I think your predictions about the future of whiteness depend on your theory of who is actually being exploited. The naive "privilege" view says that it's nonwhites who are being exploited, in the manner of antebellum slavery--deny nonwhites rights, make them work for little money, profit. However, that theory struggles to explain a lot of modern racial discrimination, and completely fails when you're talking about immigration. The refugees we're deporting are explicitly not being exploited. We have a farm labor shortage while we're turning away people who are desperate to work on farms for a modest wage.

The competitor racial bribe theory makes more sense here, certainly for immigration. Rapacious capitalist elites screw the workers generally, then befuddle and distract them with racist propaganda so they don't unite to overthrow their oppressors. It certainly tracks the immigration argument. Even the most hawkish anti-immigration research finds that immigrants boost the wages and employment of native whites. Immigrants and natives are not in competition, but lower-class whites can still be convinced that the source of their problems is immigrants, not elites.

The intersection is the treatment of Hispanic residents. The people who *are* in competition with new immigrants are recent immigrants. People often note that Hispanics have a surprisingly high level of support and chalk it up to cultural conservatism or whatever, but it may be true. It's interesting to note though that first generation American Hispanics are literally the only people who can vote who have any rational interest in supporting Trump. The funny thing though is that immigration restrictionist sentiment is driven by the perception of Hispanic migrants as a nonwhite other, and it's hard for Hispanic Americans, especially recent arrivals, to be seen as racially distinct from the ones who are just behind them in line. So the economic benefits of immigration restriction come with the obvious burdens of anti-Hispanic racism.

Compromise immigration bill is going to fail largely because Trump is too incompetent to whip votes and provide cover to conservatives who need an excuse to vote for it.

Since so much of right-wing agitation manifests as natalistic ("the browns are showing up to cheat the vote!"), I don't see why this view is that naive.

The mental gymnastics seem to go as follows:

We're anxious new migrants, refugees etc. will form a coherent, collective voting bloc and will use their future democratic rights to subvert our current racist exploitation schemes.

Put glibly: sure, true enough, the right-wing insistence on border wall + deportation doesn't immediately exploit migrants; just the opposite. But the real concern is that liberal, modern views of a race-blind, pluralist state will eventually afford them political power, which will eventually rollback white supremacist exploitation / privilege.

It seems a bit like "should we believe Trump when he says nonsense?" debates when the answer always: yeah don't try to parse out every word of his gibberish for a deeper meaning, but the general gist of his political ideology is clear as day and we should treat it seriously and literally.

I can agree that right-wing conversation about this is barely comprehensible but on the whole, when you dismiss the specifics of the ramblings but deduce the underlying message of "this is vermin infestation and invasion, and Soros funded buses of illegals fradulently stealing all the elections because Deep State Obama and his cronies are adding migrants to the Democratic plantation politics game along with the blacks", they seem to be fretting about EXACTLY that, just as I described it: pure political natalism. The arrival of brown blood en masse threatens white political vitality, full-stop.

They're not looking to exploit newly arrived migrants; they're anxious that new migrants will collude with other racial minorities to overthrow the dominant white upper strata. And so the scheme isn't to exploit refugees and migrants by refusing their entry but to maintain the status quo where we have a permanent underclass of racial minorities who can't defeat white supremacists acting in concert, due to the current demographic make-up and power structures. The exploitative nature of the shtick is to continue to degrade the political standing of already-present non-whites. Seen from this view, the right-wing posturing -- disenfranchisement of racial minorities already here PLUS ruthlessly enforcing immigration laws to deter and forcibly prevent any new brown people from showing up -- seems perfectly coherent.

To answer your question directly:

Not being directly exploited - refugees, potential migrants
Being directly exploited - racial minorities already here

Hey guys, I've been lurking here for a couple of months, and its been cathartic as I am constantly surrounded by deplorables here in the south. I've seen chiefsplanet mentioned as one of the few gathering places for like-minded fascists, but I wanted to introduce the political forum of my alma-mater, Texas A&M. https://texags.com/forums/16

Here's an example thread title and OP:

Its a circle jerk comprised mainly of straw men, no true scotsmen, non sequiter and ad hominem, but I think its a pretty accurate view of what the "educated" southern conservative looks like. Those of you who believe that deplorables are a decade or so away from dying off are painfully mistaken. In my experience, they've engrained their bull**** and hatred into their children quite well.

“the children (fake or not)”

Obviously mexican dwarfs are abusing our ridiculous over the top kindness (ie not instantly murdering children at the border) to sneak into america in disguise!

I knew the Scoia'tael were behind this!

With the caveats that:
- I'm not a lawyer
- I haven't read today's opinions [edit: I just decided to skim them, so I'm half-informed]

I pretty strongly disagree with both of these posts. Kagan's opinions in general strike me as being very well-written and well thought out. And the opinion in the SEC case seems totally reasonable, regardless of who joined her decision. Breyer's opinion doesn't even disagree with Kagan's opinion all that much - saying the issue could/should have been decided on statutory grounds rather than constitutional grounds. Sotomayor's dissent also seems reasonable, but IMO this is a terrible case to draw any inferences about the "reliability" of Kagan vs. Sotomayor or Ginsburg. I don't see any evidence of some strong belief system guiding any of the opinions in this case.

As for the Wayfair ruling, this seems reasonable, too! They didn't overturn a settled issue because the culture of society changed, they overruled it was because the economics of society have changed, so that the nature of interstate commerce has changed. I think this is a sensible thing to do, and I think it's a good outcome. It shouldn't be surprising that Thomas, especially, is willing to overturn settled law. IIRC, he's typically the one who's most extreme in wanting to overturn wrongly-decided (in his view, of course) precedents.

TL; DR: Kagan's awesome. Overturning decisions can be ok.

I think the bigger thing to watch out for is Alito writing the opinion on public unions, and completely dismantling them.

how about compromise immigration bill will fail largely because GOP as a whole isn't interested in compromising and the hard-liners/freedom caucus will torpedo it anyway

You might be underestimating the ability for children to break through their parent's spell. My sisters and I did it. Given how the racial environment is changing, it will be very hard for white Americans to keep to their own kind indefinitely. Inevitably, they will begin to meet people from other backgrounds and become accustomed to their presence.

In practical matters this is amazing news for local retailers.

That was top 1% coherence level for a chiefsplanet deplorable post. Way too many facts and at least an attempt at actual reasoning.

FYP

I don't see it having much of an impact as they think--the biggest selling point of online is you don't have to leave your house.

A lot of products you want to touch and try on. I bought a high-end camera and lenses from a local retailer. But I had to have them ship it to my friend out of state to avoid about $800 in taxes. I could have ordered from an out-of-state retailer and avoided the hassle to have it shipped straight to me, but I wanted to support my local camera shop. Not many people are going to do that.

That's a dumb loophole and I would be glad to pay taxes if it's closed. But if I can legally avoid taxes I am going to.

lol jordan peterson in case that was not already abundantly clear

he's an idiot but i'll give him a participation trophy for admitting that he was wrong

Yeah somehow that's all his fans will take away. He was smart enough to realize in the moment he just stumbled into something and should probably cut his losses.

But the reality is he thinks a business should be able to refuse black customers.

Jordan Peterson has a cult of personality.

Plenty of redditors trying real hard to play dumb he looked.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeter...er_heard_this/

Correct, it's simply a matter of him not being smart enough to craft a narrative how things have changed on the fly (it's no longer necessary; new social norms have been established, etc).

Also not smart enough to have something prepped. So much for all the YT videos of him CALMLY OWNING THE LIBS.

Easy game when all his fans are, wait for it now, not smart.

lol he even has a subreddit? What a cool world we used to have.

Ohio man sentenced after attempting to seduce undercover officer with chicken Alfredo

"whiteness" has clearly evolved over American history, and at various times did not include such groups as Italians, Jews, Irish, Catholics, etc that are all firmly in the white category now.

Guess he has a fetish for Italian BBWs.

Reading Comey's apologia now. Not very far into it, but parts like this are depressing in their contrast to the current situation.