely bogus. Europe is rich because they invented things that made people more productive. Throughout basically the entire history of every colonial empire, the home country was running in the red in terms of expenditures to finance their empire. The initial conquest of Mexico and South America being an exception because of all the gold they had, but that ran out before long anyway.

Africa, India, etc, they were all net losers. They made the GDP of a given empire bigger on paper, but they really didn’t enrich the home portion of the nations themselves very much at all. They probably could have done just as well, or better, signing exclusive trade agreements with foreign powers, as controlling certain popular imports to Europe was about the only real big gain made at all.

All the great art to come out of Europe over the last thousand year. Plus al, the great philosophers, scientists, architects, etc.. white folks have contributed so many positive thimgs to the human experience.

American culture is indeed not tied to caucasian genetics. It is, however, derived from a unique strain of Western Judeo-Christian philosophy that developed primarily in the British Isles.

If we denigrate that culture and it antecedents as worthless and vile and unworthy of preserving we will lose it and the benefits if it we enjoy.

What if I told you that you can criticize the human rights violations committed by the white majority in the past without concluding that means you are denigrating the whole culture as worthless and vile?

That would be a great idea Chipper… The problem is the left moved on from that very reasonable tactic, to outright assaulting basically everything about western civilization, and everything white people ever did, a few decades ago… Didn’t you know that math is racist in 2019? It’s true! Google it! And if something as objective as math is racist, then lord only knows crazy ideas like free speech and the like are doubly racist!

Ya know, if I had only ever seen one loopy person say that kind of stuff, I would shrug it off. I DID exactly that for some years. Then I realized it ISN’T just 37 nut jobs in the Democratic party… It’s millions, and millions of people who actually believe that shit. There are obviously plenty of Dems that don’t… But that type of thinking is becoming more, and more popular on the left, not less popular.

If I see them returning to sanity someday, I will stop going after them about this… But until then their blatant anti white, anti enlightenment ideas deserve to be shat upon.

Fair, but when you are discussing a country that is majority white (as Swedes speak about being Scandinavian), the implication isn’t as much about whiteness as much as the majority. It is a particular phenotype of Americanism to be sure, but you have other groups denigrate the same under the auspices of white, corporate, hetero-male.

And not to defend King in any sense, but other groups claim identities as looking out after their own interests (ahem… Black Caucus… ahem), so it is difficult to chastise King for doing the same without looking like a hypocrite.

Whites never HAD TO organize AS WHITES in the same way as blacks did. That’s why they didn’t do it. When you’re the super majority you have that luxury.

Thing is white kids growing up today ARE ALREADY A MINORITY. They’re less than half the population. Whites will HAVE TO organize as an ethnic block to protect themselves from attacks from other ethnic blocks going forward… Because this is the real world, and ethnic affinity ain’t going away in blacks, Hispanics, etc anytime soon.

Think about how fucked it is to be a white kid today… You’re growing up outnumbered by everybody else… Yet told you’re uniquely evil. That you have special magical privilege. And on top of that, you CANNOT under any circumstances identify as being white, or be proud of being white, and ESPECIALLY can’t specifically cooperate with other whites to achieve things that are good for other white people.

The double standard is insane. Older whites grew up in an 85% white America, and this is still what is in a lot of peoples heads… But that America doesn’t exist for young people. Those young people won’t be swayed by memories of a bygone era, they’ll just fight for what they have to to protect their interests I suspect, as minorities tend to do.

Even as far back as the Civil War, you had a not inconsiderate amount of blacks that did not want slavery to end. To claim a uniform group identity is just foolish, In fact, I’d say the same forces that lumped them into homogeneous group made the rise of the KKK as the largest fraternal organization all but inevitable. “White” has had different definitions throughout US history. Or do you think those drunk paddy bastards were welcomed in with open arms?

I refuse to accept that ethnic identities are the best or even helpful way to organize a society. Sure, Little Italy is going to be markedly different than Koreatown, but tribalism diminishes the best means to cross cultures- ideas.

That said, if tribalism is the means of dialogue now, you can hardly blame any group for reaching out and claiming theirs. We can give up all pretense of trying to do what is right and fair, and just have highly symbolic battles for domination.

Obviously not everybody agrees in a group. That’s not the point. The point is that when push comes to shove, people side with THEIR people. How they define that can vary from time to time and place to place. But it is reality. In studies black babies prefer black adults, just as white babies prefer white adults. People naturally trust people that look like them more as adults too. It’s biologically programmed into us.

“I refuse to accept that ethnic identities are the best or even helpful way to organize a society.”

You can refuse to accept it… But history has shown that it is the default way. Every society that was multicultural has had to be held together by the tip of a spear. Even then, they usually fail and devolve into new, smaller ethno-states.

It is important to share IDEAS. The thing is, you don’t need to live together to do that. Especially not in 2019. Also, I don’t think having a small number of minorities is a problem in most cases… It is not having SOME majority group that is calling the shots. A ship without a captain more or less. But having 10 or 15% who know they’re guests in a society, and don’t have the right to demand the majority change to suit their needs, is fine.

As for Micks, I think the reason America worked is because we were all white, broadly speaking. After a single generation of interbreeding, you can’t tell who is a WOP/Mick/Kraut etc. You can generally tell a pure Italian, Spaniard, or Greek from a Swede, Englishman, or German… But you mix any 2 of those together with a north/south mix, and you just can’t tell anymore. So it ended up not mattering. You mix a black person or Indian together though, and they stuck out, and tended to not be allowed into white society until the blood was watered down and they passed. I truly think being able to pass matters in terms of identity politics stuff. America worked because nobody remained discernable for more than a generation or two.

Hence a mixed Asian country would work after melding into a single averaged out Asian look, but throwing Arabs or whites or blacks in there would create ethnic blocks. It’s logical, and consistent with the science on the subject.

As I often say, I often don’t talk about the way I wish reality worked, because it doesn’t work that way. I wish the multicultural thing were possible… But I just don’t think it is. It’s like wishing nobody would ever rape or murder ever again, a nice thought, but it isn’t going to happen.

But that itself is largely not true either… The overwhelming majority of people of all races breed with their own kind.

And if you look at the stats, most interbreeding happens between groups that would stereotypically be considered racially or culturally more similar… For instance whites and Hispanics interbreed a lot, it’s the most common in the US. Keep in mind your statistically average Mexican is 60-70% European blood, and although dysfunctional, Latin America IS a janky part of Western Civilization.

The next most common is white men and Asian women. Why? Because Asians are basically honorary whites. They vote poorly (left), but other than that they’re educated, affluent, law abiding, etc. They’re more white than the average white person!

But technically, if we all became one freaky looking mixed brown mob, it would probably cut down on hostility… The thing is it would take centuries, and we’ll probably end up having secession movements, or outright ethnic warring LONG before then.

Personally I prefer to keep the world different. One mixed race blob of people is a lot less interesting than all the variations we have in the world. There is nothing that says we all have to live IN THE SAME SPOT to be friends, do business with each other, etc.

I think the US is homogenizing. I keep seeing kids with nappy blond hair, light skin, and african features.

A bit, but it has been calculated before, and with the very small percentage of people that breed outside their own ethnicity every generation, it would take multiple HUNDREDS of years before we’d be anywhere close to all one beige colored ethnic group. There would still be blonde haired blue eyed pure bred whites in 300 years, just as there would be super dark skinned pure bred blacks. They might be in the minority, but they would still number in the many millions.

If you break down the data by age bracket, Whites are a minority between age zero and nine. In a couple of years, all elementary school grades will be White minority. This is not a reason to panic, but we have to think about a country that does not have a White majority. It’s time to stop writing textbooks with the assumption that White is the default and that White students enjoy majority status. Let’s consider the type of racially pluralistic nation we want where no race is a majority. It’s no longer majority and minorities. Everyone is a minority. In that world, why treat the White minority different from the Black minority?

Too bad it’s not going to happen. If you want to see the future of America, look at South Africa. They have anti white affirmative action in a country where they’re not even 10% of the population anymore.

THAT is the kind of future crazy leftists have envisioned for the USA. I see no trend among non whites to stop pushing for things that are specifically in their ethnic groups interests.

I still don’t consider most 1st generation American Hispanics white. Why? Because they themselves tend to see themselves as something other than the “Anglos” in America and Canada. Self identification is a really important thing in the identity politics game.

There ARE white Hispanics still, the 80-90%+ Euro blooded elites from down south, but not most of them. Many don’t know that down south the light skinned still consider themselves different from the more mixed folks, and the mixed folks return the favor.

Now, I think a lot of Hispanics that are mostly European blood already, or intermarry with Anglos like my ancestors did will “become” white in a couple generations. But I don’t see the super tan, 60-70% Native blooded folks going that route anytime soon.

And non Hispanic whites are definitely down to barely 60% now, some people estimate it is already under 50% because several groups are counted under Caucasian that most people don’t consider such. Like Arabs, Iranians, and others.

Either way, this is the largest mass migration in human history, and the fastest demographic shift too. It will not go smoothly.

I mean, that’s the only way you get to that “minority” figure, if you don’t count whites who are also Hispanic.

I don’t consider most Hispanics to be white. As I said above, they don’t see themselves as white. At least not most of them. And they’re easy to pick out of a crowd. In a post I made above I said that I think the being able to pass test is vitally important to self identity… And most Hispanics cannot pass. So you combine seeing themselves differently to begin with, along with not passing… And you end up with “not white.”

There are the upper classes from all over Latin America which tend to be heavier on European blood. THEY can mostly pass, and tend to consider themselves white to boot. Many “Anglos” don’t know that the skin tone hierarchy is alive and well throughout Latin America. They all know it, but Americans are mostly ignorant to this fact. Look at all the rich and powerful Mexicans you can find on Google, they’re all waaay more Europeans than the average Mexican.

With an intermarriage or two I think a lot of Hispanics will lose the identity, AND be able to pass. Hence they will be “white washed” so to speak! LOL

This is more or less what happened in my family. My grandpa still looked very much like a little Mexican/Native dude, although he was only about 1/2 non white. My mom looks almost Italian, with some native features, despite having zero southern European heritage other than the Spanish from gramps Mexican side, and in fact being mostly German and English. My dad has some native from his dad, but it didn’t show up in his features, so I got lightened up, and more European looking… I tan a bit, have brown hair and eyes, but have pretty much straight northern European features.

Assholes like me will be common in the future… But only if we don’t let in so many unskilled Hispanics that the whole country turns into Mexico or Colombia.

In some neighborhoods, people test you out by criticizing a group and looking at your reaction. When you don’t stand up for your own group, or groups normally associated with your group, that is seen as weakness and a sign that you are fair game. If you do speak out, that is seen as racism if your skin is white. Yeah, White kids are stuck in a bad situation, because their older relatives are afraid to stand up for them, the school curriculum blames them for historical wrongs, and they are too young to stand up for themselves.

As somebody who grew up in a minority majority town as a kid in California, I think I got a couple decade early dose of what the future may be like… In short, a lot of white kids didn’t take any of that shit from black or Mexican kids. This tendency will only get stronger.

I was insulted for being white all the time, and I tended to not put up with it. I’m not an idiot so mostly figured out how to avoid trouble before things got too serious when I was older, but a lot of people just called the brown people insulting names right back, beaner, wet back, nigger etc. When you’re in the minority, none of that PC shit seems to matter much…

Funny thing is, I learned pretty early on by dropping the fact that I was part Mexican on the Mexican kids that they would magically be cool to me all of a sudden… I had a few Mexican gang banger buddies who had my back in high school! Guaranteed if I wasn’t part Mexican they wouldn’t have been cool like they were. Funny how that stuff works, huh?

Has the term ‘draft dodger’ meant anything since the Clinton era? Aren’t non-intervention, conscientious objection, anti-conscription, etc. core libertarian sensibilities? Didn’t plenty of draft dodgers fit the modern day definition of refugees? You know what? Fuck it. Nick’s got him a white nationalist to insult.

No self-respecting libertarian would ever use the term “draft-dodger” as an insult. To dodge the draft is a heroic act.

It’s used as an insult to those who advocate for war later in life after doing everything they could to avoid fighting in one themselves.

It’s used as an insult to those who advocate for war later in life after doing everything they could to avoid fighting in one themselves.

Constiutionally? Congress doesn’t seem to think there’s no valid declaration of war, and could act to end any war it thought violated its powers of declaration. It has not and continues to not.

“I think it’s a bad idea and I wish slightly different forms had been observed” != “illegal”.)

It’s like those public school supporters who never got certified to be public school teachers or those non-cops supporting a prohibition against plastic straws!

I dunno about heroic, but certainly muddled, nuanced, and at least partially favorable to libertarian beliefs. Maybe at one point it was used to undercut warhawks or something. This day and age, it sounds like an anachronistic reach back in history to send the message “Conscription is OK as long as hypocrites I don’t like are being conscripted.”

Draft dodger should still mean something. That entire generation has been a complete waste of space ever since the 60’s. And it would have been far better for the US if some worthless piece of chickenhawk shit like King had gotten killed in Nam instead of those far better Americans who did get killed there.

Actually Nick, White Nationalism is VERY American. It was what the nation was founded on, and we kept enshrined in law until 1965. And even then they only managed to pass it by lying to the American public about the likely implications. If they had said what they knew was going to happen was going to happen, Americans would have never allowed it to go into law.

NOW, you can say that America is horrible, and awful, and evil, and that we should have been better… But white nationalism is at the core of America. That is one thing that prog tards are right about. Many founders were against slavery, but none of them considered other races to be equal to whites. Mostly they thought about shipping the slaves back to Africa if they were freed. That was what Thomas Jefferson thought would be the righteous thing to do. Hell, he was probably right! Hell, they didn’t even consider a lot of other Europeans to be good enough.

So don’t go repeating a lie that America was founded to be a multi-racial utopia. It WAS NOT. You can say that is a bad thing all you want, but you can’t say that was the original intent.

Again. When you read the founders of Canada, they held the same views as the American founders. It was the time. I think it persisted right up until the ‘white man’s burden’ in the 19th century.

I agree neither country were founded on the premise of ‘multiculturalism’. And nor are we ‘nations of immigrants’ technically. That came later.

I don’t know a ton about early Canadian history. I guess more than most, but not a ton. I mostly assume it was the same deal as the American colonies pre revolution. We were British colonies. We allowed in small numbers of other Europeans. The founders intended to keep this land for themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY. They decided to let in “white men of good character.” That was it.

They wanted all the land for their British selves, and their British kids. They more or less begrudgingly accepted other “good” northern Europeans as being acceptable. But the founders even bitched about Germans, Swedes, etc. They wanted to keep it as British as possible, but northern Europeans got a pass as being tolerable. Southern Europeans weren’t really considered acceptable, but they let small numbers of them in even early on. I suspect if they’d got a flood of Italian immigrants in 1805 or whatever though, instead of a mere trickle, that they would have amended the laws to ban them. LOL

Actually, at the time of the Revolution, Germans, Swedes and the Dutch made up significant majorities in some parts of the thirteen colonies.

New England and the South were predominantly English but in many parts of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania one of the languages mentioned above would have been what you would have heard spoken.

That’s one of the reasons that the Founders did not include a national language in either the Constitution or in early legislation. If they had German would have almost certainly been made an Official Language and possibly Swedish and Dutch as well. With the Louisiana Purchase came a large Francophone population and with the annexation of Texas and the occupation of New Mexico and California a large Spanish speaking population was added.

English becoming the predominant language of the USA is an example of “spontaneous order” rather than of legislative fiat. In the same way English became the predominant world wide language of business, diplomacy and science in the latter half of the 20th century. Formerly French and German predominated in diplomacy and science, so much so that until the 1960s many universities required a course in German for a degree in Chemistry or Physics.

Incidentally “Pennsylvania Dutch” is actually not Dutch but a variety of Low German dialects spoken by immigrants to a large belt of country stretching from Maryland up through Pennsylvania, Western New York into the western part of Upper Canada (present day southern Ontario) and some of their descendants. Like most languages imported here it has acquired its own American character.

German immigration was welcome largely because the King of England was German (the British Crown only lost Hanover as a possession because Hanover had a male only succession rule so that while Victoria was crowned Queen of England her uncle became the Duke of Hanover after George IV died).

George III was, in fact the first of the Hanoverian Kings who even spoke English and took an interest in governing England (and by extension its colonies and possessions). His father and grandfather took no interest in being English Kings and largely left the business of government to the First (or Prime) Minister and the Cabinet. This led to a sort of “benign neglect” that led to the rise of the primacy of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and so called “responsible government” whereby the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the “government”) is responsible to the Parliament which is in turn responsible to “the People”.

Pretty sure ‘Pennsylvania Dutch’ became a common term about the same time the German Spitz was renamed the American Eskimo Dog. Somewhere right around 1917.

In English, back in the day they used to refer to ALL the Germanic peoples as “Duits” AKA Deutsche, but pronounced messed up. This included the low countries, Austria, Switzerland, possibly even Denmark, etc. Obviously they referred to their national names when appropriate too, but in broad terms they were all Duits to the Brits.

The Germans settled here when they were all still lumped together. Later on English people stopped calling the Dutch the same thing as the Germans, and Duits turned into Dutch, and German for the other Germans… But in the colonies the Germans ended up being called Dutch because reasons…

And there you have it. Whatever source I read that from seemed reputable at the time, so I think that it accurate.

My family is actually Pennsylvania Dutch from my dads moms side. They were here before the revolution, and were of course German.

That said, people from the British isles (English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish) were a strong majority of the country from what I understand. The others were just sizeable minority groups. I don’t know the numbers, and too lazy to google, but I get the impression somehow it may have been a 70-80% British type situation at that point. They were certainly not less than 50%.

Also, by the time of the revolution most Dutch and Germans ALSO spoke English, if they even spoke their original language at all. Many of the people involved in the revolution had Dutch names, but were speaking English at least in their public life.

But it’s all interesting stuff! I knew the English kings were Germans, but when I first learned they ALSO actually controlled a valuable German Duchy until Victoria, it tripped me out! Just seems so weird.

New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania were Dutch and Swedish colonies before the British conquered them. That’s why we had to think about integrating different nations from the writing of the Constitution forward.

We are a nation of (largely white) immigrants who shared common ideals. Ideals which happened to be great ones.

Jefferson even wrote that he thought whites were superior to blacks and that blacks were the lowest race.

Ben Franklin wrote that the English and German (Saxon), ie Anglo-Saxon, cultures were the best on Earth and that all others, including other European cultures were inferior. Anglo-Saxons (and Nordics IIRC) were the “true” whites, not like those swarthy Italians and Slavs and such.

Actually, Jefferson’s ideas on race and, for that matter, the institution of slavery evolved. I would like to see a citation on where “Jefferson even wrote that he thought whites were superior to blacks and that blacks were the lowest race.” Such a statement does not even begin to describe any of Jefferson’s writings that I am aware of on the subject.

Actually the best way to sum up he ideas of Jefferson, Franklin and the other intellectuals or philosophers of “American ideas” at the time is that they did, in fact, believe that “all men are created equal” but that geographical and environmental factors had lead the into certain negative cultural and behavioral practices that were hostile to human progress and happiness. Thus, only by education and, essentially, conversion to the ideas the Western Enlightenment could the “lesser races” be brought into the mainstream of society.

In believing that “only by education and, essentially, conversion to the ideas the Western Enlightenment could the “lesser races” be brought into the mainstream of society”, “the Jeffersonians” were in some part the forerunners of the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

What makes the “modern” Progressive’s call for “multiculturalism” so ironic is that the message of the late 19th and early 20th century Progressives was one of regimented conformity to a set of rules based on the idea that Western European Civilization, particularly that which espoused Anglo-Saxon values and evangelical Protestant Christianity represented PROGRESS and that everyone who didn’t realize it had to be dragged “kicking and screaming” into the 20th century.

This meant cultivating the the “white trash”, “teaching the geechee” out of blacks, setting up a “secular public education system” to depapify the wops, dagos, micks and guineas, “killing the Indian to save the man” and so on. None of this was to say that any of these groups were intrinsically “inferior” but that their cultures were. This Progressivism was not anti-capitalist in and of itself, it simply called for a “more enlightened” kind of capitalism. Many of the “rich and powerful” of the day identified as “Progressives”.

I’m not going to look up an exact source, but I have read Jefferson quotes where he pretty flatly says blacks are not the equal of whites.

In that famous quote where he says he knows the blacks are destined to be free or whatever, his very next sentence was something to the effect of “And I am equally sure that the free negro can never live along side the white man. He doesn’t have the same nature or the intellect…” yadda yadda yadda. That’s a very rough paraphrase, but pretty much the sense of what he said.

My best way to put his opinion from my reading is: He thought slavery was wrong, period. He accepted that some blacks were as intelligent as some whites. He also thought the AVERAGE black was far less intelligent, and they could never be sufficiently civilized. Therefore, he didn’t believe we could live along side each other after they were free. He also said they smelled really bad and were ugly.

Even amongst the moralists of the time, this was what basically 100% of them believed. Even in the 1860s most abolitionists believed blacks to be inferior, but still didn’t think slavery was right. I don’t think this makes any of them bad people. IQ by ethnicity actually seems to prove their point… So unless somebody finds an environmental cause for the massive IQ gaps… Nobody has come up with a way to explain the gaps, other than it being genetic.

“Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”-Karl Marx

“It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product.” -Karl Marx

To Arms ,To Arms twitter rage boys. Why is this racist still being celebrated in institutions of higher learning?

This may be a surprise to you vek, but the “Cornerstone Speech” was made by the losers of the Civil War, not the winners.

Your point? I’m not in favor of slavery. It is morally wrong. Other than slavery, I think the south was in the right on that one too. Slavery was the single biggest issue, but it was far from the ONLY issue.

Also, that doesn’t mean I can’t read statistics. Even if there are zero inherent differences in people, history shows clearly that multicultural societies are incredibly unstable. Cultural clashes are a cluster fuck every damn time. I don’t think the trouble is worth the non existent gains.

The only thing America has to show for vastly higher murder rates, rape rates, robbery rates, welfare use, voting for higher taxes, voting away gun rights, etc etc etc IS ETHNIC FOOD. Because all those things above are directly attributable to non whites in the USA. All we got out of the deal is tacos dude. And we didn’t NEED to become a minority to get tacos, you just need a few.

On the plus side, Asians are good on everything but their voting records. So not all immigrants are THAT BAD.

I’m a mixed breed bastard myself, so if anything I think it just shows that I can rise above being emotional about the subject, and think it through rationally.

I can always just change how I identify if Hispanics take over the country and turn it to utter shit… I just don’t want to see that happen is all.

If a person can claim to be whatever sex they want then anyone can claim to be racist or not its their choice no bubble needed. I for one claim people who are for open borders are the racist bent on destroying the one thing that attracts immigrants.

God what a fucking hypocrite. I mean if we are really concerned about identity politics Steve is your number one issue?

I mean identity politics would be gone if we just get rid of Steve Fucking King. He’s quite the problem.

Of COURSE he is only against white identity politics… Because it’s icky if white people defend themselves against racially motivated attacks against their group interest!

Keep in mind, every welfare program in the USA, every progressive tax, etc is a direct transfer of wealth from mostly whites, along with Asians and Jews, to other ethnic groups. But to mention such a thing would be racist, so I won’t do it