I would gladly sacrifice everything to obtain the power of the white demons and humiliate and defeat them in battle.

but 29 and 15?

The first one she must have between 12 and 14? I’d guess 13.

And the dude already has a wife and kids!

Wasn’t it the first one who had the wife and kids.

I appreciate your general point and it applies in some cases but in most it doesn’t. These people deliberately target very young girls – they target *children* – not because they’re “alpha” because they’re scum.

The problem is white adults let them target *children* – something they’d never allow if the predator was white – cos the culture of anti-racism.

.

“Eastern Europe might not be strongly infected by the suicidal zeitgeist that has overtaken the West”

The cultural poison comes from the media.

Fortunately we have upstanding family man Vladimir Putin to show us all a good example.

War has been brewing in europe for a few years now. I imagine the leftists will ally with the immigrants.

But to be honest i think an uprising will only get enough traction once its to late. I am so angry though, I would join in a heartbeat. I will gladly sacrifice democracy in exchange for keeping europe free from Islam and africans.

You believe everything uttered by Ukrainian government officials or only what is convenient for you? Casualty lists speak for themselves:

http://pollotenchegg.livejournal.com/199118.html

Two things that immediately come to mind are the rustbelt effect and the greater vulnerability of first-world populations to secularism. Western rustbelts also have lots of social problems – the American Midwest, the north of England, the northeast of France. Who made the Donbass into a rustbelt? Privatizes, looters, oligarchs, “democrats”. It had a healthy industry and healthy families in the late Soviet period.

The problem here is that there are also high out of wedlock rates in rural regions of eastern Ukraine such as Sumy oblast and in southern ones such as Kherson. These oblasts are much more rural than Lviv, yet their out of wedlock birthrate is 24.9% and 31.3% respectively, versus Lviv’s 7.3%.

Out of wedlock births are as low as 6.3% in Ternopil oblast – lower than Uzbekistan.

If the Ternopol region has a similar mean IQ to Uzbekistan, then of course it will have a similar level of religiosity and of out-of-wedlock births. I wish high IQ was asscociated with better things in the modern world, but it isn’t.

Your silly low IQ in Galicia ideas have already been debunked.

Poland is the most religious country in Christian Europe and it is a high IQ country by European (and thus world) standards. Eastern Europe doesn’t completely follow Western patterns.

And speaking of making excuses, the one you gave for the underrepresentation of Galicians among Austro-Hungarian officers in WWI isn’t any good. You cited serfdom. Which was abolished in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1848. 66 years is what, two and a half generations? …There is a hole in your arguments. You admitted that there was no ethnic discrimination in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and that Galicians were underrepresented. When you were asked why, you cited serfdom, by which you meant past oppression. But after 66 years that becomes a poor excuse, especially considering that serfdom was abolished among Germans just a few decades before it was abolished in Galicia.

1. Until Austrian reforms, serfdom in Galicia was traditionally of the Polish type, similar to the Russian type, and much worse than was German serfdom. It was similar to slavery.

2. While the Austrian authorities eliminated discrimination they certainly did not institute any sort of affirmative action (as did the Soviets for prole worker children) or other policies designed to compensate for past serfdom. Nor did they take steps to eliminate unofficial advantages; naturally administrative, educational etc. posts were dominated by literate non-serfs and their descendants and would have very few former serf and their children. This would of course make any progress slow…for Ukrainian former serfs just as for Polish ones. Under such conditions 66 years isn’t enough time to overcome centuries of serfdom.

When immigrants come to a new country, they typically lack connections in it. All of their connections are to other immigrants, who are as unimortant as they are. When does this sort of disadvantage become negligible? Looking at America, I’d say pretty quickly. For example, an amazingly large number of big US tech companies are now headed by East Indians.

Good that you mention immigration. It is, indeed, the ultimate blank slate. Here is per capita income in the USA by ethnic group (2000):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita_income_in_the_United_States_by_ancestry

In the USA Galicians are overrepresented among Ukrainians (about 90% of Ukrainian Americans are of Galician descent); while this has been somewhat diluted by the post-Soviet emigration (though even most recent immigrants are themselves Galicians) in 2000 the post-Soviet effect was still smaller than now:

Ukrainians are ranked 20 out of 86. Above Belgians, Scotch-Irish, Danes, Czechs, Slovaks (but for some reason not people calling themselves “Czechoslovaks”), Poles, Germans, Greeks, Serbs, Taiwanese, Irish, Italian, etc. The large number of Galician-organized Ukrainian Medical Societies and Engineering societies, who organize Engineers Balls around the time of Carnival (a relic of Austrian customs) attest to this. Medicine and engineering are the two stereotypical careers for Galicians in the USA, who have retained their ancestors’ aversion to business and commerce.

BTW Glossy you have avoided the silly debunking of your “low IQ Galician” idea. You had nothing to say when I pointed out that:

1. Lviv oblast is #3 in Ukraine for per capita university-educated population.
2. In terms of per capita academic publications Galicia is the same as places such as Odessa or Dnipropetrovsk.
3. Galicia has recently given us a 32 world-ranked chess player (Vassily Ivanchuk) and 34 ranked female chess player (Anna Muzychuk).
4. Lviv is per capita the center of Ukraine’s computer programming industry (Kiev has more such jobs but it is much more populated).

Still have nothing to say about those facts?

You once argued the exact opposite here. At one point you tried to explain the relative underrepresentation of Galicians in the official casualty lists of the Ukrainian army by saying, without citing any evidence for it, that Galicians are overrepresented among the volunteer brigades.

I hadn’t seen the casualty lists broken down by region and unit:

http://pollotenchegg.livejournal.com/199118.html

The figures are incomplete, but assuming these official lists roughly match unofficial figures, we see Galicians incurring more than their fair share of casualties. Lviv oblast had the third highest total. We also see almost all Galicians dying in the ranks of the regular armed forces. Lviv oblast has 30 die in the regular army ranks, 1 in the National Guard, and 1 in some unknown battalion.

Based on popular stereotypes, which I consider a great source of sociological information,

It depends on whether the popular stereotype comes from people close to the stereotyped, or whether the popular stereotype comes from propaganda. For example American stereotypes about people within the USA have some truth to them. Cold-war era American popular stereotypes of Russians were absurd. As are yours, about Galicians.

They’re seen to have third-worldish levels of altruism.

Wherever would you get this strange belief? Galicia was/is the land of cooperatives and mutual aid societies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_cooperative_movement

“Only don’t forget to replace the Seven Pointed Star with a Cross or you’ll just get another weird cult.”

Umm, what’s that supposed to mean? Make the proles believe in Christianity again while the enlightened elite knows it’s all a charade? I don’t see how that could work.
The problem with Christianity for me is that it isn’t just a set of ethics but also includes metaphysical claims that I simply can’t bring myself to believe in…using Christianity as a tool of social control to keep the proles in check…well, as I said, how’s that supposed to work?

When a people with as little to be proud of as the Galicians takes up off-topic boasting about itself, it’s just pathetic.

figure out why.

I don’t know about why but I think I know a little bit about how.

On one side we have the terror strickened face of Zaid Mohsen (over 7 million views if I read that correctly) and the horrific photo of the face down body of Aylan Kurdi and on the other side we have the Hungarian newswoman and Derbyshire. Derbyshire goes out of his way to mock these boys. Then for good measure he makes up a word to try and slam Oprah. He would be lucky to ever get one day’s worth of Oprah’s media influence.

It is so one-sided that it cannot even be called a contest.

And speaking of making excuses, the one you gave for the underrepresentation of Galicians among Austro-Hungarian officers in WWI isn’t any good. You cited serfdom. Which was abolished in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1848. 66 years is what, two and a half generations?

There’s inborn talent and then there’s what we might call oppression. How long can the effects of past oppression last? We can think of it this way: some European countries were severely oppressed by the effects of WWII and some missed the war entirely. Some experienced famine and rationing in the post-war years and some, having been neutral, didn’t. How long did the effects of that particular oppression last? I’d say less than a generation. By the early 1960s Germany was already rich and Portugal, which missed both world wars, was still poor.

There is a hole in your arguments. You admitted that there was no ethnic discrimination in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and that Galicians were underrepresented. When you were asked why, you cited serfdom, by which you meant past oppression. But after 66 years that becomes a poor excuse, especially considering that serfdom was abolished among Germans just a few decades before it was abolished in Galicia.

Another way to check this:

When immigrants come to a new country, they typically lack connections in it. All of their connections are to other immigrants, who are as unimortant as they are. When does this sort of disadvantage become negligible? Looking at America, I’d say pretty quickly. For example, an amazingly large number of big US tech companies are now headed by East Indians.

Not sure if its only when they arrive in Europe. All the 3rd world masses would have seen how Germany was surrendering to the recent arrivals, it is obvious to all just how beta they are.

European males once were, and still could be, the ultimate alphas in the world. In most of the third world, European males are still seen as alphas. It’s only once they arrive in Europe that they see those hollow suits.

Here is a map of % of children born out of wedlock by oblast for Ukraine:

Two things that immediately come to mind are the rustbelt effect and the greater vulnerability of first-world populations to secularism. Western rustbelts also have lots of social problems – the American Midwest, the north of England, the northeast of France. Who made the Donbass into a rustbelt? Privatizes, looters, oligarchs, “democrats”. It had a healthy industry and healthy families in the late Soviet period.

Unfortunately higher-IQ individuals and populations are more vulnerable to secularism than lower-IQ ones. That’s one of the driving forces of the worldwide dysgenic trend. All other things equal, irreligion will decrease the birth rate and increase out-of-wedlock births.

Out of wedlock births are as low as 6.3% in Ternopil oblast – lower than Uzbekistan.

If the Ternopol region has a similar mean IQ to Uzbekistan, then of course it will have a similar level of religiosity and of out-of-wedlock births. I wish high IQ was asscociated with better things in the modern world, but it isn’t.

And by the way, the junta itself, in the person of an advisor to Poroshenko, has admitted that Galicians are the biggest draft-dodgers in the Ukraine.

While orderly Galicians may vote for nationalistic parties they fight in the regular army (judging by casualty figures, by oblast – almost every Lviv resident died in the ranks of the regular army) rather than in these far right militia-gangs

You once argued the exact opposite here. At one point you tried to explain the relative underrepresentation of Galicians in the official casualty lists of the Ukrainian army by saying, without citing any evidence for it, that Galicians are overrepresented among the volunteer brigades. I call them death squads, but I was trying to paraphrase you in the above, hence the “volunteer brigades” label.

Making excuses for your people is obviously more important to you than consistency.

Based on popular stereotypes, which I consider a great source of sociological information, Carpathian natives should be underrepresented in all military formations in this war. They’re seen to have third-worldish levels of altruism. Non-altruistic peoples can be game for massacres but will try to avoid battles. The Donbass War has had examples of both, but the desire to avoid battles will surely prevail over bloodlust in cowards.

I know that you understand that it is not the left side that is failing. They are doing what they have always done and always will. The structure is the creation of the right side and that is where the failure lies. Apparently I am too far toward the left side to figure out why.

Eastern Europe might not be strongly infected by the suicidal zeitgeist that has overtaken the West, but it suffers from the same social afflictions – broken homes, abdicated social and familiar responsibilities, etc

Eastern Europe is not the same thing as Russia and Eastern Ukraine (which in terms of social problems, is much worse than Russia). Most of Eastern Europe does not have an epidemic of these social afflictions.

Poland’s divorce rate is 27%, compared to America’s 53% and Russia’s 51% (rates in Serbia, Croatia and Romania are like Poland’s or lower). Poland’s HIV rate is .1%, compared to America’s .6% and Russia’s 1.1%.

Western Ukraine is similar to Poland. Here is a map of % of children born out of wedlock by oblast for Ukraine:

Note the dramatic difference that coincides with the old 1939 Soviet border. Out of wedlock births are as low as 6.3% in Ternopil oblast – lower than Uzbekistan.

the European ISIS otherwise known as the Banderite batallions of Aidar, Azov, etc.

This equivalence is just silly. Ignoring Russian propaganda about crucified children, Aidar, Azov et al are not in the same league as ISIS.

And there are far right psychopaths on both sides there. Consider psychopathic Rusich commander and former puppy beheader Milchakov:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=991_1404305663&comments=1

That being said, there is probably something to the idea of a link between broken homes and participation in radical movements in Eastern Europe. While orderly Galicians may vote for nationalistic parties they fight in the regular army (judging by casualty figures, by oblast – almost every Lviv resident died in the ranks of the regular army) rather than in these far right militia-gangs which are indeed mostly from parts of Ukraine with social problems. The worst of these, Azov battalion, is mostly from Kharkiv.

thats an excellent analysis. I am certain that this desire to be with the Alpha is the number one reason Europeans are pro-immigration and welcome refugees. But why do they hide it behind this ridiculous talk about compassion with the allegedly poor refugees?

What will be the endgame?

[…] neoliberals and SJWs are already genetic dead-ends. Reproduction is a genetic arms race. They have lost. Anti-natal policies will do that. When evolutionary pressures come back into play […]

“Now, at this point, I know one criticism that will be leveled at me is that the increase in the non-White share of the population will make it unlikely that Republicans will be able to capture the presidency, as was the main rant after the last election. However, I think it’s unclear if that will be the case. ”

“However, it’s my suspicion that the non-White vote that buttresses the Democrats can only hold out so long against an increasingly Right-leaning White populace.”

Why? Non-white fertility rates project to be higher than white ones well in to the period when the US becomes a majority-minority country.

Plus, another key issue is the proportion of children who become more liberal than their parents vs. more conservative. Certainly on social issues, there has been more of a shift left than right when you go down through the generations since WWII.

[...] comes to bear. In short, if you do not want a future dominated by conservative nuttiness and all that entails, you must start having children, soon, and [...]

[...] The other factor is the lower fertility of secular, liberal-minded individuals in these populations in favor of more religious conservative ones, and all the problems that that entails. [...]

[...] The other factor is the lower fertility of secular, liberal-minded individuals in these populations in favor of more religious conservative ones, and all the problems that that entails. [...]

[...] fertility will eventually rebound as the non-reproducers select themselves out of the gene pool. I’m not so sure that this is that much of a good thing, but that is where we’re headed none the [...]

You (or HBD Chick) are suggesting that “pathological altruism” is just a case of reciprocal altruism that isn’t enforced. That isn’t true. “Pathological altruism” is something else entirely.

What we see as non-familial “altruism” in civilization is largely parasitic castration. The most general definition of parasitic castration is the extended phenotypic diversion of reproduction from the host organism’s genes to the parasite’s. This would include political economic phenomena as well as all kinds of other phenomena.

It isn’t a matter of semantics. It’s an important distinction. “Pathological altruism” is a completely different concept from “reciprocal altruism”. Reciprocal altruism is, put simply, tit for tat. Pathological altruism is always maladaptive, by definition. Behaviors that are always maladaptive, such as homosexuality, can appear at relatively high levels. I don’t know if HBD Chick claims that pathological altruism and reciprocal altruism are the same thing, but if she does, she’s confused.

I think the “pathological altruism” is more a madness of crowds phenomenon at some point someone will say to themselves ‘a tulip bulb is not worth an estate’ Zulu tribal rhythms are not equatable to Mozart wigwams are not like Gothic cathedrals and my culture is not equatable to Islam, im not going to put the lights out on western civilization to boost my Facebook standing.and lets hope the backlash is manageable im a former liberal turned libertarian but admit i get into murderous rages at whats happening to my everything. Im surprised at your comments that conservatives don’t care for others welfare, besides the book /study “who gives” if you spent any time out of crowne heights amonf actual conservatives I think you will notice quite a difference yes liberals form lots of community organizations but getting a liberal to actually part with a dollar is like well we all know what hippies are like. i have found conservatives will load up the pick up truck and drive 500 miles to help out without even thinking about it as charity its just work needing doing.with liberals all charities about furthering the agenda

Racialism existed in the North as well. It was common throughout the country. It was arguably stronger in the North and more sophisticated. The Johnson-Reed Act, or the Immigration Act of 1924, was spearheaded by Northern politicians motivated by racialist sentiment.

Anti-racialist policies are the results of non-democratic politics, not majoritarian support.

In the case of a Nazi dominated Europe/Russia, where Germany is the sole superpower, the US is a minor power, and there is no Soviet Union sponsored Third World, the major pockets of resistance would likely be within Europe, and be racialist/nationalist in nature and motivated by national liberation from German imperialism.

“Pathological altruism” is not the same thing as reciprocal altruism. Pathological altruism is always maladaptive. People see pathological altruism, and then assume therefore that it was selected for in the organism exhibiting the pathological altruism. This is the same mistake that researchers made when furiously searching for genes “for” certain cancers that are now known to be caused by infectious agents. The reasoning was similar: obviously the cancer patient has genes “for” tumors to multiply out of control and kill him, otherwise it would have never evolved. Similar reasoning informs beliefs about homosexuality being genetic as opposed to being due to pathogenic causes.

There are countless examples of parasitism in nature. Even in cases where the “mafia hypothesis” holds, it would be valid to label it as an example of “pathological altruism”, because “pathological altruism” is ultimately parasitism.

[...] Liberalism, HBD, Population, and Solutions for the Future A follow-up: Ethnicity and Politics Another Tale of Two Maps The Liberal/Conservative Baby Gap: Time Depth Further Testing the Pioneer Hypothesis: Canada and Russia Why sub-replacement fertility is not necessarily all that bad Expectations and reality: a window into the liberal-conservative baby gap Dystopian Conservative Future? [...]

Racialist ideas and attitudes were the norm recently in the West, as you yourself suggested in the post when you noted that Jim Crow wasn’t too long ago. They’ve been undermined and suppressed by non-democratic, political and legal action that leveraged the power of the state. It wasn’t because the majorities in the West were different from the Japanese in wanting to undermine and suppress racialism or something and did so democratically. It is the product of non-democratic politics. Europe obviously would be quite different today with respect to racialism had Nazi Germany won the war. What was decisive in Europe was war, and war is the continuation of politics by other means.

The genes for “pathological altruism” (which are a feature of the special evolutionary path that Northwestern Europeans have undertaken, which seems to result in such traits)

There are no genes “for” pathological altruism. Pathological altruism is extremely maladaptive, which is why it’s called “pathological”, suggesting disease.

So-called “pathological altruism” is ubiquitous in nature. But it’s not called that. It’s called parasitism. When a Warbler feeds and raises a young Cuckoo rather than its own offspring, we could say that the Warbler is engaging in “pathological altruism”. But what has really happened is that the Warbler has been parasitized by the Cuckoo.

There may be genes “for” lesser immunity to certain parasites or certain parasitic strategies. But when we see organisms exhibiting “pathological altruism”, the cause is parasitic infection, not genes “for” pathological altruism.

Hg8ih, you claim 1) that liberal fertility has always been at or below replacement, and 2) that there is no major trend of people converting to liberalism. It is possible that one of those two statements is true, but it is not possible for them both to be true.

Not to mention liberal fertility usually includes white liberals and NAMs.

You have it completely backwards. Liberal fertility has always been at replacement level or below it. There is no major trend of “conservative kids running off and becoming liberals”. That’s a myth that only happened for the Baby Boomers (people in their 50′s to 70′s).

Once the anti-fertility shadow of the boomers is lifted liberal fertility will rebound. Children born to leftists today will probably have replacement rate fertility tomorrow. However three generations of greatly reduced fertility (boomer, x, millennial) is devastating to a population. Also conversion is going to go the other way. Right now the trend is that conservative kids run off and become liberals rather than the other way around. If liberals lose power they won’t be able to attract converts, and instead will start losing their members to conversion.

I think it’s gonna take awhile for “the Conservatives” to achieve their former selves Jayman. (Speaking as a conservative-leaning Independent – usually Republican for nat’l offices.) Too much in disarray.

This is out-of-discipline I realize, but I think you might find it illuminating:

http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/12/crisis-american-conservatism-inherent-contradictions-and-end-road

I think that Republicans could win the presidency if they nominated someone who appeals to rustbelt whites (to provide the votes) and to libertarians (to provide the enthusiasm). Rand Paul is probably that person and depending on circumstances he might end up president in 2016 and/or 2020. After that the non-white population will be very high, making a Republican president all but impossible. Meanwhile the white population becomes more conservative (in a variety of ways) and racialized. Yet regional differences will keep a white nationalist movement from coalescing and instituting Jim Crow laws.

So the SWPL elite will continue to control government and universities. Once they have complete power their hubris destroys the economy (solar panel temples, General Motors, etc…) and standards of living start to fall to the point where people have less to lose. Meanwhile people are making due with rival institutions: homeschooling, religion, black markets, etc… this isn’t just whites but other groups as well. Eventually people just opt out of everything and the elite lose their power base. Taxation and propaganda are being much less efficient because the elite don’t control the channels that things flow through. Eventually it becomes clear that the government is going to be dissolved and replaced, and it turns very bloody. Many people die.

The problem is that conservatives defer to authority and the authorities right now are various forms of liberalism (libertarianism, neo-conservatism). So contemporary conservatives are kind of schizophrenic and all over the place. But as conservatives become a bigger portion of the population, substantively conservative views will have more and more cultural authority and more and more cultural leaders will have conservative views. Once such views have more authority they will be reinforced by conservatives tendency to defer to whoever is in power.

I think you are right though that a more religious society will be more and more anti-science. Religious people prefer explanations that involve personal causation while science prefers explanations with impersonal causation.

It’s going to take a long time for these trends to become decisive in electoral politics. During that time, the Republicans will continue to be pushed to the left in order to compete with the Democrats.

So the party that finally takes over the new SWPL free America will be completely different than today’s Republican party.

The values are very similar. Let’s take a look at what Japan has going on that used to be going on in the west.

1) The belief that ethnicity is a thing
2) The belief that nations/communities are a thing
3) The belief that culture is a thing
4) The belief that the above three are more valuable then the individual whims

Was it so long ago that this was the norm in the west? Seems to me the abolishion of these ideas is fairly recent. Is it really that hard to see it coming back?

Mostly I just want a white version of Japan. In Japan racism is normal, everyone knows non-Japanese emigrants are bad for society, and everyone understands society is a real thing and they are all in it together to a certain extent. Japan is a really nice country. Most of its negatives stem from its being absurdly overcrowded, but that will resolve itself after a few generations. The culture is also a bit restricted, but I think a white version of it would be to my liking. I think that would be like Sweden if they weren’t intent on letting in Muslims. I see no conflict between racism/conservative attitudes and modernization and science in Japan.

Like people in Japan, I just don’t give a shit about people who aren’t my own race. It’s not that I actively hate them, and I like some of them, I just overall don’t want a bunch of them around. I used to feel differently, but the more I’m around minorities the more I don’t give a fuck about them. People try to say racism comes from ignorance, but I was actually way less racist when I knew few NAMs. Now that I’ve been around NAMs more, especially after dating a black girl and getting to know lots of black people more closely, I’ve come away thinking that while a few individual black people might be good for the country black people as a whole are bad. If were talking in terms of what is better for the country I’d pay to send em all back to Africa.

I understand how this attitude puts someone like you in a tough spot. Being a smart black person it must always feel like you don’t belong. I’ve felt like that at times in my life and is sucks. We all have our cross to bare.

How this all plays out in politics who knows. I don’t think it will matter much.

http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/dystopian-conservative-future/

Liberal and conservative are really backwards.

Liberals see liberalism as a tool or weapon to be used to advance their position. Conservatives see liberalism as morality and only half-heatedly oppose it.

Has a liberal ever complained about violation of liberal values in any communist or socialist dictatorship?

Liberals support immigration because the majority of immigrants vote for them. If the majority of immigrants voted Libertarian, they would have it reduced.

A libertarian supports immigration as a principle and doesn’t care at all if this gets more votes to grow government. Non-libertarian conservatives can only be half-heatedly anti-immigration because they are pitiful towards third world peasants getting to live better in our society, even if it has to be partly subsidized.

Conservatives are really the true “bleeding heart liberals” and liberals are the true pragmatic realists.

Liberals are like the gypsy fortune-teller. The fortune-teller doesn’t really believe in astrology, it’s just a scam to her. The conservative is like her customer.

In one of your links, you state:

As such, conservative thought favors curbing these benefits, to try to get those at the bottom to “stop draining the system” and act more responsibly; but in reality what they’re after is to get this group to stop breeding so prodigiously (especially when subsidized by the tax payer).

The problem with that line of thinking is that that is no way for a civilized society to be. I’m not on board with most conservative thought because on this. Back in the day, the poor often just died (especially in cities), from illness or starvation. In today’s world we can’t just go back to that.

The correct solution is to encourage this group to not breed so much.

I didn’t concretely understand what you were trying to say with the present post, but I can see the intent in this particular citation, and I wager that you are trying to communicate the same point in both the post and the citation. And that point doesn’t make sense.

You say that conservatives want “to get [the bottom] to stop breeding so prodigiously.” I’d agree. Then you say “that is no way for a civilized society to be.” I disagree — I think that is exactly what an engine-of-progress society should strive for. And I think you disagree yourself, because you go on to say that society should “encourage this group to not breed so much.”

You also write that you are “not on board with most conservative thought because on this.” But if conservatives want to get the bottom to stop breeding so prodigiously, and you think society should encourage this group to not breed so much, it rather sounds like you’re a conservative, doesn’t it?

Of course, you are a self-identified liberal, so that can’t be the case. But you do appear to agree with the conservative aim of curbing the reproduction of the bottom.

So, whence dystopia?

Well, in the above citation, you do include the descriptors of a distasteful society, one where “the poor often just died [...] from illness or starvation.” I also would not want that. But what does that have to do with conservatives vs. liberals?

From what I can tell, the key point you want to make in the above citation is something like the following: “in a conservative world, the poor will be left for dead.” This also appears to be one of the key points you want to make in this very blog post.

But you never actually make it.

Since today’s Semitic immigrants are primarily a feature of life in Western Europe, I’ll ask what you know about pre-War German and French Jewry to compare the problems created by the two groups. Many of those French and German Jews were hyper-assimilated. Nominal conversion to Christianity for social reasons and intermarriage were not uncommon. Strict observation of dietary laws was rare outside of the Orthodox minority, and German Jewish families often kept Christmas trees in their homes. The poorer, more religious, more tribal and less assimilated Jews that you are thinking about lived in Eastern Europe.

When you discuss conservatives do you mean economic conservatives or social conservatives because there can be a big difference between the two. For instance I consider myself right-wing/conservative yet I agree with many liberal criticisms of neoliberalism and capitalism, I also support unions and a (eugenic) social safety net. I am also agnostic. In fact the main reason I consider myself conservative is my opposition to feminism and liberal pathological altruism/empathy with respect to identity/kin groups other than my own.

I was reading this article over on HBD chick the other day http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/clans-in-the-news-deutschland/

and it struck me that history is in some sense repeating itself the problems of the new semetic minority in europe are different in kind then those of the old semetic minority but it seems just as unlikely to me at this point that is problem that is likely to see a peaceful solution.

White nationalism in the US is a long way from the mainstream of conservatism but in europe its not necessarily so and it seems to me quite possible for the political mainstream to turn very quickly. When I was in france I was shocked how openly people spoke of their disdain for their muslim immigrants.

Its not hard to imagine a scenario were a violent expulsion of minorities is undertaken by some european country(germany seems the most likely more unified and collectivist then England or france and with less diverse immigrant community). I think that could result in wide spread race conflict and destabilization including in the US.

Neoconservitism may reign today but the US is not alone nor our problems unique and all these different nations affect each other profoundly. If germany forces their muslim population how will that affect the politics of a more ethnocentric more conservative less altrustic white american population?

I think predicting the future is losing game too many factors to control but it seems to me that we are at the end of period of relative stability and racial ethnic issues in multi cultural societies are going to be one of the major trigger points for the conflicts of the next century. How the plays out I have no idea. My own hope is as non violently as possible.