People understand that both political parties are the same. Remember Sanders should have been the democratic candidate and so we were supposed to have two seemingly legit anti establishment candidates running.

So it's political. People don't want corrupt politicians in office who don't have their interests at heart. That has little to do with culture.

Luckbox, as a nationalist, do you ever worry about the propensity of those on the right to pin blame for things that go wrong on out-groups? Do you agree that a politics of hate (towards whichever out-group) is really dangerous?

Throughout history, we've seen again and again the common folk project all their angers and frustrations on another group. In what ways can this new nationalism mitigate against that sort of thing happening?

Fear of that happening again is one the reasons people were crying and weeping as if the apocalypse had happened when Trump won.

People like him have written about urban elites since forever. They were the Chardonnay set, then latte liberals. Populists have had support here for many years. Anti-immigrant policies go back to the Irish. Racists like Pauline Hanson have had support in the countryside always.

His analysis, and yours, is backwards. Urban liberals haven't forced suburban racists to be racists. The right long realised in Australia that you can get whites to cut their own throats by making a straight racist appeal. They are abetted by media that have absolutely no compunction about lying and pushing a hard right agenda. The liberals are just plain horrified at how that works. They're not sneering. They are shocked.

Now, no doubt stagnation in real wages and insecurity are important but I think you do not understand that they tend to increase the feeling that a world that favoured the white working class no longer does. For 25-30 years we did well, our standard of living improved, our nations seemed bastions of civilisation. Now it all seems threatened and some very loud voices say it's because of dark people, too much progressivism, globalisation, Islam. You want the left to adopt that message to pander to their fear but we can't, because unlike the right, we are bound by reality. It's amazing that you straightfaced claim the right sees how it is. I mean, I get what you're trying to say. They are cynical enough to do anything for power. And we aren't.

Now, I don't believe you have anything of real interest to say because you are not thoughtful. You read like one of the duller Spiked articles. Mostly you are wrong on the substance or don't really understand how things work. You don't have answers because all you wish to do is shout loud enough to drown out the questions.

Btw people marched because they are all too aware that in a winner takes all election their views go unheard. They know that they can be hurt by the powerful and they are afraid and angry. You don't understand it because nothing is ever at stake for you and nothing has ever meant enough for you to want to join others to at least be heard.

That's all I have to say to you. Cheers now.

Well i think now the blame is being placed correctly on the elite even if who they are isn't exactly clear.

And yeah i don't think we need politics of hate. I don't see what is happening now as being some super patriotic brand of nationalism...it's more just a rejection of globalism. So i think the fears of hating outsiders are misplaced.

I sincerely wish we were not stuck with a system in which someone as deluded as you are is allowed to empower men like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence and Lloyd Blankfein, who cynically exploit your idealism.

I don't doubt the Democrats also exploit it but they at least have to give us crumbs and they are slightly less venal. And a lot less willing to tank the economy for personal gain and that matters.

Sweet god man, Trump ran on a straight platform of hating outsiders. America First!

His most popular policy is to build a big wall to keep outsiders out. Really.

Border controls aren't exactly a revolutionary concept. I don't really think a wall is needed. Just enforce existing immigration laws as a deterrent to illegal immigration. But that is hardly hating outsiders.

Btw quick lesson in numbers for you.

20% of Americans are Catholics. If 70% of activists in a cause are Catholic, this suggests a commonality in the activists.

One notes no figure was given for atheists. And the conception widely held is not that it's driven by evangelicals but by Christians.

So what about my post was delusional? Is it your position that actual anti-establishment candidates are not allowed to exist?

With the Blankfein it seems like you're still holding onto the position that Trump is ptb. It still seems to me that he isn't.

Don't you think your view is a little one-dimensional? Do you really think racists exist in these huge numbers?

This does not tally with my experience of seeing interviews with actual Trump voters and actual Brexit voters. They seemed to have a whole raft of issues they voted on and the ones I saw interviewed were never explicitly racist. I mean, a few were, but there were large enough numbers of more sensible sounding people for me to draw the conclusion that we cannot de facto dismiss all their concerns as being "racist".

This is where you called Van Jones an "Uncle Tom", as I recall. When you get to that point, aren't you part of the problem rather than part of the solution? Calling a man an apologist for racism for his simple goal of trying to understand where people are coming from?

He seems reasonable to me. You seem quite steadfast in your belief that millions upon millions of people are flat out racists.

"Reality" in the context of what I meant was that large voter bases do not like immigration. It's also other claims I've made such as certain groups not integrating into the rest of culture and living in silos which breed active resentment against the host nation.

I think some people on the left refuse to see that reality because they are wedded to ideological notions about protecting minority groups at all costs, even when it means turning a blind eye to potentially harmful effects.

Your solution seems to be to call anyone who complains about immigration a racist.

And on top of that to call anyone who complains about a lack of social cohesion, a white supremacist.

I sincerely cannot understand how a rational person can hold views like that. It's possible to at once be opposed to racism AND to recognise issues around mass migration and / or a lack of cultural integration and its effects.

I really don't see how you can be as dismissive as this. If you look at what I've said and what you've said, I'm someone really trying to think these things through in a practical way.

You are literally and persistently just waving your hand and saying "yeah, all this stuff is because of racism".

You keep saying I don't understand how things work, and that you do. Yet your answer "It's racism" is plainly not a real answer.

You come across as being extremely unreasonable.

Lol. Racists and non racists are the only two kinds of people in the world.

Kurdistan

North Korea, East Berlin

History proves you wrong.



In a smaller autocracy, there are fewer places to hide, and there is less opportunity for counter-coalition building.

Power tends to centralize, which leads to polarization. If the field is large enough, the result is epicenters in mutual contest.

Huh?! When did I ever talk about Kurdistan?

I recall once saying something like "The West in general would benefit from understanding why ISIS and Iran are at war."

But I don't recall ever talking about Kurds.

Monkey is the Neville Chamberlain of Kurdistan.

Let's talk about immigration without race.


Immigration facilitates cultural exchange, which results in a more-blended identity and a greater degree of mutual understanding, both of which being both massively helpful for diplomacy and aesthetically promotive.

It also, in the US context, lowers the cost of manual labor, dropping the price of the product (assuming the State enables competition). Actually, by lowering the cost for the producer, it makes entry into the competitive that much easier, further encouraging the same competition that will bring down the price to the consumer.



So without race, what is the problem with immigration?

I'm not talking about Undocumented Immigration. I'm talking about immigration.



The greater the restriction on immigration, the higher the likelihood that migrants will subvert the regime and enter under Undocumented status, so perhaps we should render Immigration Controls in such a way as to encourage open-ness, rather than to deter it.

The Wall represents a major maintenance headache and locus of iration.


I believe the State should massively increase its infrastructure output. I do not believe that the edge of the State is the place to do so.

Luckbox, do you think it's better for Big Oil to be in charge of the State Department than for Big Finance to be so?


Which do you think has more to gain from military expansionism in the ME?

What happens to financial markets in times of uncertainty? To commodities markets?

I had never heard of this guy. Guess this is the relevant thread.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

I think it's quite problematic that you did not talk about cultural values. This seems a huge oversight to me, especially the vexed question of what happens when those values clash or are seemingly incompatible (as one such clash point the Western view of women vs. the Islamic view of women).

Also, the lens of seeing "cultural exchange" exclusively in positive terms of "mutual understanding" seems somewhat blind to the reality on the ground, which seems to be more along the lines of mutual distrust and mutual resentment than understanding.

Am I wrong on this? If so, why.

I am not wedded to any ideology or agenda on this topic. I just call what I see, and what I see is what I've said in this post.

I posted a video all about this a few months back. This one:

This chap has been a supporter of mine on youtube and elsewhere, and I think he raises many excellent points.

Another issue is the purely practical concern.

Here are official net migration stats for the UK:



At the current rate that's a city the size of Seattle every two years.

These people need to live, work, eat, get on public transport, use health services, and whatever else.

This is on an island the size of Florida with a population already at 60+million, a failing rail system, and a housing crisis.

What of any of that has to do with race?

To underline the point, a good chunk -- about half -- of those migrants are from places like Poland and Romania. People working in the UK from those places are mostly:

1. White
2. European

Their sheer numbers provoked resentment, and there can be no suggestion that this resentment was "racial" in nature.