Eric Kaufmann’s *Whiteshift*

The subtitle is Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities, and might this be the must-read book of the year?  It is “to the right” of my views on immigration policy, but still I found it informative, fascinating, and relevant on just about every page.  Here is the author’s opening framing:

First, why are right-wing populists doing better than left-wing ones?  Second, why did the migration crisis boost populist-right numbers sharply while the economic crisis had no overall effect?  If we stick to data, the answer is crystal clear.  Demography and culture, not economic and political developments, hold the key to understanding the populist moment.

Kaufmann, by the way, is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck in London, but hails from Canada.  As for the basics, there is this in addition:

Much of this book is concerned with the clash between a rising white tribalism and an ideology I term ‘left-modernism.’

If you wish to understand “all the stuff that is going on today,” maybe Whiteshift is the best place to start?  Kaufmann, by the way, is not a mega-pessimist and he seems to think that “broadening the category of white” will lead to a “good enough” solution for many of the Western democracies.  Still, much of this book is disturbing, especially for readers who might consider themselves to be on the left.  Most of all, he sees “whiteness” as a legitimate cultural interest, and one which, if we deny, will lead to more overt racism rather than less.

Here is Kaufmann on Brexit, brutal but I think largely correct:

…many analysts bring a political lens to their analysis which inclines them to want to tell a story about wealth and power.  Over half the country voted Leave and we can’t condemn such a large group.  So we pretend populist voters are motivated by the same things we are: economic stagnation (for fiscal conservatives) or, for left-liberals, inequality and resentment of the establishment.

Kaufmann also has strong evidence for the “immigration backlash” hypothesis, for instance:

…a higher immigrant share is a consistent predictor of higher opposition to immigration over time…in Western Europe there is a .63 correlation between projected 2030 Muslim share and the highest poll or vote share a populist-right party has achieved.

On top of all of its other virtues, Whiteshift provides the best intellectual history of the immigration debates I have seen.  It also has the best discussion of why Canada seems to be different when it comes to immigration, and I may cover that in another blog post.

Kaufmann does very much argue that the left-wing values of diversity and solidarity stand very much in conflict.  How is this for an “ouch” sentence?:

Casual observation would suggest that being black in diverse San Francisco is not necessarily better than being black in white-majority Fargo [North Dakota].

By no means am I convinced by everything in this book.  I don’t think European politics can handle systematized refugee camps in Europe itself (rather than Turkey and Lebanon), and most of all I am not sure that recognizing whiteness as a legitimate cultural concern will diminish rather than boost racism.  I wish he had said much more about gender, and how immigration and gender issues interact.

Nonetheless this book has more points of interest yet, including an original and persuasive take on residential clustering, a good analysis of racial intermarriage, and a sustained argument that avoiding the “no dominant ethnic group” approach of Guyana and Mauritius is imperative.

Strongly recommended, it is out next week, you can pre-order here.


Not just Canada but Australia, New Zealand and Singapore all have much higher immigration rates than the US and relatively little backlash. In Australia for example 28% of the population were born overseas. But then again they all enforce immigration law strictly.

Quality over quantity, is my wish. But the Dems want voters and the GOP wants cheap labor.

The GOP wants loeer gdp from fewer and lower income consumers replacing the boomers who were started at high wages by the FDR leftist, and only by them dying out can the GOP phase out costly middle class and upper class consumers.

Economies are zero sum: fewer high paid workers means fewer big spending consumers.

Fewer middle class workers means fewer middlle class consumers.

Fewer workers, and they must be born two decades before the can be workers, means fewer consumers.

Robots doing all the production will result in lower gdp until robots start buying food and cars, jnless high taxes on robots fund paying the unemployed to work as consumers.

They effectively enforce a regime of skills based immigration that in effect means "East Asians only please" when it comes to any kind of numbers.

Asians such as Stalin, Choibalsan, Mao and Tojo? I wonder what can go wrong.

The democartic party position on immigration seems to be that it wants America to be less white.

Be careful of what you wish for, whites outside of the US sure love their socialism and welfare states. Lack of universal healthcare keeps these undesirables out.

'wants America to be less white' there is no want. the world, evolutionarily speaking will become less white. there's no stopping it...

Just as the US had some very good geographic luck in WWI and WWII, Australia now has a very similar position, being geographically lucky.


Geography is Over

Tell that to Putin, Todd K

So in 2120, the geographic luck will be held by... Antarctica? Mars?

Many traps don't look that scary at first. Massive Immigration is a trap and it will destroy your country. Australia and Canada are very much at risk and I would imagine that China will OWN Australia within 20 years. And in those same 20 years I would expect to see most native (non-immigrant) Canadians seeking shelter in the U.S. But the U.S. will have it's own problems and may well be full on Venezuela style socialism by then. It may not be easy or obvious that massive unchecked immigration is a deadly trap but soon it will be obvious and too late for any kind of peaceful solution. It will end in civil war

Wake up, your Democrat party has turned communist on you.

'Massive Immigration is a trap and it will destroy your country.'

Look at the U.S. and despair - if only we Americans had been foresighted enough to stop massive immigration before 1920, we would have risen to be the greatest power the world has ever seen by 1950.

Oh wait - we weren't foresighted enough, and look at what happened to the U.S. in the following generations.

That was then, this is now.
However if you would agree to have all the new immigrants "go West" (as in west of California) Then massive immigration might be acceptable. But NOW there is no place for them to go so they will sit in our large cities collect welfare and commit crimes.

Anon said, "...But the U.S. will have it's own problems and may well be full on Venezuela style socialism by then. It may not be easy or obvious that massive unchecked immigration is a deadly trap but soon it will be obvious and too late for any kind of peaceful solution. It will end in civil war..."

I think you are correct. Note that immigration changed significantly since 1965. We now import masses of uneducated people from the third world with values significantly different from those of Europe and the Anglosphere.

Also, the left thinks assimilation is racist and xenophobic and has embraced an experiment in "multiculturalism".

How has that worked?

California, the poster child for unchecked third world immigration has the most inequality, the worst performing K-12 schools, the most people on welfare, the most high school dropouts, some of the lowest test scores,the highest taxes, the most expensive transportation fuel, the highest energy costs, second worst unfunded public pension obligations ( only Obamaland is worse), and is a de facto one (leftist) party state. If the new Governor is serious about his promises it will be a quasi socialist state.

We need to get control of immigration asap before we reach a tipping point.

Geography is over? Then why the hell are we arguing about a wall?

Because the US ability and willingness to expel illegals is broken. If it were not -- as with Singapore -- the Wall would be irrelevant. Employers would be severely punished for hiring illegals, illegals could not receive any state or Federal benefits or be admitted to any government universities, they would be easily deported, and whistleblowers would be rewarded for ratting on illegal hiring firms by receiving a percentage of fines levied on such firms.

Missing my point, which was a reply to Todd K. He claimed "geography is over" which makes no sense. Australia and Canada have less problematic immigration situations than the US, due to geography. Just as WWI and II were less of a problem for the US, due to geography.

By the way that's the way I'd handle things here, more severe punishments for businesses that hire illegals. But there's no constituency for that. If illegals couldn't get work they would stop coming.

mebbe sociologists underrate the connection between attitudes about immigration in the west and population density
the population density/squaremile of australia/ canada is about 1/9th of u.s.
new zealand population density is about 1/2 per square mile of u.s.

and mebbe the sociologydept/npr/nyt elite media triumvirate overate the connection between attitudes about immigration and skin color

Does Justice entitle one to laugh? "One on [side of it]... on the other." On the … responsibility of intellectuals. [NOOR]/Looney Tunes...Giraffe/Gastrointense...Kangaroo/New Canaan (son of Ham)

Between 1934 and 1943, Merrie Melodies were produced in color and Looney Tunes in black and white.

buen punto pero demasiada puntuación de fantasía

You should follow more Canadian news other than what's coming out of Ottawa and the CBC.

In the west, Separatism is starting to rise again. The Left-wing government in Alberta is down 25 points over the conservatives. The Trudeau government is down in the polls. Immigration policy is a big part of the dissatisfaction.

The situation in here in NZ demonstrates that there is no immigration crisis in Europe, there is a Muslim crisis. No one talks about the flood of Eastern Europeans in the UK any more, they all managed to fit in fine. No one talks about the flood of Germans here. Luckily, we don’t have much Muslim immigration so far, so things are going well.

By the way calling this now, 350+ posts. You're welcome, Library of Congress.

People here really don't have much experience in archiving it seems. Simply archiving the entire text of this site over one year (keeping track of what comments get deleted and which don't is fascinating) involves a ZIP file of ca. 50 megabytes.

Even more interesting is the contrast to how trivial it is to store all American telephone conversations as text. Yes, this information is 5 years old, and is provided by a man with just a bit more practice than most in storing large amounts of data - 'Brewster Kahle, a computer engineer who founded the Internet Archive, has vast experience storing large amounts of data. He created a spreadsheet this week estimating that the cost to store all domestic phone calls a year in cloud storage for data-mining purposes would be about $27 million per year, not counting the cost of extra security for a top-secret program and security clearances for the people involved.'

This web site, even if got 10,000 comments per post per day, is utterly miniscule in size. It's importance, at least in the eyes of loyal readers, is anything but, of course.

" It's importance, at least in the eyes of loyal readers, is anything but, of course."

Yes we get it, you would literally die without this place. Also, you can stop knob-gobbling the Internet Archive. I know more about it than you ever will.

I can only hope that the dictation programme that transcribes them is more accurate than google speech-to-text, so they can find all the Muddle Yeast Teller a Tax.

Considerably better, as you can read about here -

One of the more interesting articles from the past was one in the Baltimore Sun concerning the handing over of a NSA listening facilities to researchers in 2001. Here is a sample - 'What Powers and several others in the group find remarkable, though, is not just the expansive network of buildings and security, but the extraordinary cost of all they items they have found - items the agency discarded.

He said the extensive fiber optic cabling that runs for miles under the floors and through the tunnel system is the most expensive on the market.

When a state regulator came out to issue a permit for a massive underground storage tank with a double lining, the astronomers said he told them he wished he had a camera. He wanted to take a picture to show his co-workers because he had never seen a system so sophisticated.

And the agency didn't just install one water tank; it installed two. In a basement room, beneath a system that pressurizes wells, is another system just like it.

"You see this kind of thing everywhere here," Powers said. "They never have just one of something."'

Google just dreams of having the sorts of resources that the NSA has available.

Webcache for the non-Americans - link

"in Western Europe there is a .63 correlation between projected 2030 Muslim share and the highest poll or vote share a populist-right party has achieved."

Correlation is not causation. But how easy is it to then say that the Jews caused the Nazis?

That's just not a valid comparison. Right-wing populists aren't categorically racist. Some are probably, but a lot are motivated by legitimate fears about immigration and rapidly shifting demographics. And immigration of course is the direct cause of this.

'Right-wing populists aren't categorically racist.'

The Brexiter version is, at least if you don't follow American ideas of racism. In other words, from a Brexiter perspective, of course Poles are an identifiable group that is clearly different from the English, and the immigration of such a distinct group has to be reversed.

'by legitimate fears about immigration and rapidly shifting demographics'

Yes, the Poles are truly changing what makes England so special, aren't they? Which explains why the largest single group of immigrants to the UK is properly the subject of discussion when talking about a book called Whiteshift. Or not, as from an American perspective, as clearly the English and Poles (the largest single immigrant group in the UK, by the way) are both clearly white.

Just ask Steve Sailer - one can be confident he is well versed in these matters, as can be seen below.

I wonder by what perspective Poles in Britain would not be thought to "be an identifiable group"? Do Poles in Britain wander around in a confusion about which of the people around them are their countrymen as they are not "identifiable"?

Ah, I was being just too polite. Poles are an identifiable ethnic group who are clearly not English, likely due to the fact that they are simply a different racial group (Europeans, unsurprisingly, can have their own non-American perspective on races). Though with a broader definition of whiteness, who knows, maybe UKIP party members might decide to include them in their definition of Englishness after a generation or two.

Much like how Boris Johnson is now seen as fully English - though Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, as he is accurately known, was until recently an American citizen, and has described himself as a "one-man melting pot," having a combination of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian great-grandparents. That would actually seem to make him a member of a transnational tribe, but not in this current age, apparently.

As a side note, this is why Bannon will likely fail to unite the right in Europe - Europeans have a different framework, and the sort of people that support Le Pen or the AfD already know which racial group is superior - the one they belong to, which for German AfD voters would be German, while for Le Pen voters, it is the French. What, do you think such French and German voters belong to the same racial/ethnic group in their own eyes? Of course not, they are far too smart to believe in all that leftist claptrap about European values or identity. However, this sort of discussion bogs down very quickly, as Americans seem to find such European beliefs more or less incomprehensible - clearly, Europeans are just white by American standards and thus share a similar framework, even if the sort of Europeans that Bannon wants to shower money on find that idea incredibly silly.

Don't think Bannon matters much here (like Kauffman, think is a deeper process, not driven by a few visible actors).

But when Bannon has engaged with European far right, seems to understand this, and judging by public prouncements filtered through press tells them they're going to rejuvenate nation states, not join pan-European shared ethnic state.

Latter unification more the kind of thing that old Germans insist is imperative to prevent war between European states, then oddly for don't include the Ottoman or Russian beligerrants in that unity, despite being the most serious beligerrants in those conflicts....

White people are racist against white people. lol if it weren't so stupid. Then again we did just have the CNN reporter tell a black guy he was only successful because of white privilege.

'White people are racist against white people.'

Says an apparent American. However, a Serb would have no problem (just like a couple of weeks ago, actually) calling the German train conductor asking for his train ticket, and when he didn't have one, his ID, a racist.

Europe is not the U.S., and lots of people here do not consider their skin color to be all that defining when it comes to 'race.'

Maybe you could ask an Irish person how that works - or maybe just read some Benjamin Franklin, who felt that swarthy Swedes were not white enough to settle North America.

"lots of people here do not consider their skin color to be all that defining when it comes to 'race.'"

You haven't spent much time on a US college campus lately, have you? I am not sure whether faculty research or preservation of the larded agenda-driven bureaucracy is the primary goal, but it's one of those two. Education comes third.

Fun fact: correlation is often evidence of causation. Especially when there is a clear mechanism of causation and no plausible alternative explanation.

The populist parties explicitly position themselves as a response to immigration (and Muslim immigration specifically). They arose after the immigration occurred and are a direct political response to parties that
allowed the immigration and promoted multiculturalism.

Note: a causal relationship does not imply "immigrants are to blame" or anything remotely like that.

Will be interesting to see how much of this is cribbed from Steve Sailer.

“broadening the category of white”

Interestingly, the trend in the US since the Civil Rights era has been toward "narrowing the category of white:”

- Hispanics/Latinos were largely assumed to be in the white category in the 1950-1960 Censuses, but Hispanic/Latino was introduced for 1970 to serve the needs of affirmative action.

- South Asians were broken out of white next.

- The outgoing Obama Administration proposed creating new "racial" category for Middle East - North Africans, although the Trump Administration seems to have shelved it.

The simplest explanation is that being categorized as white used to be beneficial in America, but since the advent of affirmative action has been a negative.

Wait, whoa, are you saying south Asians (Indians, Indonesians, Thai, Filipinos) are white? I don't think your readers would agree.

"Interestingly, the trend in the US since the Civil Rights era has been toward "narrowing the category of white:” "

Im old enough to have known people who did not consider itallians, Spaniards, Greeks, Poles, etc to be "white". And the GOP overwhelmingly did not consider Catholics Christians because they were really "white".

I find SCOTUS amusing because it has ceased to be acceptably Christian by 1960 norms. Nor acceptibly white.

I did grow up mostly in Indiana in the late 50s and 60s.

Correct. If we did have a more racist system, Hispanics with a bit more of the European admixture would try to identify as white, which might cleave off a decent chunk of them. Instead, I see anyone in even a slight mixed marriage trying to run towards whatever X% of nonwhite they have.

I tell my half-white/half-AfroBrazilian children to self-identify as African-American, for the bennies. One even has the sickle cell trait, one is gay. Sadly, both identify as conservatives and think sjws are rediculous. They love to make fun of the sjws.

I find it amusing whenever the lefties gush about the coming demographic revolution that will permanently ensconce the confused set of values they hold so dearly.

Now, Steve, if only we could get you to go back to considering Latinos and South Asians white. How that would change many of the theories you're known for.

What? When were South Asians ever considered white? The Supreme Court ruled in the 1923 case of United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind that South Asians are not considered white and were therefore not eligible for US citizenship under the then-law.

And being “white” means a lot more than what category you are on the census. Though they are white on the census, I doubt many Middle Easterners feel they are treated as white when going through airport security, for example.

But the Lebanese immigrants have always been considered white.

The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid[1] or Europid)[2] is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, which, depending on which of the historical race classifications used, have usually included some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[3]


In the early 1970s, South Asians were lumped in as "Caucasians" and thus weren't eligible for some affirmative action programs, such minority development low interest SBA loans and racial preferences in government contracting, while East Asians, who were called "Orientals" were eligible for these minority benefits. So South Asian immigrant businessmen demanded to be grouped in with East Asians in the new "Asian" category. I believe this process ran from about 1978 to 1982.

These events have of course been almost completely forgotten since they don't make any sense under the reigning dogma of White Privilege. But, they are perfectly understandable under the forbidden concept that since c. 1969 has had a regulatory and legal system of White Disprivilege.

'Much of this book is concerned with the clash between a rising white tribalism'

Which certainly explains Brexit and the ending of free movement, with so many British voters interested in kicking out Poles or Bulgarians. Which means those interested in Brexit just might not want to think Whiteshift is the best place to start, if only because in Europe, history is full of centuries of what one, from an American perspective, could call unending white on white violence.

Which makes this comment hilarious - 'and he seems to think that “broadening the category of white” will lead to a “good enough” solution for many of the Western democracies.

The EU has allowed wages for low-skilked workers to drop down to eastern European levels. Hence, Brexiters aren't too happy with open borders allowing eastern Europeans to work in England.

" long-term effect of the euro is going to be to drive Western European wages down to Eastern European levels in global competition for export share with the Chinese." - Mark Blyth

That said, I think the destruction of local culture and social capital by high levels of immigration is the real issue. It is a pre-rational response. The racist angle is overblown and is a strawman constructed by the left because if represents the enemy they WANT to fight - it makes them feel good and superior to defeat the racist strawman.

When you love your culture and cherish the memories of celebrating holidays with your family and friends, it is difficult to accept the loss of that closeness and sense of belonging.

The cultural elite don't get it, as they have their own transnational tribe.

'The EU has allowed wages for low-skilked workers to drop down to eastern European levels.'

Nope - the EU has no policy on wages. As notice the fact that Germany now has a minimum wage law, from 2014. And a UK farmer still has to pay the wages mandated by British law, not what is paid in Romania.

'The racist angle is overblown and is a strawman constructed by the left'

And here I would have said that the racist angle was overblown by those talking incessantly about Eurabia - of course, if you wish to call them leftists, be my guest.

'When you love your culture and cherish the memories of celebrating holidays with your family and friends'

Those Poles, ruining Christmas while working as plumbers - a Daily Mail article just waiting to be written.

The minimal wage is determined by the countries where you work, but the benefits (an important part of the wage in Europe) have long been totally, and are still for a large part, free for the employer to be paid at the level of the EU country of origin of the worker. So it is true that a Romanian plumber hired in UK by an UK employer costs significantly less to the employer than a UK plumber for the same job. Also the Romanian worker received less in terms of vacation, retirement'soney, etc.

'So it is true that a Romanian plumber hired in UK by an UK employer costs significantly less to the employer than a UK plumber for the same job.'

Cannot speak for the UK, and farm workers are their own category, but this does not describe Germany, at least when it comes to French workers from a place like Seltz working in a German city like Rastatt (yes, there is paperwork, and yes, there is interest on both sides of the border in reducing it). Note that I am talking about residents of France working in Germany, not French residents living in Germany - French residents in Germany are treated like Germans in terms of things like vacation days, health insurance, etc.

I am also unaware of this applying to plumbers, but have no personal experience of what is called Handwerker here.

To be honest, and recognizing that details matters and that the UK has a large amount of special exceptions from EU regulations, this simply sounds inaccurate. A Polish plumber resident in Germany is subject to the same laws regarding benefits as all other German residents, EU citizens or not.

And the only example I know of concerning benefits involved Polish agricultural workers in Germany. What happened a while ago is that the Polish government required German farmers to comply with Polish law regarding taxes, particularly in terms of pensions - at which point, the Poles as a group were switched out in about one season, as they became too expensive/impractical to employ compared to the now available Romanians. However, that specific example is obviously completely opposite of a Polish plumber being paid less due to Polish law being used in the UK.

Are you denying that importing workers from poorer East European nations has no imoact on local labor markets? Btw, I quoted Mark Blyth, so you are also arguing with Mark.

I'll ignore your 4chan style sarcasm wrt the loss of social capital.

You have read Putnam et al haven't you? Diverse communities have lower social capital across the board - EVERYONE hunkers down and self-isolates. We may not like that fact, Putnam didn't - he scrutinized his findings and delayed publishing them, but they are what they are. The lower social capital explains Trump, Brexit, Afd, Italy, Austria, Romania, etc.

Community, closeness, tribalism, whatever you want to call it, is important to MOST people, but not to wealthy, highly mobile, cultural elites.

The guillotines are getting oiled.

And it occurred to while chopping kindling that you likely mean something else, which basically has nothing to do with immigration.

It is true that a Polish company can bid on a contract in the UK, and use Polish workers to do the work (within a certain time frame, and avoiding meeting the conditions for residency). Such free movement of capital and labor is part of the EU, no question. And yes, it can lead to wage dumping. A fact that has led to certain changes within the EU - 'It is not yet law, but the principles are now clear: Posted workers sent from their home country to another in the European Union should, in future, receive higher wages and have the same rights as local workers. "This is very good news," said Marianne Thyssen, the European Commissioner for Social Affairs and Labor Mobility. "We don't want wage dumping."

The commissioner knows the details well: earlier this week, she negotiated through the night with colleagues from the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, representing the 28 Member States, in order to reach an agreement. The negotiations on the reform of the Posted Workers Directive, which regulates the working conditions of workers in their host country, have been ongoing since March 2016. "We have agreed on the basic principle that the same wages should be paid at the same place for the same work," Zornitsa Roussinova, the Bulgarian minister for employment, who was representing the member states in Brussels, told DW.'

This has nothing to do with the 850,000 or so Poles that are residents of the UK, however. Basically all of whom are paid and receive benefits in precisely the same fashion all British residents do, whether UK citizens, EU citizens, or non-British and non-EU citizens.

Everyone gets paid the same?

Supply and demand has no impact?

That doesn’t seem quite right. I get your point that an EU citizen resident in a given EU state is generally subject to that state’s laws, including minimum wage laws, etc. But that would seem to be irrelevant if any significant gap exists between the minimum wage and the market rate. That is, if market rate prior to an influx of immigrants is well above floor X, it is possible for some or all of that to be competed away in the new equilibrium. It’s quite possible for EU policies to “allow wages for low-skilled workers to drop down to East European levels” despite having no formal policy on wages. Whether or not that is a problem is a different matter, of course.

Probably don't reduce wages, but may hold them at a lower level through a high pool of labour which is not going to push for higher wages (given how high the wage already is by Polish standards and that many of these people are not necessarily planning a house in Britain).

It's not unusual for economists to recognize this, but usually they argue that higher paying "complementary jobs" are present. However, the record of job creation tends in the UK has tended to suggest that these are virtually all in positions that are filled by migrants (so skeptical of complementary jobs for natives) and in any case, if there are any for natives they are filled by different people.

Still, people who've actually lost out in employment terms aren't that many out of people who vote Brexit, particularly given the age demographics. There just couldn't be that many of them.

The groups who dislike the idea of a European federal superstate, see the EU as an economic chain to tie the UK to that ("Even if you don't want to be part of a superstate, you can never afford to leave!") and who see migrations of groups like the Poles as likely to deconstruct national identity (in its place perhaps raise this dysfunctional "White" or "European" construct) and wish to peacefully end those migrations for that reason are probably more significant.

Brexit is a distinct thing from the populist movements across Western Europe that derive from poorly managed non-EU migration that has focused on cheap labour and refugees, who naturally don't bring a lot of strengths, and bring lots of division particularly when of Muslim religion and of theocratic bent.

'Brexit is a distinct thing from the populist movements'

Tell that to UKIP.

And as a no deal exit seems the most likely result of Brexit, this seems a bit skewed - "Even if you don't want to be part of a superstate, you can never afford to leave!" The British will likely be leaving without any terms or conditions at all on March 29, and thus be fully able to enjoy all the benefits and privileges of being a non-member of the EU.

Which will make the idea of the EU 'punishing' the UK even more laughable if no deal occurs. The UK will have gotten exactly what it wanted in terms of taking back control (without the delusional Brexiter fantasy of having their cake and eating it too, admittedly), and the EU will treat the UK precisely the same way it treats a country like the U.S. - placing EU interests in front of non-EU interests.

Exactly. Something like the beginning of an understanding seems to happen in your mind. The no deal option is the option where the EU does not punish the UK. Which is why EU wants to avoid it at all costs, even changing the rules of the game near the end of the two year period by allowing UK to renounce unilaterally brexit (a typical clever game of chicken's move)

'Something like the beginning of an understanding seems to happen in your mind.'

You know I am pro-Brexit, right? March 30 cannot come soon enough from my perspective. Which is shared by a number of Germans at this point - their basic perspective seems to be that the EU will deal with the consequences, and that the UK will deal with the consequences, and why keep playing games. You just might remember how the Germans had expected that UK Article 50 notification a couple of weeks after the referendum, right?

'The no deal option is the option where the EU does not punish the UK.'

Well, not according to many of the Brexiters who said that the EU would bow to the UK, to ensure access to the UK market by compromising on the EU's principles. Mainly because no deal could never happen, as German car makers would tell Merkel to give the Brexiters what they wanted.

'Which is why EU wants to avoid it at all costs'

Um, it sure doesn't look that way from Germany. But we will see what happens in the next 60 days.

'the two year period by allowing UK to renounce unilaterally Brexit'

Well, the ECJ basically ruled that the nation that invokes Article 50 has the right to revoke it before it takes effect, without requiring the approval of all the other EU members. Which actually seems logical, to be honest, as the decision to stay or go is left up to the government of a country.

This means that currently there are two actions that UK can take on its own, without requiring any action on the part of the EU - stay a EU member, or leave. Strangely though, the British still keep talking about extensions and delays, as if the only one that decides on such matters is the UK.

We Brits wouldn't want to make the EU's job more complicated than it is with our presence.

Good luck to the commission in fighting Italy, Poland, Hungary, Austria, and the French street at the same time. Maybe they can touch Greece or Germany for the extra £39B; I'm sure that will go down well.

You can certainly argue UKIP as a populist movement (eventually, not at its inception, but when it was pulling in large sections of the vote), but not quite the same sort as AfD or Front National in its character.

Post-Brexit vote attempts for UKIP to become an AfD style anti-Islam party (seriously, this was Paul Nuttall's "strategy" for how they'd remain relevant) have been met largely with a mix of apathy and disgust by most Brexit and former UKIP voters, because Britain's migration experience is just not the same as Europe's (even on Muslim migration).

CP: And as a no deal exit seems the most likely result of Brexit, this seems a bit skewed

I'm more saying this is the intended end state, rather than actually immediately realised for anyone (despite "Project Fear"). But smaller countries like Ireland might actually be very close to this being true. If Britain, on the larger end of EU states, has some problems deconverging from the EU, it's hard to imagine that it's a credible idea that a smaller state like Ireland ever to be able to, and so their ultimate options in an EU that bundles increasing economic and political convergence are really quite limited and become smaller over time.

We all know that the European largely sells political integration, which is of interest to a few, mainly old and/or excessively highly educated Germans, on being bundled as the unwanted accompaniment to economic integration that people do want (and to a fairly large extent this is also true of the movement of persons, in countries that have actually experienced it on a large scale).

'but not quite the same sort as AfD or Front National in its character'

Well, no question about Front National, but the AfD actually got its starts as an anti-euro party. That political philosophy still exists in a new party, that drew maybe 20% of the AfD away - At least wikipedia provides the reason why 'ALFA' seems to have disappeared from public view.

'We all know that the European largely sells political integration, which is of interest to a few, mainly old and/or excessively highly educated Germans'

Strange how the East Europeans seemed so eager to join the club, isn't it? Almost as if they preferred a version of political integration that did not look like the Soviet model - or the pre-WWI model either.

1) whiteness wasn’t a thing until the Left started making it a thing. This regression into anti-white tribal thinking will only make whites start thinking of themselves as one.

2) just 6% of Canadians want more immigration but they’re getting it anyway. They also had - till recently - a mostly skill-based threshold enforced by large oceans.

So Jim Crow the KKK etc. had nothing to do with the political apprehension of whiteness ? Who knew?

Jim Crow and the KKK are long dead.

Pull your head out.

Is English not your native tongue? I was responding to a post which had a past tense verb (was). So yes, mentioning past circumstances is entirely topical.

'whiteness wasn’t a thing'

As if chattel slavery based on skin color never existed in the United States. Nor anti-miscegnation laws - 'Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law in some States since before the United States was established and remained so until ruled unconstitutional in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. The term miscegenation was first used in 1863, during the American Civil War, by American journalists to discredit the abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of interracial marriage after the abolition of slavery. In those of the original Thirteen Colonies that became states and enacted such laws, they were enacted as state law in the early 18th century; a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery'

Ultimately the only solution to racial divisions is intermarriage. Unfortunately, even though intermarriage is formally legal, it is still much rarer than one would predict from residential patterns and chance. Most Americans opposed intermarriage until the 90s, and even today the vast majority prefer to marry others of the same race (the studies I’ve seen say white women generally have the strongest same-race preference of any race-gender group). This sort of thing is the biggest obstacle to “broadening the category of white” in America today.

The status of racial intermarriage in the US is totally driven by the preferences of white women.

White women overwhelmingly prefer white men. I guess a lot of lefty sjw females are lying, but we knew that.

All that said, interracial marriage is fully accepted all across the USA and across all races and social classes.

It is not a big deal.

According to surveys, white men are attracted to white, Latina, and Asian women.

White, Latino, Asian, and black men find black women the least attractive. I feel sorry for black women.

I have been in 2 interracial marriages - to an Asian woman and - currently - an AfroBrazilian woman with whom I had children.

We have the Hispanic Caucus, a racist organization in Congress in modern times.

One does not need to be white to see that we have a stupid idea here, racist organizations in the House. What kind of stupid idiot organizes a Hispanic caucus? The Jews? Asians? Lithuanians? No, it is in the name folks, Hispanics describe themselves as stupid idiots, all unto themselves, no need for whiteness, they have managed to be racists against themselves, all by themselves as if they are naturally stupid. Give me another explanation.

One thing to understand with immigration is that, as Steve Sailer pointed out, the left is better described as "anti-anti-open borders" then "open borders". That is outside of some quirky libertarians, most people don't formally and logically articulate open borders as a desired state. Rather, upon hearing some sob story about immigrants, they are against effective enforcement and pro-amnesty. This logically results in open borders, but the leftist really doesn't think past the immediacy of "helping those people in need" in the immediate sense.

This explains American immigration policy. Immigration was highly unpopular for decades, and technically laws kept getting passed against it, but the enforcement just wasn't there. It was open borders by default, rather than a conscious decision by people to open the floodgates.

This also explains why places like Australia or Canada work. They don't share massive land borders with high population third world countries. So they didn't end up with a massive influx of people crossing such a border in small numbers and the enforcement problems that brings.

You really ought to add to this that forces on the right made sure that laws did not get enforced as they wanted the cheap labor. AS we should all know by now, acting against enforcement means more illegals can enter, but it also means that since a large number of illegals are here because they overstayed their visa, we dont go after those people like we could. (I believe at present the majority are actually those who overstayed, but not sure those statistics are reliable.)


The "cheap labor" angle is over-emphasized. More people means more churn, which benefits Republican realtors and developers. Also, anybody in the business of selling consumer gewgaws will never object to more consumers. If you can sell your cheap cellphone plan to a few million newly imported fast food workers, then you're rich enough to move away from the huddled masses.

Remember when we weren't supposed to like "sprawl"? That lasted about ten minutes.

Immigrant-driven fertility is only compatible with sprawl-love, unless you're one of those urbano-libertarians that think attractive central city neighborhoods are going to readily submit to being razed and rebuilt every ten years to support the density-du-jour.

A few activist billionaires aside, I would put most pro-immigrant Republicans in the "benign neglect" camp. That is the GOPs stance on immigration the past few decades has been "just don't talk about it" as much as possible. It's not so much pro or anti as non-existent.

Of course individual Republican businessmen did help many illegals violate laws so they could employ them.

Australia doesn't have a land border with anyone. Canada's land border with the US does involve some awfully impoverished places on the US side, notably Detroit.

Yep the left makes no sense in the debate only the right and the libertarians make and sense.


1. It seems absurd to have a law that you have no intention of enforcing.
2. The illegal immigrants who have been here the longest are better off than those who would have wanted to come but did not come because they did not want to come illegally.
3. The illegal immigrants who have been here the longest are better off because they have had a chance to earn more money than those in Mexico.
4. The illegal immigrants who have been here the longest are better off because they have had a chance to learn some English which might help them get a better job in Mexico.

So suppose we deport illegal immigrants starting with those who have been here the longest and for each one deported we let in a person from the queue. Or maybe we let in two people from the queue for each illegal deported.

It was open borders by default

The people dying in the desert and paying smuggler would strongly disagree with that statement.

The weirdness of Hillary Clinton's proposal was, in effect proposing a laws that said we will make a reasonable effort to keep you out of the USA and to deport you if we catch you within 2 years, but if you manage to avoid deportation for 2 years you're in, and can then start a process to become a citizen.

The proposal is not actually that weird, we have a statute of limitations for most crimes. 2 years seems short to me but it's not crazy.

I'll just leave this here:

Trump signed an order to hire 15,000 new border agents two years ago. Customs and Border Protection paid $60.7 million to the consulting firm Accenture Federal Services to “recruit, vet and hire” 7,500 such officers over five years. The company has hired 33 such officers to date. [Los Angeles Times]

That doesn't sound like Accenture. There would be powerpoints everywhere.

LOL, just passing along the facts. I report, you decide.

To asdf:

"This also explains why places like Australia or Canada work. They don't share massive land borders with high population third world countries"

Canada will have it's challenge. Canada has a border with the third world - the USA.

Right now there is a steady stream of illegals and amnesty seekers crossing from the US into Canada. It is a trickle now, but all dam failures start with a trickle.

I guess the bennies are sweetm. I have seen videos of RCPs acting as baggage handlers for illegals. Very nice.

So that is it. Mauritius is the enemy now.

Well, the book might provide a good "intellectual history" of immigration, but not an actual history. America, a land of immigrants, has always resented the other, whether they be Asian or Irish or Jews from Eastern Europe. Europe, on the other hand, experienced more emigration than immigration; indeed, Europe experienced a labor shortage, which is why Europe experienced a rising tide of immigration in the 1980s through the 1990s. And backlash always seems to come from the right not the left; indeed, the intellectual movement, referred to as the Frankfurt School, was an effort to explain why the worker revolution in Russia wasn't followed by a left-wing uprising in the intellectually advanced country of Germany, which instead experienced the worst of right-wing populism (and continues to do so 85 plus years later). Right-wing populism is explained by the Frankfurt School (the "critical theorists") as the result of the "culture industry" that relies on propaganda to blur the distinction between truth and fiction. Here's a book that explains the critical theorists. Here's an interview of the book's author Stuart Jeffries:

When those on the left consider both libertarian advocates of open borders, individual liberty, free markets and trade, military non-intervention, and small government as 'right wing' and also blood-and-soil, militaristic, coporatist, collectivist, national socialists as 'right wing', it's pretty clear that -- to the left -- 'right wing' really has no meaning other than 'stuff we don't like'.

You're conflating two political axes--1) cultural: conservative vs. libertine and 2) economic: libertarian vs. socialist--into one.

The current "right-wing" coalition in the U.S. consists of an establishment that's moderate on cultural issues and libertarian on economic issues sitting atop an activist base that's culturally conservative but moderate on economic issues.

The current "left-wing" coalition in the U.S. consists of an establishment that's culturally libertine and moderate on economic issues sitting atop an activist base that's culturally libertine but socialist on economic issues.

Both coalitions are internally aligned on cultural issues, but internally split on economic issues. Fortunately for the establishments of both, most voters vote along cultural lines, not economic ones.

I don't wish to turn this blog into a platform for conspiracy theorists, but the Frankfurt School is not some obscure intellectual movement, it plays the central role in right-wing conspiracy theories about a Jewish, Marxist attempt to destroy Western civilization. Political correctness? A product of the Frankfurt School. Cultural Marxism? A product of the Frankfurt School. From Lyndon LaRouche to Andrew Breitbart to Anders Breivik. Yes, terms like political correctness and cultural Marxism are right-wing antisemitic dog whistles. But it has its left-wing counterpart in the conspiracy theories about Leo Strauss and the Straussians. So there, balance.

Run, don't walk, to the cabinet and take your antipsychotic meds.

The anti Jewish thingy is dead in the water, except on the left.

Most Americans love the contributions of Jews to the US, and openly talk of JUDEO- Christian values. This is not 1620. Israel has broad support in the US, except in the left.

The idea that there is a thriving anti- semitic block on the right is pure paranoia.

There were some Jews in Pittsburgh who were dead on land....but you're right, pure paranoia.


The whiteshift is a product of and reaction to left wing identity politics. Is anyone surprised that after 30 years of leftists shouting "RACE MATTERS!!!" that growing numbers of white people are saying, 'yeah, you're right!'.

'that growing numbers of white people are saying, 'yeah, you're right!''

Well, maybe a growing number, but of a group whose percentage share in the U.S. continues to decline. Almost as if in the past, it was much easier to believe that real Americans had white skin, and only a small minority of Americans weren't white- Thus making it simple to equate being American with white skin, without feeling part of a group at all.

As noted above concerning anti-miscegnation laws, the American framework concerning whiteness predates the U.S., and has nothing to do with left wing identity politics. After all, American chattel slavery was based on skin color, and property by definition does not have politics.

This "problem" will solve itself through the magic power of hipsters, who will one day grow nostalgic for eating turkey dinners and listening to Brahms. Once doing so is seen as "cool" instead of "hegemonic" society can go back to enjoying Bob Hope and Michael's crafts and steamed broccoli and argyle socks and a million other white-people-things without having to loudly proclaim their allegiance to diversity. After all, hipsters are diverse almost by definition.

Maybe it will be solved by hipsters who don't care what color you are, only if you are a funny knit beanie on your head during turkey dinner.

No. Hipsters will always be bigots, even though theirs is an odd sort of bigotry. But, bigots or no, they do control the coolness conversation, and when SWPL is debated on its relative coolness, rather than its relative SWPL-ness, anyone of any race will be able to appreciate candied yams -- or hate them, if there is a god -- without having to worry about whiteness.

Take a walk along Melrose.

>rising white tribalism

Oh, I see. The author is a race-baiting idiot. No wonder you love it.

Hard pass. Thanks!

>Over half the country voted Leave and we can’t condemn such a large group.

Of course not.

But the half of the USA that voted Trump, or the 65% that want the borders laws enforced? Totally ok to judge condemn them as "white tribalists."

Trump got 46% of the vote, so less than half (unlike Brexit voters.) Also, it was quite clear what people were voting for in the Brexit referendum. Not so in the 2016 election, where a sizeable majority of that 46% likely wanted lower taxes and blindly voted for the Republican on the ballot.

"Much of this book is concerned with the clash between a rising white tribalism and an ideology I term ‘left-modernism.’"

Given this choice, there is only one position for a moralist to take. Which mskes this section quite unsettling:

"Still, much of this book is disturbing, especially for readers who might consider themselves to be on the left. Most of all, he sees “whiteness” as a legitimate cultural interest, and one which, if we deny, will ilead to more overt racism rather than less."

This is just another iteration of "give the racists what they want and maybe they'll stop being racist."

That is obviously not the history of the last 5 years. They actually increase killing people.

Right-wing killings eclipsed all other extremist-related murders in 2018. The numbers don’t lie.

That's like saying that consideration of arguments for reducing the size of the federal government is giving in to the demands of Timothy McVeigh.

Good point, and in truth I think a lot of people on the left really do see it that way. At least, that is the impression they have given me.

I did not invent this binding:

"Much of this book is concerned with the clash between a rising white tribalism and an ideology I term ‘left-modernism.’"

Kaufmann did, and Cowen appears to endorse, but "white tribalism" sure is the theme to my link.

The only reasonable exit door here is racial equality and an American cultural identity. It is astonishing to me that Tyler would choose anything less. Sometimes I accuse him of literary post traumatic stress syndrome. He has read so much that novel ideas start to look good. Not necessarily. Sometimes truths, and moral decisions, are pretty easy.

We are all Americans, let's embrace that and work together for a better future.(*)

* - to the degree that this sentence sounds "partisan," other parties have a problem

American cultural identity is inherently colonialist, imperialistic, and racist. So no thanks.

The sticking point in your kumbaya talking point is obviously who counts as American.

Trumpistas and a large swath of Middle America says only citizens and legal permanent residents count.

Fortunately, the law says everyone counts as long as they claim asylum. We’d save a hell of a lot of money if we just let them settle peacefully and skip the gestapo tactics. They ain’t paying taxes in cages.

Warren-Harris 2020

I think this is too serious an issue for a low-quality troll. Maybe that's just me.

But sure, maybe the best action item to take from this page is to kick a few bucks to Kamala Harris. Maybe that was even the Straussian message. If your only other choice is white nationalism, that's just what you got to do.

Seems like much ado about nothing to me.

For all the impotent rage and white temper tantrum that is the Trump administration and “the wall” the truth is they lost this fight in the 1980s.

Hispanics will be 1/3 of the US population by 2050. They’re in a collective meltdown over 200,000-300,000 a year. Drop in the bucket compared to 60 something million. And soon to be ~125 million by 2050.


Sound like a good cause for a civil war and a white ethnostate.
Count me in.

Aren't there lots of white ethnostates in Europe? Why not move to one?

American cultural identity is inherently colonialist, imperialistic, and racist.

That depends on what you think American cultural identity is.

"The only reasonable exit door here is racial equality and an American cultural identity. "

Sounds like there is no daylight between this and Sailer's "Citizenism"

What is your intended policy on immigration and do you think America will be happier as a result of it? Not the hypothetical America which is composed of only people who accept your moral premises, but the actual America.

At some point, moralism is beside the point if people aren't listening to you (and, let's be real, these people are not listening to you or to Tyler). Does it not make some sense to stabilize the rate of demographic change at least temporarily? "Giving the racists what they want" is just meaningless sloganeering; unless you think that open borders are a fundamental human right, then surely "levels of immigration" is a valid policy knob to which consequentialist thinking can be applied.

And please, 50 deaths per year in a nation of 300 million is a rounding error.

If I were really generous I could read that paragraph knowing that you know (1) there have not been open borders to the US since 1917 (or 1882?), (2) the US has at least that long sought to balance growth with identity, and (3) the US Border Patrol was established in 1924.

But if you know these things your paragraph falls rather flat. We get what we should have had from the beginning, pragmatic discussion of incremental change to establishd policy.

I'm not saying that we have open borders. To clarify:

1) If you think open borders/freedom of movement between nations is a fundamental human right, then sure. I don't agree with it but it's a defensible position.
2) If you don't, then consequentialist analyses apply. "What policy results in the best social outcome?" At that stage, it doesn't matter whether anti-immigrant sentiment is called "racist" or not, the reaction has to be part of the equation.

I agree that pragmatic discussion is necessary. I also appreciate the project of re-cultivating an "American" identity transcending partisan politics which would include embracing immigrants (tired, poor huddled masses etc). However, I don't think it's very "pragmatic" to frame things as "is this giving in to the racists?" vs. "empirically, how should we expect a native* population to react to X," which is a question the book seems to be contributing to.

*: yes, I appreciate the irony of using this term in an American context

That's the whole point. I did not invent the stark choice of racism or leftism. I was presented it. Right here. Right now. By Kaufmann and Cowen.

FTFY : "I did not invent the stark choice of racism and leftism. "

Or, you know, asylum law. Which has been the law of the land for 70 years.

Somehow Repubs didn’t care when it was communist hating conservative Cubans who were claiming asylum....

'Sims writes that he took this concern [Christian refugees] at one point to Stephen Miller, who he writes told him, “I would be happy if not a single refugee foot ever again touched America’s soil.”'

And again, knowing history, I think the immigration debate surrounding The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was the turning point.

Some Republicans were rational mmoralists (including, on this, GWB himself), but the identity populists got the upper hand.

That loss very significantly set conservatives up for the Trumpian endgame they now face.

This thing really does read like "the problem with the left is if they aren't racist like us."

That is not a path to the future for conservatives, that is a coffin.

Maybe we should just let them lie down in it and die.

The left aren't racist?? lol. Wow.

What does the author have against Mauritius? Mauritius is by any objective measure a huge success story. Despite not having any natural resources, it has developed from a poor subsistence agriculture economy at the time of independence to a relatively wealthy country today, and did so as a liberal democracy to boot.

Why would he pick and Tyler endorse such tiny counter-examples to American success?

America is a great example of how the argument that ethnic homogeneity leads to national success has it backwards. Americans are among the most patriotic people in the world and identify strongly with America because America has been so successful and powerful, not because of some longstanding shared history or culture. Everyone wants to be a part of a winner.

You see this in modern times too. “Singaporean” and “Taiwanese” did not exist as ethnicities in 1950; now people identify with those because those countries are successful. If those countries were failed states, their inhabitants would continue to identify more strongly with their original ethnicities.

National success causes ethnic homogeneity, not vice versa.

There's really no need to overthink it. People born in America don't particularly want to die in [El Salvador, etc.].

The idea of expanding the definition of "whiteness" has pros and cons. On the one hand it will reduce resentment of groups such as Hispanics and maybe asians.

On the other hand, it also means that African Americans (blacks) remain, more or less permantently, on the outside of mainstream "white" society. This despite being a larger share of the population with a longer history in America than the newly designated "white" minorities. This seems brutally unfair.

Maybe a better idea would be to come up with some concept other than "whiteness" to define who counts as "mainstream American". Must everything perpetuate the entrenched white/black racial dichotomy in American culture?

That's what I was wondering. The "broadening the category" seems to be more precisely simple assimilation, something America has excelled in. However, without an ethnic mandate, you end up with factions desperately attempting to define what exactly this Americanness is. How do we define when someone is assimilated? When do we define when someone adopts an ideology that renders them un-American? How fluid are these boundaries? Ideally, people want something narrow enough to be definable, but broad enough to deal with our immigrant history.

That's exactly it. I think Americanness is (or should be) defined by ideas rather than ethnic identity. it doesn't matter what religion your practice, or what food you eat, or what clothing you wear, or what music you listen to. What matters is a shared belief in the values enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. For instance, if someone declared that they rejected the First Amendment's restriction on an establishment of religion, and stated that they believed that laws should be based on scripture, THAT would be an ideological belief that renders them un-American.

Agree, but you are giving short shrift to cultural identity. The 'constitutional values' angle is very important, but the fact that no matter where immigrants come from and whatever color they are, their kids basically end up dressing, talking, eating, and consuming culture (music, movies) like the rest of America is an important assimilation aspect.

You're American if you like football and basketball and Arianna Grande and Beyonce and Jay-Z and Marvel movies and hamburgers and Youtube and Amazon. Most Americans don't really know much about the Constitution.

Those cultural things that are popularly consumed are constantly changing though, and open to modification to encompass different cultures. Nobody *cares* if someone prefers soccer to (American) football. Americans could start liking soccer tomorrow, and it would not entail any great identity shift. In fact that's exactly what I think we should do - broaden what counts as "American culture" to encompass things like World Cup Soccer. Or more importantly aspects of African American culture like rap and hip-hop, and aspects of Asian American culture and Hispanic American culture. And to a large extent I think we already do, which is why the idea of reasserting "whiteness" seems like such a horrible step backwards. American culture already IS broader than just traditional white Christian culture, and already does encompass non-white ethnic minorities to some extent. What the white tribalists want is to put rap music back into the ghetto so the ears of their white children won't be exposed to it's corrupting influence.

I don't buy the idea that there is any significant white identity or that Trump's election represents a resurgence of white identity politics. I think this is a strawman constructed by the left so it can have bona-fide evil opposition. Trump and Brexit are the result of elite failure. I do believe that the perceived loss of cultural institutions and social capital are significant.

Immigration is healthy for an economy and for a people. However, if done incorrectly, say too much too soon, and without an attempt to encourage assimilation, can cause friction. We may not like that, but our tribal nature is what it is. It is not rational, but it is immediate, a once adaptive response to real dangers that does not serve us well.

The right has to ferret out the biggots who feel they can find sanctuary there, but the left has to tone down the identity politics and the religious adherence to a utopian multiculturalism which has never existed.

We have to have some shared values, and I agree with Hazel that the founding documents and principles described therein, despite not always having been adhered to (slavery, Jim Crow, women excluded from voting, etc) are a logical place to start.

Isn't that what the new citizen swearing in process is all about?

It would help if the right would let people who have grown up in America perform that swearing in process.
But it seems like there is something a bit more involved than "friction" when people on the right are willing to deny 18 year old kids the right to have a job, thereby basically destroying their lives and turning them into literal pariahs, in order to make some kind of obtuse point about illegal immigration.

"...something a bit more involved ..."

I know you really want that "something" to be racism. It would be so much easier for you. Unfortunately, the world is complex.

Many people see DACA as rewarding bad behaviour and thus a threat to the rule of law. However, being mostly a compassionate people, they don't want to punish people for the sins of their parents and are willing to either support it out right or use it as a bargaining chip.

Illegal immigration and all the subsequent crimes like false statements on documents, fake ids, fraud, identity theft, working illegally etc are all a threat to the rule of law. The American people love the rule of law and are offended when they see the law so flagrantly violated on an enormous scale, with serious consequences, like the arguments we are having right now.

In contrast, for the most part, Latin America does not have the rule of law and the Latin Americans know it. The families trying to escape thugism in El Salvador or Guatemala or Honduras know it. My extended in-law family in Brazil knows it. Ironically, the first act of the illegal aliens in their new intended adopted home is to violate the law.

The US is a product of a long struggle to establish the rule of law as a bulwark against thugism. From Magana Carta to the English Bill of Rights, to the Glorious Revolution, to the Mayflower Compact, to the Declaration of Independence, to the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitution.

The rule of law is important and the American people take threats to the rule of law very seriously, as they should.

If there's an argument for recognizing whiteness is to recognize that white people are not the natural state of Americanness, but just one ethnic group, a distinct ethnic group which only presumes itself to represent "America", while the real America is something bigger and broader than just white people and traditional white culture.

I really do not buy that we should recognize "whiteness" as a "legitimate" cultural interest, because that would be giving in to ethnic factionalism and collectivist thinking. We shouldn't be encouraging people to define themselves by ethnic identity. We should be encouraging them to become more individualist - the broadest possible kind of inclusiveness. We should be encouraging them to think of some of the values which some people might associate with "whiteness" as universal values.

In other words, if you keep defining enlightenment values as "white" then eventually non-whites are going to agree - and reject those values. If you want other people to adopt Western enlightenment values, stop telling everyone that it's a "white" thing, and maybe they won't get the idea that assimilation means capitulating to white oppression and betraying their own ethnic group. Selling people your ideas with an ethnic identity attached is a terrible way to try to convert people. It's as if the Spanish missionaries went to the New World preaching the superiority of Spanishness instead of preaching the Gospel.

The Caucasian classical liberals made an ecumenical offer.

A shared cultural heritage for all mankind. Parity of moral worth before Gnon. And equality before a colour-blind law.

The Left was having none of it. They wanted Black History month, a hierarchy of oppression, and diversity quotas. They wanted cultural silos, endless victimhood, and speech codes.

Fine. We'll do it their way. But it won't end like they think it will.

Black History month is not incompatible with equality before the law. It's a way of showing respect for the diverse origins of different ethnic minorities, which is part of welcoming African Americans into mainstream American culture. It's a way of acknowledging that their history is our history and so we are one people.

All the other stuff is mostly conservative spin, of varying legitimacy. I mean, I disagree with identity politics, but the right is kind of being cry-babies. Articulate a reasoned response to identity politics instead of bawling about how unfair it all is.

Black History Month is mostly something boring which gets ignored, and at the same times its boundaries carefully policed to ensure no one is teaching Asian and Native American history during that time. (Seriously - - "Black History Month: Why it shouldn't be 'Diversity Month' ").

I mean, it'd listen to the history of state formation in the Kongo, or by Shaka Zulu, or the Ethiopian feudal age, in all their bloody handed fascination. But that's not what they're selling (and they is mostly African Americans), and what that is being sold, is mostly either fantasy like Wakanda, fraudulent scholarship like Baptiste's "Time On The Cross" or, at the edges where it shades into truth, a dull and worthy guilt trip like "Ten Years A Slave".

Have to add as well, Hazel, your response here is a bit of a dodge. The core of Alistair's comment is not that the part that shared identity was unilaterally rejected by the Left (which I agree is a weaker assertion, though I would agree it mostly was).

It's that this is a two sided process and that Black and ethnic "woke" types do not *want* an individualistic cultural where it just so happens that all the key individual thinkers involved in the formation of that culture were essentially Europeans, and various Middle Eastern folk.

Thus the baffling compromises where historical origins of many of our cultural ideas (the bad and the good) are disguised and where wild accusations of Western Europeans silencing the history of other folk fly through the air.

You insist this is because of exclusion from a common cultural heritage; perhaps there's a little to that, but to large degree it is because Black people of an intellectual bent, "woke", do not *want* a Eurocentric canon, no matter how little they have to replace it.

(If anyone's up for it, Quillette has a rare great piece that touched, among its themes, on the kind of huxterism and delusion that can thrive in the opportunistic space and up selling that arises in the anti-Eurocentric quest for great "diverse" cultural thinkers -

You're generalizing a bit much here. There's certainly a healthy dose of Marxism running through social justice movements, which is why they are always trying to attach the Western canon with it's individualism and capitalism to racism and imperialism and so forth. It's a tactic they have been using to recruit blacks and other minorities to the cause. But to declare that "they" (blacks) don't "want" a western cannon is giving the Marxists wing way too much power. Most black people are not devoted Marxists - they are just being told that in order to get rid of racism that they have to sign up to this socialist crusade. We need to teach them otherwise, by separating those Enlightenment ideas from the false history that the Left teaches to attach them to racism and imperialism and slavery. For example by not teaching the idea that Enlightenment ideas are culturally "white". Who cares which identity group came up with them, if you don't believe in identity politics anyway? It's not a status competition between ethnic groups for who gets to "own" modernity. Nobody's going to live an extra ten years because their identity group gets to claim the concept of religious liberty.

As I said above, it's like the Spanish missionaries went to the New World, and tried preaching the superiority of Spanishness instead of the Gospel. One of the reasons Christianity was so successful and spread so far is that it is universally ethnically inclusive. Nobody in the Church goes around emphasizing how great the Jews are for coming up with such great ideas, or preaching about how awesome the Roman Empire was for adopting Christianity and spreading it all over the Empire. No, they just stuck to preaching the Gospel, and they even did it by incorporating aspects of the native culture into the religion itself, by welcoming everyone of all races and completely detaching the ideas of Christianity from any ethnic affiliation. You can bet that if the Spanish missionaries had arrived in the new World saying "Rome was than the Aztec empire so you should all become Catholic because we're better than you", they would probably have not got such a nice reception.

I don't think it's got that much to do with Marxism here - the relationship of Marxism to woke Afrocenticism is a bit overplayed. I agree there aren't many devoted Marxists among African-Americans. I'm thinking a bit more about self appointed representatives of African-Americans in a way though than the people as a whole, and particularly those that are emerging to power.

I suspect you may have a rosy view of the spread of Christianity through Spain here though - I'm pretty sure that the spread was a bit less through inclusiveness and a bit more through pressure and actually a fair bit coupled and symbiotic with claims to the supremacy of Spanish culture, and probably to a degree Spanish blood. I appreciate you're using it more in the spirit of "This is the sort of thing I'd like in theory" more than an example of actual evidence of what is possible though.

I don't think you're seriously advocating for the actual spread of Catholicism through Latin America as totally not coupled to white supremacy and totally not authoritarian. To do that would be like advocating for the totally peaceful and not Arab supremacist at all spread of Islam, or something.

Okay your right, maybe not a perfect analogy. The spanish missionaries were certainly helped by the Spanish conquest of Mexico, and the Empire and all that. Also in Europe, the Roman Empire certainly helped spread Christianity. Still missionaries have always gone out into non-Christian territory and source converts peacefully, and not by demanding that the converts acknowledge the superiority of Roman (or Spanish) culture. They didn't get people to become Christian by insisting that cultural assimilation must go along with religious conversion.

Universalism is exactly what Black History Month rejects. Why don't we have an Asian history month? Or Irish? This "celebration of diversity" seems awful and strangely particular about whose diversity it celebrates.

Please; this isn't about celebrating diversity. It's about soothing the insecurity and buying the votes of certain ethnicities who reject universalism but find their own creed doesn't have much to put in it's place. So we all smile politely and pretend that a succession of African non-entities mattered to global history. Of course they did. Bless.

They could have joined with us as fellow humans. They could have had the super-set of identity and rightly said "Ours" of All Things. They could have served in Heaven. But they choose to reign in Hell.

A little over-dramatic there. I'm not threatened by cultural attempts to build up and give some pride to a group of people that have been shat on for centuries.

White people don't going around talking about 'whiteness'. We just expect others who come to pull their own weight and not to increase the crime rate. Learning English seems to be too much to ask. My parents were immigrants, but they came legally and were required to prove they had work or had someone responsible for them. What's wrong with that? The only downside of immigrants blending in completely are all the cultural fairs that used to go on are fading away.

Learning English seems to be too much to ask.

Who isn't learning English?

And if the immigrants are legal, they already speak English, right? They'd never get past a consular officer otherwise.

Haven't been south or west lately, huh?

A truly individualistic intellectual and cultural history would actually just teach the important thinkers of history without trying to bundle them together into rah-rah championing of "Enlightenment values"

I think its worth also emphasizing that "white" is a very limiting identity. Adopting "white" as your primary ethnic/racial identity pushes you away from those deemed non-white and encourages you to view the world in a racially zero sum way while stripping you of the particulars of your own heritage. Which is why "white" feels lame and inauthentic. It is artificial, exclusionary, and kind of devoid of content.

This was intended to be a response to Hazel meade's 10:49 comment.

I agree. I don't even know any white people who identify as ethnically "white" who aren't out-and-out white supremacists. All the white people I know mainly identify as generically "American" or as some other ancestral ethnic group, like "Irish" or "Italian". Nobody calls themselves "white-American". That's largely because white culture has been synonymous with American culture. So it's worth recognizing that white culture is a "thing" I just don't see how it's a "legitimate cultural interest".

"Whiteness" in the U.S. isn't really a color or racial category, it's about shared culture, language and bourgeois norms. Many immigrant groups that were treated initially with suspicion and discrimination (Irish, Italians, Poles...even Germans) have become undifferentiated white Americans. And Hispanics and South and East Asians are moving quickly along the same paths (for the second generation, intermarriage rates for these groups approach 50%). Already Asians are white in the sense of not qualifying for any affirmative action benefits (though Harvard makes it difficult for East Asians to 'pass' -- they suss out those sneaky half-Asian, non-box-checking applicants hiding behind white American names and non-Asian extracurriculars -- but that can't last much longer).

In any case, the boundaries of 'whiteness' in the U.S. have always been porous.

In any case, the boundaries of 'whiteness' in the U.S. have always been porous.

Except to black people.

Sort of. Black people can move into white society and many have done so for a very long time. Ever see a photo of descendants of Jefferson and Sally Hemings? Many are as white as I am. But black people seem to face a risk that other ethnic groups don't -- being accused of 'acting white', of being a sell-out, a 'tom' or an 'oreo'. A black person can adopt white culture and whites won't mind a bit, but their black friends and relatives will probably give them a lot of grief.

Black people can't really move into white culture unless they can visibly "pass" as white. As in, they will never be considered "white", not matter how well assimilated they are. And as long as they are never considered "white" then they can't be fully accepted by "white" society. They will always be some level of other. It doesn't matter whether other black people consider them "oreos" or whatever. Were literally in the middle of a thread that explicitly discusses the notion of expanding "whiteness" - to include everyone except blacks. That very concept entails the implicit understanding that black people are always going to be kept outside the circle of inclusion.

Black people can't really move into white culture unless they can visibly "pass" as white.

Sure they can. Colin Powell. Condoleeza Rice. Tiger Woods. OJ (back in his 'Naked Gun' days). Remember the Dave Chappelle 'Racial Draft' skit:

White people do not consider Colin Powell a white man. Or any of those other people.

That's not the point. In what white cultural context would Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice (or Malia Obama) feel unwelcome or even out of place as a friend, colleague, or romantic partner because of their darker skin? And why would there be any difference between them and, say, Nikki Haley? If you join the elite (or even the upper middle class) in the U.S., you can be as white you want to be.

As Slocum says, Hazel, you're missing the point. The "white" elite is actually an open super-set. Anyone can join; skin colour isn't an impediment nowadays (and may well be an advantage, frankly. Where would Mr Obama be if he was white?).

The cultural norms are built around competence and social, productive behaviours, not "whiteness". That's why Asians and Jews fit right in. The only people who care about skin colour as a price of admission are racist democrats.

"Whiteness" is a cultural thing like religion, marriage and work. It's also about the Judeo-Christian ethic.

It would be nice if that was true, but then it would be a good idea to find a different word for it, so that people would avoid making the mistake that is has something to do with race.

Actually, +1 to that. I agree it's leading us all off the wrong way.

Shall we call it Weberian Modernism or something?

+1 to both of you.

How about 'American' ?

I am always shocked at how culture is undervalued as an explanation for so many things.

Consider the SNP. Their economic platform is exceedingly similar to Labour. Their positions are foreign affairs, environmentalism, and the rest are far too similar for most people to grasp the differences between.

So why does SNP exist? My guess is that enough Scots see themselves as culturally different from the rest-of-the-UK that there is a demand to protect their culture and ensure that their cultural priorities are not voted down by an English majority.

So why exactly should we expect a culturally cohesive population to fail to develop such self-preserving instincts when the population is not just the folks with whom your ancestors intermarried, did business, and fought together for generations, but rather people from vastly different cultures? I am always puzzled by people who support "separatists" (be they SNP, Bloq, or KLA) but then oppose immigration controls.

Culture seems to be the most useful lens to me. This explains how Asians were a key part of the Ford voting bloc in Ontario. It explains how Belgium is riven by people with massive admixture of ancestry. It explains why Catholicism/Protestantism became a dividing line in Ulster, but not so much in places like Bohemia or Australia.

As long as we pretend that this is about other things we are going to keep making major mistakes and I expect that people who appeal to the cultural divides will continue to win elections.

The SNP exists as a political force in Scotland because of devolution allowing them to credibly form a devolved Scottish government, and the ability to disassociate themselves from New Labour at Westminster, and basically to lie about what the UK government is doing to Scotland.

The SNP exist at Westminster because the Scots in a fit of absent mindedness apparently decided they didn't want to be involved in forming a national government, and would rather nominate MPs who even the Labour Party will not join into coalition with (Jeremy Corbyn rather forcefully rejected the notion that he would form a government with any party seeking the breakup of the United Kingdom), and that apparently they would prefer the Tories in power than a viable Labour government in power. This proved somewhat inexplicable behaviour considered by the Labour Party. At some point Scotland may get tired of voting SNP at Westminster elections to help the Tories into government, or they may not.

'not so much in places like Bohemia'

Um -'_War - 'One of the most destructive conflicts in human history' is part of the introduction to that link.

And how - and more importantly, where . did that war start?

Imagine that Ulster had been repeatedly flattened, until one side was able to ensure that the other side was unable to continue living in Ulster - it might give you an idea why Catholicism/Protestantism did not become a dividing line (hint - the local Protestants were wiped out militarily, and then killed, expelled, or forcibly converted by the Hapsburgs).

Sorry, I was referring to the more modern context (i.e. post 1848). You can replace Catholics and Christians with things like Shia/Sunni not being a dividing line in most of India (excluding Kashmir) unlike say in Iraq. Culture seems to be a pretty significant impact.

i'm hoping everyone interested in Populism in the U.S. has read the classic by C. Vann Woodward, "Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel."

The New Criterion devoted 10 issues to Populism. It ain't what you think it is. People don't cling to guns and religion; they cling to property rights. The Left cannot abide that. Anyone who doesn't accept the liberal, leftist party line is called a populist. Solzhenitzyn's "The Red Wheel" about the Russian Revolution is a mirror reflection for today's politics absent a World War.

This concern about identity politics is a product of the media which works for the left; not about real people in the real world. It's marketing like "fresh bread."

[[[email protected] gmail. com]] was the email i contacted when my husband left me. After spell casting my Husband came back quickly. Keep up the good work

Maybe when over 50% of Americans and over 50% of British people are "mixed race," as Kaufmann predicts, the nightmarish social delusion that race exists will finally be over.
It does not matter what color future people are.

"the nightmarish social delusion that race exists"
Lol, reality is delusion now.
Maybe some dumb MR commentators should read more about genetic clustering and stop talking bullshit?
Sadly, I feel this is beyond the grasp of their intellectual impotence.

Comments for this post are closed