"...Sailer Strategy: the divisive but influential idea that the GOP could run up the electoral score by winning over working-class whites on issues like immigration..."
Everything in politics is 'divisive'. If we want unity, why have TWO or more parties? Why not a one-party system like China? Or Japan as it's been a defacto one-party state.
Also, Democratic Politics has been more divisive because of its stress on identity politics catering to non-whites for special treatment.
Noq, if Democrats accepted non-whites and if Republicans rejected them, one could argue that Democrats try to unify all Americans whereas Republicans divide Americans between whites(okay) and non-whites(not okay). But that is not American politics. Democrats win over non-whites with special favors that are often detrimental to whites, especially of lower classes. Blacks are offered 'affirmative action' in admission/hiring, Hispanics are offered 'affirmative immigration'(aka tolerance of illegal immigration), and 'progressive' PC blames all problems on White Conservatives(while lionizing White 'progressives' as the 'good whites' who heroically play the role of 'white knight' in defending the 'poor huddled masses' of non-whites). Also, homos are offered the supremacist privilege to alter the meaning of marriage, a privilege denied to Polygamists and Incest-sexuals, by the way. Also, Democrats play sexual politics by driving a wedge between white women and white men. Feminist ideology teaches white women that white men, at least those who refused to be cucked, as the source of all evil.
The GOP party line has been more unifying in opening the party to all comers on the basis of colorblindness. (One exception is Jews. Both parties go way out to favor Jewish interests and Israel over all else. Jewish supremacism is the real supremacism in the US, but it goes unaddressed since Jewish power controls the media. New York Magazine certainly doesn't address it for what it is: supremacism.) If the GOP must not favor whites, it must also not favor non-whites if it is to be colorblind. Favoring one group over another leads to the divisiveness, which is why the Democratic Coalition is so divided among the various races and classes. Ironically, even as Progs accuse the GOP of being divisive, the bogeyman of the Evil White Male is the ONLY factor that keeps the Democratic Coalition united. They are united by hate of Whitey as scapegoat for everything that is wrong. That is their 'intersectionality'.
American Politics is not about anti-white vs pro-white. It is about anti-white vs anti-anti-white. GOP hasn't been pro-white in anything for a long time. It is just less anti-white than the Democrats. But even this anti-anti-whiteness is pretty weak, with Bush II sucking up to blacks and Hispanics, indeed much more than for whites. Indeed, American Politics puts white gentiles(except for homos and trannies) in moral deficit vis-a-vis other groups, especially blacks and Jews. This is why even the GOP feels this need to suck up to Jewish supremacism and Magic Negro BS.
American Politics says it's okay for non-whites to be pro-identity, but it is wrong for whites to be pro-white. GOP's line is generic pro-Americanism. Even so, it is not explicitly anti-white like the Democrats are. The PC narrative is that non-whites flock to Democrats because the GOP won't have them. In truth, non-whites flock to Democratic Party because they get special favors than mere equality, which is what the GOP offers. If one side offers equality while another side offers bribes, why wouldn't you go for the latter? More free stuff.
But then, things get weirder because, even as the Democratic or 'progressive' line is anti-white, most of Real White Privilege is located in the 'progressive' community of Silicon Valley, elite colleges, upscale yuppie neighborhoods, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Pentagon, and etc. In some ways, it seems anti-white rhetoric of Democratic elites is a ruse to mask 'white privilege', which is okay if billed as 'liberal'. After all, the Clintons got pretty far. So did the Kerrys and Tim Caines and Jerry Browns of the world.
Indeed, the Democratic Party is more appealing to the educated elites, successful people, and the cool crowd because status-narcissism goes hand-in-hand with moral narcissism. These people want wealth, privilege, and power, but they also want to feel cool and morally justified. Since the Democratic Party is Liberal and since most artists and entertainers are Liberal, rich and successful people want to be with the Liberal Creative types. Also, the holy three in the US are Jews, blacks, and homos, and all three are in the Democratic Party. In contrast, the Southern Strategy won the GOP temporary electoral advantage but saddled them with neo-Confederacy in a nation where there is no greater sin than 'racism'. KKK is the most hated symbol in the US, and the Deep South is connected with it. Of course, Black Terror has done far more damage than KKK ever did, but the Narrative decides what is worth remembering and paying attention to. The American Narrative resets to TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD over and over. Also, the Democratic Party got legacy of New Deal and Civil Rights movement. Even though Democrats eventually abandoned the working class, the GOP has hardly been a friend to the working man except in symbolism of flags and guns. Eventually, symbolic legacy runs out of steam when reality changes too much. One could argue that the New Deal legacy finally ended for Democrats with the demise of Hillary. But the New Deal legacy had nostalgic appeal to Big Labor for a long time. Democrats also have the Civil Rights legacy. As blacks are seen as holy in America, this means a lot. There is no greater evil in America than 'racism'. Since JFK and Johnson led the way in the Civil Rights Era, Democrats came to own the issue. Also, blacks turned overwhelmingly Democratic, though one wonders if this has more to do with the Civil Rights bill or massive welfare increases under Johnson. (Maybe if Trump offers Negroes bigass reparations, blacks will move to GOP. Civil Rights Legacy may be lost to Democratic Party if it plays the homo card and immigrant card too much at the expense of blacks.) Given the iconic value of the Civil Rights Era and near-worship of MLK, Democratic Party has the moral advantage over the GOP. And this is why most successful people prefer to be associated with the Democrats EVEN THOUGH they don't want to live with most blacks. Your average Prog would prefer to live in a safe white community(even a conservative one) than in a black democratic town, but he still wants to be morally and politically associated with the Party of Civil Rights. And then, the mass media made homos holy too, and Democrats came to totally own that issue. And since Homos came to be synonymous with both suffering and cool celebrity culture in Hollywood and fashion, successful people wanted to become Democrats. So, the Democratic Party became party of both the have-lesses and the have-mosts. As a Democrat, the have-mosts and other elites can win some radical chic points by being members of the Party of Progress... even though their main obsession is really Privilege.
"Most liberals would take issue with citizenism as reactionary, and perhaps see it as a closeted form of the white nationalism openly championed by many bloggers on the alt-right. Yet Sailer describes citizenism as the best possible bulwark against ethnonationalist impulses."
As for anti-immigrationism, it can be said to be pro-white since most immigrants are non-white, and white nationalists fear that more immigration will reduce white power in the US. On the other hand, anti-immigrationism is unifying than divisive. If current American citizens are to form into One united people, they need to work on what they have in common. Just when the American identity is becoming more confused(even more so with 50 new genders derived from 0.5% of the US population of trannies), the last thing we need is more immigration. US is diverse as it is. If anything, it is overly diverse and falling apart at the seams. The divisiveness isn't the product of political machinations but demographic realities. If all these different Americans are to come together, there must be respect for Rule of Law. As different Americans have different cultural backgrounds and values, the one thing they can have in common is respect for Rule of Law. For this reason, illegal immigration must be ended and opposed as it violates Rule of Law, and the ideal of Citizenship. Stuff like amnesty leads to breakdown in Rule of Law and commonly shared principle of what makes a person American. If anyone can break in and become 'American', then Americanism is no longer about respect for rule of law but a grab-bag of who can get here by whatever nefarious means.
Also, even legal immigration needs to end. For white nationalists, the reasons are obvious. But even for non-whites, if they really want a united America of common identity and shared values, the urgent necessity right now is to encourage feelings of shared bond among all Americans, white, black, brown, and etc. One has to be blind not to see the racial, cultural, and ethnic divisions all across America. When so much division is an undeniable reality in America, why bring in even more immigrants? How do we fix the problem of current divisiveness by adding more diversity, which leads to even more divisiveness? Also, non-whites are more likely to assimilate into white standards and values when they are a decisive minority. They are more likely to respect the majority and try to fit into it. But as majority numbers and power decline, the minorities will be more demanding and contentious, also more confused as to what really constitutes Americanism. Traditionally, Americanism entailed non-whites trying to become like White America. Now, Americanism entails non-whites defining 'True America' in rejection and revilement of White America. Especially with the notion of 'America is a nation of immigrants', there is the sense that newcomers fresh off the boat are More American than Americans, and if anything, Americans must reverse-assimilate to the World. Thus, the New Americanism is not about foreigners coming to dissolve into what was essentially White America but America dissolving into the World. Thus, White America as the Core American Ideal is replaced by various tribalisms from all over the world. (It is surely correct to say Sailer has a preference for White America, being white himself and respecting the European legacy and heritage. And Sailer never denied that like Conservative Inc types pretend they are totally for colorblind equality. No, Sailer prefers whites just like Jews prefer Jews and blacks prefer blacks. With Sailer, the issue is about finding the best way to arrive at a compromise whereby each group gets something but can't get everything. Citizenism isn't white nationalism but it does offer something for whites in curtailing excessive immigration and defending traditional America. But it offers something for all groups who strive to be legal citizens. But American Politics of the Current Year assumes that it is wrong for white Americans to have any sense of white identity or interests at all. Whites must always prove themselves as totally colorblind or mindful of non-whites and Jews. But that is bogus. Why should white Americans be without white identity and white interests? The only sensible thing is to arrive at some formula where all groups get something but not everything. The current formula is one where whites get NOTHING, and that is unacceptable to any sane bunch of whites. It's like what Merlin says to Uther in EXCALIBUR. "He has given, now you must." Citizenism, good or bad, is at least an attempt at compromise between white interests and other interests. But Prog thought denies the rightness of any white identity or interests.)
Demise of Core White America is leading to more divisiveness all over America. Given that the bogeyman is 'white racism', all groups tend to blame 'white privilege' as easy scapegoat, but the problem is too much diversity and the lack of Core Americanism to hold the nation together. Diversity can be of peripheral value. It cannot constitute the core. It's like the sun is the center of solar system. The diverse planets revolve around it. In the USSR, the core culture was Russia. But as the Russian core dwindled in population vis-a-vis non-Russians who came to represent 51% in the 80s, the empire broke apart. China has Han Chinese as the core around with ethnic minorities revolve around. With that Han Core, China would begin to fall apart.
The demise of white core is leading to more division in America. The great paradox of American politics is that Diversity has been made to revile the only thing that can hold the various diverse groups together: the white core. In the past, the white core brought non-whites together as the model of assimilation and emulation. Various non-white groups were different from one another but had in common the desire to be part of White America, culturally if not racially. Today, White America still functions as a glue for non-whites but as a mutual object of hatred and contempt. Hating Whitey is the only thing that many non-whites have in common. It's useful for now because without whitey to hate, they will hate one another. For now, when browns are angry with blacks, they blame whites. When blacks are angry with immigrants, they blame whites. When yellows are angry with browns or blacks, they blame whites. When Jews are angry with Muslims, they blame whites. When Muslims are angry with Jews, they blame whites. But if respect for whiteness pulled various non-whites together around the orbit of the white core in the past, the repulsion of whiteness pulls them away from whites and eventually from one another. They keep saying Diversity is their core, but diversity can never be the core. Diversity can only work as a peripheral entity that revolves around a solid core.
Mexicans in California are more aggressive than in the past. Somalis in Minnesota have no respect for anything. They make demands like US belongs to them. Multi-culturalists denounce 'divisiveness', but they thrive on divisiveness, which is their bread-and-butter. Indeed, they admonished non-whites not to assimilate into white America and maintain their separateness politically and ideologically. Thus, non-whites were made to see whites as the enemy than as the host to respect and assimilate into. Multi-culturalists even came up with the notion of 'micro-aggression' to make non-whites feel offended by any gesture, no matter how innocuous, made by whites. (Of course, non-white macro-aggressions are a bigger problem in America. Surely, people have more to worry about Mexican drug gangs and black thugs, but academics in their bubble dream up nonsense issues like white 'micro-aggressions' like asking 'where are you from?') The message of multi-culturalism is bogus and hypocritical. It says, "we non-whites will reject and insult you whites, but you whites must accept and praise us." In a way, it is a twist on Jewish attitude to white gentile America. Jews keep their culture of uniqueness and exclusion(toward goyim), but white goyim must be welcoming and open to everything Jewish.
It's like a card game where one guy can keep his cards in the hole but the other player has to show all his cards.
And we see this play out over and over. So, the cast of HAMILTON insults Mike Pence, but Pence has to be gracious and accommodating. Kanye West and other nasty blacks dump on Bush II, but Bush II goes out of his way to whimper, boo hoo, that the worst part of his presidency was hearing that a rapper said he doesn't like black people. "But I wuv black people oh so very much, and I even gave tens of billions to Africa to prove I love them Negroes." (Palestinians not so much, though, and no one seems to care about that, not even Liberals and Progs. Btw, if the progs are New York magazine are appalled by tribalism and nationalism, how do they feel about America's overwhelming support for Zionist ethnic-cleansers and apartheiders over Palestinians? I'm guessing is they made too much fuss about that, the publishers of New York magazine and other such media won't have much use for them in the future.)
Another reason why immigration is divisive is it has the effect of weakening the ties between native elites and native masses. We see this in US, Canada, and EU. As US elites dedicate themselves more to Diversity via more immigration to create 'new Americans', they have less time to address the issues of Already-Americans. Also, when Already-Americans protest this injustice, the elites hug the New Americans or Future Americans and call the Already-Americans 'racist' and 'xenophobic'. British and Canadian white elites do the same thing. This leads to class division, the Coming Apart as investigated by Charles Murray. This turns a nation from a organic system to a mere commercial enterprise. A company may fire workers and get new ones, but a family doesn't get rid of family members to get new family members. US and UK were not like a national family or at least national community. But with massive immigration, every American is treated like a worker by a faceless transnational corporation that can just hire someone else. America is an 'indispensable nation' where Americans are all dispensable. America is an 'exceptional nation' where Americans are not exceptional but replaceable by any bunch of 'new Americans'.
Everyone is expendable and replaceable, not only as worker but as citizen and patriot. Indeed, patriotism is impossible with this kind of globalist system where the Already-Americans are told they will soon be replaced by New Americans. America goes form a nation of posterity to a nation of ceaseless 'imposterity', what with even illegals being labeled as 'dreamers' and 'what America is all about'. The fact that Hillary insulted so many Americans as 'deplorables' says it all. She would rather hug non-Americans as soon-to-be-new-Americans over real Americans, some of whom have deep roots in the US. It's a strange state of affairs when the US elites care more about yet-to-be-Americans than already-Americans. Whom do these elites represent? American voters or foreigners? They might as well be open ballots as well as open borders. If US must prioritize all the foreigners who want to come to America, why not let the whole world vote for American president? After all, only letting Americans vote is 'exclusive'.
As long as elections are national and not global, shouldn't US leaders represent, first and foremost, the Already Americans? (But then, given US meddling and invasion of other nations, maybe people in invaded nations should be given the vote. If US can intrude into their affairs and turn upside down, maybe they should have a say in who gets to rule America since America sees fit to rule the world.)
"In Sailer’s view, people are naturally inclined to pursue “ethnic nepotism” — that is, to help those like themselves at the expense of those who are not. The goal of citizenism, therefore, is to redirect these energies by providing a more expansive definition of “us” than the race or tribe."
That is true. More diversity has a way of creating a massive number of immigrant-voters whose main loyalty is to their kins in other parts of the world than with fellow Americans. So, even Mexican-Americans side more with Mexicans in Mexico than with fellow Americans. Chinese-Americans prioritize allowing more Chinese into the US than working for the good of All Americans. Many Jewish Americans feel closer to Jews in other parts of the world than with other Americans. With Open Borders, Diversity leads to more divisiveness as each group will then try to bring more of their kind over to the US to gain more power for their own community. If Asian Indians could bring 100 million hindus to the US, they certainly would. Thus, these groups no longer see the US as an already-made nation into which they must assimilate and become a part of. It turns into a contest of 'how many of our own people can we bring to boost our ethnic leverage in the US'. They think more like colonizers and smugglers than immigrants. American turns into a game of Mr. Mouth: Feed the Frog. Each group thinks, "how many of our kind can we bring to the US as the big frog." It's like the Jewish kid trying to his friend into seeing the hooker in RISKY BUSINESS:
Even though the globalist elites politically embrace these immigrant types, the fact is they have little in common. The globalist elites live in their own world, and the immigrant groups(especially those without much chance for success) live in a separate world. And these immigrant types don't get along with whites or blacks or other immigrant types. So, we have a fraying of America along racial, ethnic, and class lines. Elites hug immigrants but live apart from them. In hugging immigrants, they dump on white masses and even black masses. And white masses and immigrants don't get along. In the past, immigrants tried to fit into White America and regarded White America as the Core America. This was true enough in the mid-70s. But due to rising non-white population, decay of white culture, and PC's attack on whiteness(and rise of black thug culture as the core Americanism and Diversity as national religion), there is nothing to assimilate into.
Multi-culturalist said past assimilation was unfair in favoring the norms of White America. Actually, it made perfect sense. Since whites founded, defined, and built the US -- and since they were the solid majority until recently -- , it was inevitable that US would be essentially a European-American nation. (Besides, the Anglo-American formula for nation-building has been, far and away, the most successful, principled, and productive in the world.) If Chinese had founded America and populated it for most of its history, then assimilating into Americanism would have entailed assimilating into much that is Chinese. But history didn't play out that way. Europeans built America, so it's natural for newcomers to assimilate to European-American norms. But that would mean special place and prestige for whiteness as Core Americanism,and that was unacceptable to multi-culturalists, especially Jews whose resentment of Christianity never faded away.
"His specialty was a plain-spoken form of science journalism... but also infamous for applying, often in a blunt and inflammatory manner, such methods to alleged racial differences... Sailer popularized the term “human biodiversity” (HBD) — now a mainstay on the alt-right — ... which, despite winning a few lonely adherents in the academy, has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst."
ROTFL. Sailer can be blunt, yes. But inflammatory? That was never his style. If anything, what Sailer's statements were spun as inflammatory by others prone to hyperventilation. The most obvious example is 'let the good times roll'. The actual piece was rather droll. If anything, "let the good times roll" is a very mild understatement when it comes to characterizing black pathologies which blacks themselves have more colorful ways of describing. It's nothing like what Chris Rock or Fred G. Sanford said of black problems. If anything, Sailer made it as un-inflammatory as possible. But nutjobs like Podhoretz went ballistic(despite his kind having said truly inflammatory things about Palestinians, Iranians, Russians, etc; for inflammatory, try Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin's friend Rachel Abrams denouncements of Palestinians).
rachel-abrams-says- palestinian-children-are- devils-spawn-while-israeli- children-play-with- tranformers-and-draw-your- heart-strings/
Sailer wasn't inflammatory, and this explains his limited appeal to those on the Alt Right who prefer redder meat. I personally would describe black pathology in a more colorful way.
But PC overreacts, throws tantrums, and goes ballistic. It reacts in inflammatory manner to what was not intended as such. We saw this as Middlebury over Charles Murray. PC crazies are easily triggered by anything. They see 'racism' in everything. And PC commissars snoop around for incorrect thoughts everywhere. It's hard to tell what is academics and what is satire. Get a load of this:
aappublications.org/content/ 137/4/e20154154?sso=1&sso_ redirect_count=1&nfstatus=401& nftoken=00000000-0000-0000- 0000-000000000000& nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+ No+local+token
'Natural' in breastfeeding is also inflammatory apparently.
Indeed, the line "has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst" is typical of how PC turns interesting ideas into inflammatory rhetoric.
It is not HBD that is inflammatory. It's been very matter-of-fact. It is PC that is inflammatory in its hysterical and rabid derision of any challenge to PC as 'pseudo-science' and 'eugenics at worst'.
Only an idiot or a pathological liar would deny the reality of race. It is so obvious, it is so everywhere in intelligence, muscularity, sports, mating, crime, violence, personality, and etc.
The 'critics' of HBD have no facts on their side. Just emotions. They are the ones who act in inflammatory manner but accuse others of being inflammatory even though Sailer, Murray, and others like them made their point in non-inflammatory manner. Also, shouldn't social/culture writers be blunt and plain-spoken? Those are just different words for honest and forthright. PC has made people so disingenuous, self-censorious, and esoteric that simple honesty is triggering and 'inflammatory'. It's like the saying the kid in EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES is inflammatory. There are some people who are willfully inflammatory. Michael Moore is one of them. Sometimes, Ann Coulter relishes throwing rhetorical molotov cocktails. But that's never been the style of Murray or Sailer. If their views are inflammatory, it's because PC threw molotov cocktails at those views.
"In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans 'possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.' And he regularly plays up a sort of white grievance politics — grousing about 'black privilege' or complaining about Jordan Peele’s Get Out as 'a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie.' Sailer usually dances around blatantly bigoted remarks in his writing..."
This is where we need the concept of the Deep Self. Just like there is the State and the Deep State, there is the Self and Deep Self.
The Prog Self and even mainstream Conservative Self fitfully denounce the notion that blacks are more likely to 'let the good times roll'. Given the holiness of blackness in PC narrative, it is simply unthinkable in proper circles to cast any negative light to black character or nature.
But the Deep Self of Progs really agrees on 'let the good times roll'. After all, why are Progs so into black culture over other cultures? Blacks love to let the good times roll and be funky and colorful, and progs have a racial preference for blackness over other kinds of racial expressions. Black culture wallows in pathology and wanton sexuality and violence, and this is appealing to white progs because pop culture serves as the fantasy of anarchy and licentiousness.
Also, why do white Progs try to avoid black areas? Why do they seek to gentrify? They see too-many-blacks as trouble. Why did they elect Guiliani twice and why did they elect Michael Stop-and-Frisk Bloomberg three times? Why did they elect Clinton who locked up record numbers of blacks? Why do Progs say the military has been a constructive place for blacks? What does that imply? Why do Progs say that black kids must be taught and educated from earlier age? Why do white women go to Cuba and Africa to hook up with black men? Why are white boys so enamored of black athletes who act wild? White progs fear, loathe, and love blacks on the basis of racial differences. White progs prefer to see fewer blacks in their neighborhood and more blacks on TV. And the classic article about Hyde Park: Despite all the Nice things they SAY, white prog elites DO something quite different, summoning massive police force to control the blacks.
White progs are attracted to black wildness as entertaining and colorful, but they are also scared to death of black thuggery and aggression. So, despite what the Prog Self says, the Prog Deep Self is very much aware of racial differences. Everything a prog does is just as race-ist as what a conservative does. The Self says one thing, but the Deep Self senses something else and does something other.
As for 'black privilege', it certainly applies to the Obamas and fancy Negroes of the world who knows what buttons to push on the white psyche. Unlike most whites, the clever black with just enough intelligence and savvy can get very far just by making the right moves and noises. Obama got to be president despite having done nothing in life because he knew what buttons to push, and this is true of a certain class of blacks. Of course, most blacks are too dim to get this or play this, but those in the know can get very far. Blacks with modicum of talent can go much farther than any white or Asian person.
As for Jordan Peele's movie GET OUT, isn't it race-ist in the sense that is premised on natural black racial superiority? Even though I haven't seen it, isn't it about how white folks want to steal black bodies because they come with longer dongs and can play better basketball? If that is the premise of the movie, it sounds pretty HBD to me.
Progs are funny. They control music and entertainment, and they feature blacks are thugs, studs, and badass mofos. But if whites take notice of such stereotypical images and match them with social reality of black crime and violence, they are deemed as 'blatantly bigoted'.
So, 'let the good times roll' is wrong, but it's okay to feature blacks are crazy rappers with nothing on their minds but shooting people and humping ho's. Progs promote the image of the wildass black mofo badass killer and sex beast but get all antsy with a remark as tame and mild as 'let the good times roll'. I mean that is old school and tame compared to how blacks talk about one another these days: