The Election From a Few Different Angles

The election is topical, and changes little in the greater scheme of things. It does however illustrate the fault lines in society.

The racial aspect has been noted in the mainstream press. The situation can indeed be viewed from a racial standpoint, but that is simplistic. Hunter Wallace picks up on the Yankee vs. Confederate angle, and John Derbyshire agrees- the idea that Republicans represent the evil of segregation is a common liberal trope, but Derbyshire understands it in its deeper context, having been schooled in England he is familiar with the Puritan-Cavalier conflict.

Einstein said a theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Wallace understands the situation well from a Southern standpoint, but makes it a little too simple.

We can look at it as strictly a matter of white vs. anti-white. The situation of the Asians illustrates this. Mainstream conservatives perceive people as voting economically and socially, and by this logic Asians should be Republican voters. Asians don’t have the historical separation and hostility to non-elite Europeans that Jews have, and have historically integrated well with whites. The HBD crowd loves Asians, many verging on sinophilia. But Asians are as strongly left-liberal/Democratic as Jews, even more than Hispanics. This to me shows that there is an anti-white coalition, or anti-non-elite-white coalition led by elite whites, to which all non-whites feel a need to be a part. For this reason I’m abandoning the coining “non-Asian minority” or “NAM”. Asians behave better than other minorities, but as far as politics are concerned they are the same.

That however is also a little too simple, since many, or most of the New England and Midwestern whites that voted for Obama are not elite, or even really formally allied with the elites. There is an idea, especially among the Vdare crowd, that WASPs are freedom-loving individualists and the trouble in the US comes from mid-19th century and later non-Protestant immigrants, the Irish, Italians and Jews.

The truth is the proportion of even the white population that is freedom-loving individualists is pretty small. The Cavalier elite was all in favor of a strong central government controlled by the Supreme Court- as it was from the Jefferson presidency up until the Civil War, under Chief Justices Marshall and Taney. The Puritans wanted a strong government controlled by themselves, and the Quakers, while they valued freedom more, had a communitarian orientation that was not going to oppose one. That leaves the Borderers as a group that truly valued freedom and wanted to do their own thing and be left alone, and was willing to give others the same freedom.

The Irish were quick to take control of government as they could. They did not start government corruption in the North, though- Steve Sailer wrote something once about some state legislature shenanigans in New York in the 1840’s involving Martin Van Buren. Arriving in the same time frame in the Midwest were Germans and Scandinavians who were more sober and honest in the conduct of government affairs, but were also enthusiastic socialists mostly. The alt-right likes to think of socialism as a Jewish plot, but socialism in its more and less virulent forms seems to be German at root, and enthused about by Jews mainly because they were either German or Eastern Europeans who looked to Germany for cultural and political ideas.

Later immigrants- Italians and Eastern Europeans- had  pragmatic view of government, they were interested in what it could do for them. The machines offered support in return for support.

What about later 20th century immigrants? Surely coming from dysfunctional oligarchies they would appreciate freedom? Actually, no. Latin Americans come from authoritarian countries, with zero-sum economic attitudes. Asians come from highly authoritarian cultures where the government controls the economy and has the final say.

Even supposedly “anti-communist” immigrants are suspect. The original Cubans were disenfranchised property owners. Coming just after were many disillusioned with the revolution, but many of them because they had been idealistic communists and it hadn’t gone as they had hoped. That wouldn’t turn them into freedom-loving capitalists, just idealistic communists who wanted to try again. The same thing is probably true of Vietnamese immigrants- the first wave were anti-communists, the later largely communists who wanted to eat better.

US society is composed of various racial and ethnic groups and subgroups, each with their own history, experiences and values. A libertarian ideology of freedom is native only to inland Southerners and some other English people. That ideology has been adopted by some others, but most groups are either strongly authoritarian, strongly communitarian, or strongly self-interested in a large, controlling, intrusive, high-spending government at all levels.

This brings us full circle to the cynical libertarian argument that in a democracy, people will vote themselves other people’s’ money. The racial, ethnic, cultural and historical factors that make people do this don’t really matter. In a large enough society, people perceive distant others as paying for them.

People- or a lot of people- think the government is their friend. It is, until it isn’t. Assume it isn’t, and you won’t be disappointed.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Election From a Few Different Angles

  1. Matthew says:

    “NAM” was always problematic, not least because it’s euphemistic. The intent is to identify non-whites who are stupid and violent. “Lesser breeds without the law” + violence. Orientals, by which I mean the light yellow-skinned Asians, aren’t obviously lesser breeds, and they clearly do live within some sort of law. Indians (dot, not feather) are lesser breeds without the law, but with impulse control.

    • The problem isn’t the lesser breeds without the law themselves, because they can be disciplined and controlled by a political system that deals with reality. The problem is their alliance to a system which deliberately ignores reality for its own purposes, and empowers the lesser breeds to advance them. Loyalty to this system as a client is the problem, and Asians have made that choice. They are as politically dangerous as any other minority but blacks, and I will judge and condemn them on that basis.

  2. Heil Hizzle says:

    My only question is when does this gangrenous rot which is killing the white working and middle-class reach elite whites? Does it ever? Lawrence Auster, the most annoying, sanctimonious control freak in the blogosphere, is currently lambasting the NRO crew for running a cover of Edward Munch’s “Scream” with the byline “Four More Years.” Auster is riled because he thinks Goldberg and Lowery are making light of the situation, when massive non-white immigration is making things dire. My point to Auster (which he of course moderated out) was that things really aren’t that dire for the NRO crew, and that they were right to make light of the situation. For a poor white American, massive non-white immigration might mean the closing of a charity ward or public service now strained to breaking. For a working class white, it might mean being frozen out of construction jobs, or another livelihood. For a conservative commentator at NRO or “The Wall-Street Journal,” all it means is a larger pool of nannies to choose from.

    • Apparently some communist countries used to have opposition parties, which were of course just fronts to give the cranks a place to express themselves. The NRO crew are there to give the phony appearance of an opposition, and they will always have jobs. The elite figures they will never be affected. All Latin American countries are run by a white elite, whatever populist mixed race politician may be in office.

      The ultimate plan is to make this a Latin American country. The white working class is supposed to mix with blacks and Latinos to form a new proletariat like the Latin American one. Elite whites and Jews will continue to intermarry, joined by some Asians.

      I’m not sure that this will work, because even very apathetic working-class whites have some residual sense of racial awareness, and it is going to kick in at some point. Four years of Obama has gone a long way on this, and four more years may cement it.

      • Heil Hizzle says:

        I agree, but there is one question I have to ask, which I’m not sure anyone can answer: Is this a conscious process on the part of the elite?

      • Well, not completely conscious. If you described it to them this way they would vehemently object. If you talked to them in a social situation, they were well-lubricated and you asked them the right questions, they would probably admit something along these lines. People’s behavior isn’t always conscious or obvious to them, but it is the result of their values and outlooks, which they will admit to if they feel comfortable. I don’t think they are any less culpable for the evil they are doing because it’s not the result of a formal plan.

      • PA says:

        “The white working class is supposed to mix with blacks and Latinos to form a new proletariat”

        That, of course, is accurately described as genocide.

      • It’s not genocide if you do it to white people.

  3. fnn says:

    I think it’s safe to say that Ostjuden-the kind of Ashkenazim the culturally German Jewish Paul Gottfried disliked intensely during most of his academic career-have been far more CONSISTENTLY left-wing than any other Western group during the last 100 years. OTOH, If you tried to promote the stereotype that Germans are Communists almost everyone would think you had a screw loose. Of course the Germans *have* become very left-wing during their long period of subjugation that began in 1945. Of late, the English seem to have become the most enthusiastic left-wing totalitarians in the West-seems to be far more tolerance for anti-Jihad, anti-immigration and nationalist dissidents even in Sweden.

  4. PA says:

    “It’s not genocide if you do it to white people.”

    I get the ironic intent, but not exactly. Actions during the Balkan wars resulted in genocide charges, and not just against Serbs, and not just on behalf of (white) Muslims. UN’s definition of genocide is very broad. One viable and important front in “deconstructing leftism” lies in bringing attention to the phenomenon you described above, and calling it for what it is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s