Steve King's White Nationalism Is Deeply Un-American

The Iowa congressman and his nativism are deeply at odds with the essential promise of America.



Rep. Steve King, the nativist Republican congressman from Iowa who has likened illegal immigrants to "livestock," is just asking questions. In a New York Times interview, he says:

"White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive?" Mr. King said. "Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?"

In the recent past (2017) King insisted that "we can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies," and only a few years before that (2013) he insisted that "there isn't anyone that can fairly characterize me as anti-immigrant." Which pretty much tells you what kind of bubble the guy is living in: He's openly hostile to immigration, both legal and illegal, but refuses to admit as much.

Still, even if the Vietnam draft-dodger can't be swayed, it's worth at least pointing out to those who might be open to discussion that equating America with whiteness is fundamentally un-American. The United States has a deeply troubled history with race and racism, but one of the few things that makes our country different is that we aspire to be a nation that aspires (and often achieves) a sense of identity that goes far beyond blood and soil. Take it away, Jean de Crevecouer in Letters from an American Farmer (1782):

What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.

He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.

I've noted elsewhere that Crevecoeur has his limits (among other things, he speaks only of men and he owned slaves for a time). But he accurately captures a process by which America is a country that has long aspired to be a place where people could be judged, in Martin Luther King's phrase, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

It's disturbing that members of the federal government, such as Steve King, persist in identitarian politics. Yet in a country that is more genuinely diverse and less racist than ever, his sort of thinking signals nothing more than the death rattle of the racial collectivism that has always stained American history.

NEXT: Trump's 'Impenetrable' Barrier Meets a Saw

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah, but The Shining was pretty good.

    1. I especially liked the funny parts.

      Light of my life.

      /pounds desk laughing.


      1. Yep, those writers can be temperamental.

    2. It’s Misery all the way down.

      1. Nah, man, The Mist. Best. Ending. Ever.

        1. Are you speaking of the short story or the movie? They ended differently.

          1. worldwide moratorium on speaking of King movies?

        2. Movie ending is one of the biggest nut punches EVER. I heard from someone somewhere that after King saw the new ending, he said he wished he would of thought of that ending. Not sure if that’s true…but it should be.

      2. My ankles still hurt.

  2. his sort of thinking signals nothing more than the death rattle of the racial collectivism that has always stained American history.

    Wonderful. Somebody should let The Young Turks know.

    1. Wonderful. Somebody should let The Young Turks know.

      Probably a good idea to let the overwhelmingly black prison population know that racism is over too.

    2. Anyone who thinks that racial collectivism is undergoing its “death rattle” hasn’t read the slobbering over Ta-Nehisi Coates or glanced a roster of Humanities/Social Science majors in our nation’s universities.

      Racial collectivism is the norm.

      1. It’s typical Nick. White Nationalism has been waning for decades while celebrating black and other nationalisms under the banner of diversity has been the norm. Now that white nationalism reveals itself as being just shy of ‘not dead yet’ he likes to pretend it is because white nationalism (but not black, or Mexican/latino, or Chinese, or Korean, etc., etc.) is icky.

        1. Yup. Ethnic solidarity is something that is FORCED on people when they’re in close contact with other ethnic groups, who inevitably act collectively in what they deem to be their groups interest.

          The reason white identity politics is becoming a thing, is exactly BECAUSE we have so many other ethnic blocks actively attacking whites, and trying to push agendas that favor their people.

          A thing I find HIGHLY amusing is Europeans. They always ragged on Americans as being horrible for being racist against blacks. Now that Europe basically for the first time has enough non whites there to matter, enough to finally start winning political power, enough to start making demands that the natives give up their traditions, do this that and the other… They’re fucking freaking out!

          Welcome to the club boys, this is the shit Americans have been dealing with since the founding of the country. They’re complaining about no go zones in cities, which American cities have had since slavery ended.

          I came to the conclusion a while ago that if you want a stable, functional, peaceful society… It needs to be at least 80-90% homogenous. It’s fine to throw a little “spice” in there… But once there is no longer a super majority group calling the shots, everything turns to massive infighting. History shows this to be true in basically all cases. And it’s where the USA is now. So we’re basically fucked as a nation. Oh well.

          1. However if you get people of different identities to at least focus on the one important thing a nation rather than their own groups self interest then a nation can survive much like China is doing now by abolishing muslims and christians. its a great example.

            pleas have sarc meter ready

            1. If you depend solely on cultural homogeneity to maintain the peace, there’s no amount of conformity that will suffice. People who want to fight will fight over the most trivial thing.

              1. If you depend solely on cultural homogeneity to maintain the peace, there’s no amount of conformity that will suffice. People who want to fight will fight over the most trivial thing

                It’s not the sole means, but it is a primary one. It’s not exactly a coincidence that a lot of African nations fell to tribal infighting after the colonial era–because those countries’ borders were drawn up in contravention to established tribal territories.

            2. Ron, in theory. But in practice Civic Nationalism has basically never worked, sarc meter blaring or not!

              sharmota4zeb, here’s the thing bro: People can deal with problems. The question is HOW MANY problems can people deal with, and still be functional as a society?

              Multiculturalism throws on about 1,000 extra problems homogenous societies DO NOT HAVE.

              So, it in fact GREATLY helps with keeping a nation stable and happy. People will always argue about things to be sure, but removing a ton of points of conflict reduces the number of issues.

              How much racial strife does Japan have right now? How many race riots have they had? How many identity politics groups do they have that explicitly demand the Japanese give up aspects of traditional Japanese culture? How many laws do they have that explicitly favor non Japanese people over Japanese people?

              The answer is basically none. They have none of those issues, or tons of others, because they’re mostly homogenous.

              People who think like you are forgetting that ethnicity and religion are THE 2 biggest causes of wars in history… And you want to import EXACTLY those 2 problems into the west. You can see the shit show of results we’re getting.

              You’re demanding everybody turn off one of the core features of human nature… And it just ain’t working. If you worth WITH human nature, instead of demand people fight it 24/7, you usually get better results. Live in the real world dude, it’s not such a bad place.

          2. The 10% rule.

            1. It honestly seems to be about right. Makes sense. At 90%, that group is so obviously in charge, everybody knows you aren’t going to win an argument with them. When it’s 80/70/60%, all of a sudden it seems possible.

              A classroom with a teacher clearly in charge can maintain order… You take the teacher away, and with nobody CLEARLY in charge, it all descends into chaos.

          3. Yes, “white identity politics” are only just now becoming a thing in reaction to what other ethnic groups started. That’s a great summarization of the history of racial politics in the US.

            1. Of the last 20 years.

          4. America could function fine with a super majority of constitutionalists. It’s not race, but commitment to procedure that keeps America united.

            1. Here’s the thing: That doesn’t exist!

              You’re saying that humans could walk on the sun, if only we had heat resistant suits. Maybe, but such suits have never existed, do not exist now, and probably never will.

              Every single ethnic group in America leans strongly left… Except whites. If you want to get into the psychology, it’s probably because white Americans can IDENTIFY with the founders. To others they’re just “old white guys,” “RACIST old white guys,” or “whatever.”

              White Americans say WE did this, that, or the other. We do the same about European accomplishments. Blacks, Asians, etc DO NOT say that. They say THEY did that in many instances. It is a telling thing.

              That psychology plays into it. It is fundamental to human nature to favor our family, and then extended family, and our “tribe,” and this instinct extended itself to ethnicity/race as we lived in larger groups.

              You’re premise is the same as the communists: Why can’t we just do this thing that has never worked before? All you have to do is ignore fundamental parts of human nature, and we can have the new Soviet Man!

              You ask the same of people, and it ain’t working. When I see blacks, Hispanics, etc stop acting in their group interests, THEN I will consider it is MAYBE possible to have a functional society based on Civic Nationalism… Until then, not so much.

              1. Blacks, Asians, etc DO NOT say that. They say THEY did that in many instances. It is a telling thing.

                Or you get “WE WUZ GREEKS N ROMANZ” silliness.

                1. Sometimes! Between the two, that is almost better though… At least it seems to indicate they’re trying to be a part of our civilization, and not seeing themselves as an other.

              2. And the Chinese absolutely have to stop playing joke and putting pee pee in our cokes.

        2. Also typical Nick?

          Being totes down with pimping the beltway creatures over at the Bulwark as the ‘true voice’ of conservatism.

          Any port in an orange storm, I guess.

  3. This is an unfair smear of Steve King. He is not a white supremacist. He can’t be – he is an ally of Israel and the Jews!

    1. He’s probably not… Most people that get called that are really white nationalists, if even that. Which is NOT an inherently bad thing.

      Half the wars in recent memory could have been avoided if people had simply allowed those with different ethnicities, cultures, or religions to peacefully secede to create their own nation states. Forcing people that have wildly disparate world views to live together is what makes problems.

  4. This guy is funny. Give him a show! Wedge him between Meyers and Kimmel. And make Silverman his first guest.

    Everyone a) has lost their god damned minds and b) they lost their fucken minds.

    All of them.

  5. “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization?how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said.

    It’s lovely how the good representative conflates white supremacism and Western civilization by insinuating that they’re together in shame, when they’re actually not.

    1. Yeh, a bit stupid. The first two were always offensive.

      1. Not really. White nationalism doesn’t have anything to do with being a supremacist, per se. And it certainly wasn’t considered offensive in the past. It was the de facto position basically everybody in the entire country held until WELL into the 20th century. It was enshrined in law until 1965.

        The Japanese have decided they want to remain Japanese… Does that automatically imply they’re Japanese supremacists? Or maybe, just that they don’t want to have all the ethnic tensions that Europe and America have brought on themselves by letting in so many foreigners?

        Because we have really created massive problems in the western world by allowing in tons of people who have thus far not fit in well. Maybe the kinks will work themselves out over time… Maybe they never will. Either way, if Japan doesn’t want to take the chance, that doesn’t mean they’re inherently evil or “offensive” as you put it.

        1. The only people not fitting in well in America are cousinfucking white rednecks.

          1. The majority of the complaining is coming from the other side.

            The only people not fitting in well in America are those that are perpetually offended about how other people look and act and think. Some “cousinfucking white rednecks” (note the you’re acting like a version of Lester Maddox with the use of that phrase) are in that group. So are the indentarians on the left.

            1. The majority of the complaints about Steve King come from the liberal-libertarian side.

              The conservative-Republican-faux libertarian caucuses appeases and embraces King.

              The bigotry has a silver lining, though. It is going to make the current Republican-conservative electoral coalition inconsequential over time.

              1. It will not be bigotry that changes anything. Cultural/ethnic demographics will.

          2. Another insightful post from Reason’s resident racist.

          3. My cousin who always needs help is staying in a temporary location for a week to give me a break, and I have no intention of fucking the guy. He’s straight, and I don’t want to be a paramour with his baby mama.

            Now, if one’s cousin from the hood introduces one to his blood relative who wants to settle down with a nice man and be a housewife, is that so bad? What if one’s brother from another mother suggests the same thing?

          4. That’s why cousinfucking Ed Murray(D) had to resign.

          5. Sorry dude, I’ve never fucked any of my cousins! I do, however, live in a large coastal city, make far more money than the average American, and clearly have about 75 IQ points on you… So not all people with common sense fuck their cousins.

            Another problem with your thesis is that cousin fucking white rednecks aren’t fitting in. They’re doing fine. They’re far better off by any metrics one wants to choose than black Americans, Hispanics, etc. So you’re fighting an imaginary problem in your head.

            1. You fuck your cousin too much, methinks.

              1. 4 serius, I never have! Not even once!

                I did take naked baths with some of them when we were toddlers though. But nothin’ ever got stuck in any bodily orifices.

        2. Keeping black people as slaves was also not considered offensive in the past.

          1. In Africa even.

            1. Yeah, Arabs have some stuff to answer for.

              1. Yup. Those Arabs were evil bastards. They castrated virtually 100% of their black slaves, and were far more prone to just executing them.

                Funny thing, Arabs actually enslaved more WHITE people than white people enslaved Africans.

                How come I didn’t get dun learnt about that in the guvmint schools? Or that blacks and Arabs maintained slavery long after it was abolished in the west? Hell there are STILL slaves in Africa.

                Oooh, they weren’t teaching me history… They were just trying to indoctrinate me. It all makes sense now. You can’t make somebody feel guilty if you tell them they’re not worse than any other bunch of asshole humans, you have to lie to them and tell them your people were uniquely evil… Even if it’s not true.

                1. Maintained? Like in the past tense? Because this stuff is still going on. Slavery is still an issue in many parts of the world including Africa, Haiti and the Middle East.

          2. People forget about the Irish slaves.

            1. Spiriting was common until the British outlawed it shortly after settling America.

            2. Yup. But let’s be honest… They probably had it coming, right?

              I mean being Catholics AND Gingers! That’s clearly not cool bro.

              The Irish were also a favored group to enslave by the vikings.

        3. Does that automatically imply they’re Japanese supremacists?

          This may come as a shock to you, but the Japanese are as famous for their race-based notions of supremacy as anyone.

          1. I know that. But you fail to see how they’re distinct things.

            Since you’re too retarded to get the abstract point, let me give you another example that fits in with victim hood mentality.

            Is if wrong for Fiji to not want to become a minority in their own nation? Because this is a thing, and a worry, in many south pacific island nations. Many of them have tightened up on rules for moving to those countries.

            These are, of course, not affluent, brown-ish people… So since there’s a sympathy play, you HAVE to understand THEIR plight right?

            It wouldn’t be fair for Chinese to move to some African number until they outnumber the natives, and destroy their culture right?

            My point being that simply wanting YOUR civilization to continue, DOES NOT mean you hate anybody. It doesn’t even imply you think you’re any better. Just that you want your society to continue to exist. In the current world, it is impossible for many nations to continue to exist as they always have, because there are too many potential immigrants.

            Norway would not exist if they had half the number of illegal Mexicans we have in the USA.

            So do cultures have a right to exist or not? Because you can’t have it both ways.

            1. “So do cultures have a right to exist or not? ”

              Cultures don’t have rights or responsibilities. At least not if you’re a Libertarian or non-collectivist, who are individualists.

              1. If you think there is NOTHING but the individual… You’re delusional. That is not reality.

                The American culture, is what MADE America exist. If you like freedom, and the libertarian leaning ideals America had… That could not exist without the American culture. Chinese culture DID NOT make America. Nor did Ottoman culture. Or German culture. It was all British American culture that did it. Culture matters, A LOT.

                You can be an individualist, and still accept that things BEYOND the individual exist. That’s basically what I am.

                I’m also pragmatic, and realize that you can’t be 100% purist in the real world sometimes. Sometimes practical realities butt up against morals, and you have to choose between the two.

                Should I starve to death, or should I steal a loaf of bread? Should I allow this person to screw me over BAD (but not physically harm me), or should I kill them?

                That type of choice pops up all the time in the real world. I think it’s pretty easy to balance out practical with moral, and make a choice that is not horribly immoral, but has good results IRL.

                You would apparently prefer to destroy the only civilization on earth that actually cares about many types of freedom, in order to protect a single very minor freedom, international freedom of movement.

                That’s dumb as fuck IMO.

              2. When one obtains citizenship, one obtains a right to vote. That power to vote enables one to impose one’s will upon others. So immigration is more than just freedom of movement. It is also about political control.

              3. Cultures have changed and shifted throughout time and will continue to do so. To try to keep them from changing is impossible and dangerous.

                1. To a couple posts up: That EVERYBODY gets to vote is half the problem. The founders were smart enough to put limits on WHO could vote, limiting it to only those that tended to be somewhat intelligent, and educated.

                  And yes cultures change… But to try to keep them from changing in BAD WAYS is NOT “impossible” or “dangerous.”

                  If cannibalism was becoming en vogue for some weird reason… Would it not be smart to try to suppress such a weird/deviant behavior? Of course that would be smart.

                  So if there are NEGATIVE changes happening, one should fight them tooth and nail. Depending on how dangerous the change, saaay going to full communism… It may well be worthwhile to kill people that are pushing for those changes, as it will avert an even greater disaster in the future.

        4. But we’re already enormously more diverse than Japan. Even among different groups of white people there are huge cultural differences.

          The Japanese have decided they want to remain Japanese

          Well, the Japanese government has anyway. And, within Japan, that does mean they are Japanese supremacists. They have a long history of that sort of thing. At least they don’t apply it to the rest of Asia anymore.

          1. See my above post. You don’t have to be a supremacist or hater to want your civilization to continue to exist.

            You CAN hold both those views, but it is not required.

            Why the hell people think nations have an obligation to let in people who want to radically transform their society is beyond me… If you LIKE your culture, why would you want to let it be radically transformed?

            People in Asia have seen the disaster this has caused in the west, and want no part of it. Over 500K Koreans protested the other day because some prog tard in their government decided to let in a few thousand so called refugees. The government backed down. As such, Asia will continue to exist. Europe and America may be destroyed for all eternity. It’s very sad.

            1. America is not being destroyed by immigrants. That’s been the “sky is falling” rallying cry for generations and it’s never happened. As long the government upholds the rule of law and protects individuals rights, we will be fine no matter what culture people decide to enjoy. So our destruction will come at the hands of those people who dilute the rule of law and the rights of individuals through government policies. I would put white supremacists at the top of that list along with progressives. It’s very sad.

              1. The NATURE of the immigration matters.

                I don’t have a problem with letting in 50 million doctors, engineers, programmers, scientists, etc etc etc over the next couple decades… But 50 million people with elementary school educations, in a world with ever less employment for uneducated people… That will cause an ENTIRELY different situation to arise.

                Scenario one, we would probably dramatically increase the economy and quality of life in the USA. There may be political issues, since immigrants are ALL leftists… But at least we’d have a strong economy.

                Scenario two, would make the country poorer and shittier. AND poor people tend to vote even MORE left wing, because they’re the ones actually getting all the handouts.

                If people like you get your way, and this country turns into a 2nd world, or even 3rd world, hellhole… Just remember that smarter people like me warned you.

        5. White peoples should be proud of being white just like everyone else should be proud of what they are. The left wants to make it so white level feel ashamed of their own skin.

          Another reason progressives have to go.

      2. The “West” refers to nations that stayed Catholic during the Great Schism about 1,000 years ago. It’s the Protestant-Catholic nations. In my view, Western civilization includes many nations where White people are a minority. Plenty of Americans freak out over Eastern Europeans, because they can’t understand how some White Christians might not feel responsible for Western history.

        1. The West has shifted over time, sometimes expanding, sometimes contracting. Largely based on where Europeans were politically ruling at the time, which included all kinds of shit around the Mediterranean. Now the majority European colonies around the world like the USA. Even Latin America is Western, they’re just a slightly more dysfunctional branch.

          The near east and Europe are historically intertwined to the core though. The thing is, just as nobody would mistakenly believe the Middle East is the same as Chinese civilization, we are quite distinct too. Eastern Europe has strong overlap, with their own quirks.

    2. “Motte-and-bailey argumentation”. Something new I recently learned about. It seems applicable.

  6. His kind spews hate against the transgender and the spewing is spread across the USA so that these things happens…

    2 women charged after allegedly groping transgender woman in North Carolina bar


    1. Of course one of them had to be named ‘Amber’.

      I barely got the gist of the story but where are the PICS?

      Seems to me these stories have more intrigue with pics.


      1. If they exist, Crusty has them.

        1. The complete writings of SugarFree, leather-bound edition?

          1. Strange leather, you say it came from ‘tax cattle’?

          2. Oh my God. That tome would simultaneously be a work of genius and insanity at the same time.

    2. Two women assault someone in a bar, and it’s “his kind’s hate” that caused it?

      Yeeeah, that obvious makes sense.

      Not drunkenness and stupidity. This dude’s “kind” and their “hate”. That’s the cause.

  7. I would argue that his nationalism is deeply American. This is the country that enslaved black people for 300 years. This is the country that passed laws to prevent Chinese people from getting in. This is the country that basically exiled Indians (woo woo kind, not the dothead kind) to crappy land.

    Its all you ‘diversity’, ‘equality’, ‘tolerance” (but only if you agree with me) whackos who are un-American.

    1. Bah. Canada had similar laws.

      The slave thing. Meh. Story of humanity.

      1. At least Canada didn’t send orphans to mental institutions. Oh, wait.

        1. We have a lot of skeletons in the closet.

          That’s why Americans are convenient scapegoats. It’s more original than blaming the Jews.

          1. That’s what happens when you teach prophets to write instead of letting the court scribe document all the news.

    2. “This is the country that enslaved black people for 300 years.”

      Ummmmm?.did I miss the sarcasm tag?

    3. That’s all true… And all the same as every other fucking ethnic group on earth. We took over land! We enslaved people! OH NOES!

      That’s HUMAN history, not just white history. We just happened to be the most badass ones at doing it, and everybody loves to hate the star quarterback!

      I’m pretty sure this insane level of self hatred and tolerance to a fault is going to be ending soon anyway… It can’t survive in a country where 40% of the population is attacking the other 60% of the population vigorously. White people will be forced to fight back, which will bring in a big can of “fuck those fucking fuckers!” into the mix.

      1. Why do you think they want open borders?

      2. The Native Americans conquered (and exterminated?) the previous occupants when they migrated here.

        But That’s Different Because Reasons.

        1. Yup. I love that they’re finally proving via DNA the theory that was developed based on bone structure in parts of the Americas. For those that don’t know, people related to the Aborigines of Australia AND Polynesian peoples both seem to have got to at least south America before the folks we call native Americans. They were replaced, probably with a combo of killing them off and interbreeding.

          1. And don’t forget what African Sapiens did to Euro Neanderthals.

            1. Those fucking bastards!

              The ethnically cleansed my ancestors!!! A mere 3-10% of my poor, oppressed ancestors survived the African genocide in Europe, as is shown in modern European genes.

              We should demand reparations from those fucking assholes!!!

              1. If we go down that route, all5(3 money will eventually be in the hands of the Protozoa.

    4. Idiots pretend that America was ever uniquely pro-slavery.

    5. “This country” was the United Kingdom for most of those 300 years.

      And yes indeed, the indigenous people of the Americas (the “Indians”) are one of the world’s greatest historical object lessons in the extreme potential danger of having open borders and not being able to sufficiently defend your territory.

      1. “This country” was the United Kingdom for most of those 300 years.

        The USA is 149 years old.

        1. Depending on how you want to count…
          Declaration of Independence was 1776 (243 years ago)
          Signing of the Constitution was 1787 (232 years ago)

          149 years ago? That’s 1870. Doesn’t even line up with the end of the Civil War.

          What event are you trying to count as America’s birth?

          1. Bad math to get 249, and a typo?

      2. Yup. There is a famous Indian, I think it might have been Russel Means, who has come out and said the last several years “White people, wake up. You don’t want to let the same thing happen to your people that happened to my people. It is not a good fate.”

        And he is essentially spot on. Whites are a global minority by a HUGE amount already. There are more Ethnic Chinese OR Indians alone than ALL European peoples combined. So the idea that we’re uniquely undeserving of having homelands, just because we happen to make really nice countries, is a bunch of bullshit. We’re a minority. And it is all but guaranteed that Asia is going to dominate the shit out of global politics this century no matter what we do.

        Of all the times to do it, NOW is NOT the time to allow our nations to turn into disaster areas.

        1. Means is simply thinking ahead.

          Without white guilt who is going to keep funding the reservations?

          Something tells me most of the voters we are importing aren’t going to be real considerate of those ‘historic treaty obligations.’

          1. Right?

            I’ve actually heard some REALLY interesting stuff from some honest speaking black folks over the years too.

            One famous political preacher whose name I can’t remember right now basically said:

            “Back in the day American basically had 2 groups of people to please: White people, and black people. It was rough, don’t get me wrong. But we only had to hash stuff out between us two. That was it. Now we have dozens of different special interest groups pouring in here, demanding a whole lot of different stuff. It complicates things. Not to mention the Mexicans, which are pouring in here literally fighting with the black community in gang wars, shooting our people… Taking our jobs, because we compete for the same kinds of work. But also now outnumber us that have been here for centuries, and muscling us out politically. Immigration is NOT good for black Americans.”

            Essentially things along those lines. And it struck me that he is right. With 2 groups to haggle with, it’s not THAT complicated. Think now. Immigration bitching is spearheaded almost entirely by illegals and children of illegals… It would be a non issue if we’d kept that shit in check the last few decades.

            Another black dude also brought up the fact that when whites are a minority, that NOBODY is going to give 2 fucks about helping blacks, because they won’t feel guilty for anything. Which is PAINFULLY honest on his part, but also true.

            1. That’s true. And blacks are not going to be in any position to become the demographic majority at any conceivable time in the future.

              1. Most likely.

                I mean globally, blacks are the only ethnic group projected to massively grow in population over the next several decades. All other regions of the world have fertility trending downwards fast. Even places like India and South America are on track to be below replacement rate.

                But not Africa! But yeah, if they ever wanted to take over here demographically, it would require them 10 folding immigration directly from Africa for decades on end. That just doesn’t seem likely.

    6. The English, through colonialism, are the cause of that. Tossing off the yoke of said colonialism takes a while, just ask Haiti.

    7. How could this country have enslaved anyone for 300 years when it’s only been in existence for 240 years (or thereabouts)?

    8. This country enslaved black people for 89 years. The other 211 years belongs to that country, England.

      1. Or France, or Spain.

        1. (And the ones prior to those – e.g. the Dutch or the Swedes – largely preceded the wholesale importation of slave labor.)

          The first Africans who came here to cultivate tobacco were actually free men. That they were literally sowing the seeds of wholesale enslavement is not ironic, it’s entirely apropos.

  8. “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization?how did that language become offensive?”

    One of those isn’t the same as the other two.

    1. Yes, only one of them starts with a lower case “w”.

    2. The scary thing is, modern leftists ARE demonizing the very idea of Western Civilization as being an outright evil thing nowadays…

      1. Which is quite ironic since western civilization is the only one that could have produced modern leftists.

        Western civilization has had plenty of dark chapters, but it’s not worse than any other civilization that has ever existed. Probably better than most. The reason it has been so successful is as much because it works as it is because of colonialism and things like that.

        1. True on all counts.

          The reality is the “Europe is rich because of colonialism” trope is largely bogus. Europe is rich because they invented things that made people more productive. Throughout basically the entire history of every colonial empire, the home country was running in the red in terms of expenditures to finance their empire. The initial conquest of Mexico and South America being an exception because of all the gold they had, but that ran out before long anyway.

          Africa, India, etc, they were all net losers. They made the GDP of a given empire bigger on paper, but they really didn’t enrich the home portion of the nations themselves very much at all. They probably could have done just as well, or better, signing exclusive trade agreements with foreign powers, as controlling certain popular imports to Europe was about the only real big gain made at all.

          1. All the great art to come out of Europe over the last thousand year. Plus al, the great philosophers, scientists, architects, etc.. white folks have contributed so many positive thimgs to the human experience.

    3. I know. Way to ruin the brand, jackass King.

  9. American culture is indeed not tied to caucasian genetics. It is, however, derived from a unique strain of Western Judeo-Christian philosophy that developed primarily in the British Isles.

    If we denigrate that culture and it antecedents as worthless and vile and unworthy of preserving we will lose it and the benefits if it we enjoy.

    1. What if I told you that you can criticize the human rights violations committed by the white majority in the past without concluding that means you are denigrating the whole culture as worthless and vile?

      1. That would be a great idea Chipper… The problem is the left moved on from that very reasonable tactic, to outright assaulting basically everything about western civilization, and everything white people ever did, a few decades ago… Didn’t you know that math is racist in 2019? It’s true! Google it! And if something as objective as math is racist, then lord only knows crazy ideas like free speech and the like are doubly racist!

        1. It’s the type of overgeneralization that is at the root of most bigotry.

          1. Ya know, if I had only ever seen one loopy person say that kind of stuff, I would shrug it off. I DID exactly that for some years. Then I realized it ISN’T just 37 nut jobs in the Democratic party… It’s millions, and millions of people who actually believe that shit. There are obviously plenty of Dems that don’t… But that type of thinking is becoming more, and more popular on the left, not less popular.

            If I see them returning to sanity someday, I will stop going after them about this… But until then their blatant anti white, anti enlightenment ideas deserve to be shat upon.

      2. What if I told you that that’s not what’s happening?

        1. That sentence does not specify any actors. Who are you talking about?

      3. Every culture on earth has committed human rights violatons. That’s how they did it back then.


    2. Fair, but when you are discussing a country that is majority white (as Swedes speak about being Scandinavian), the implication isn’t as much about whiteness as much as the majority. It is a particular phenotype of Americanism to be sure, but you have other groups denigrate the same under the auspices of white, corporate, hetero-male.

      And not to defend King in any sense, but other groups claim identities as looking out after their own interests (ahem… Black Caucus… ahem), so it is difficult to chastise King for doing the same without looking like a hypocrite.

      1. Whites never HAD TO organize AS WHITES in the same way as blacks did. That’s why they didn’t do it. When you’re the super majority you have that luxury.

        Thing is white kids growing up today ARE ALREADY A MINORITY. They’re less than half the population. Whites will HAVE TO organize as an ethnic block to protect themselves from attacks from other ethnic blocks going forward… Because this is the real world, and ethnic affinity ain’t going away in blacks, Hispanics, etc anytime soon.

        Think about how fucked it is to be a white kid today… You’re growing up outnumbered by everybody else… Yet told you’re uniquely evil. That you have special magical privilege. And on top of that, you CANNOT under any circumstances identify as being white, or be proud of being white, and ESPECIALLY can’t specifically cooperate with other whites to achieve things that are good for other white people.

        The double standard is insane. Older whites grew up in an 85% white America, and this is still what is in a lot of peoples heads… But that America doesn’t exist for young people. Those young people won’t be swayed by memories of a bygone era, they’ll just fight for what they have to to protect their interests I suspect, as minorities tend to do.

        1. Even as far back as the Civil War, you had a not inconsiderate amount of blacks that did not want slavery to end. To claim a uniform group identity is just foolish, In fact, I’d say the same forces that lumped them into homogeneous group made the rise of the KKK as the largest fraternal organization all but inevitable. “White” has had different definitions throughout US history. Or do you think those drunk paddy bastards were welcomed in with open arms?

          I refuse to accept that ethnic identities are the best or even helpful way to organize a society. Sure, Little Italy is going to be markedly different than Koreatown, but tribalism diminishes the best means to cross cultures- ideas.

          That said, if tribalism is the means of dialogue now, you can hardly blame any group for reaching out and claiming theirs. We can give up all pretense of trying to do what is right and fair, and just have highly symbolic battles for domination.

          1. Obviously not everybody agrees in a group. That’s not the point. The point is that when push comes to shove, people side with THEIR people. How they define that can vary from time to time and place to place. But it is reality. In studies black babies prefer black adults, just as white babies prefer white adults. People naturally trust people that look like them more as adults too. It’s biologically programmed into us.

            “I refuse to accept that ethnic identities are the best or even helpful way to organize a society.”

            You can refuse to accept it… But history has shown that it is the default way. Every society that was multicultural has had to be held together by the tip of a spear. Even then, they usually fail and devolve into new, smaller ethno-states.

            It is important to share IDEAS. The thing is, you don’t need to live together to do that. Especially not in 2019. Also, I don’t think having a small number of minorities is a problem in most cases… It is not having SOME majority group that is calling the shots. A ship without a captain more or less. But having 10 or 15% who know they’re guests in a society, and don’t have the right to demand the majority change to suit their needs, is fine.

            1. As for Micks, I think the reason America worked is because we were all white, broadly speaking. After a single generation of interbreeding, you can’t tell who is a WOP/Mick/Kraut etc. You can generally tell a pure Italian, Spaniard, or Greek from a Swede, Englishman, or German… But you mix any 2 of those together with a north/south mix, and you just can’t tell anymore. So it ended up not mattering. You mix a black person or Indian together though, and they stuck out, and tended to not be allowed into white society until the blood was watered down and they passed. I truly think being able to pass matters in terms of identity politics stuff. America worked because nobody remained discernable for more than a generation or two.

              Hence a mixed Asian country would work after melding into a single averaged out Asian look, but throwing Arabs or whites or blacks in there would create ethnic blocks. It’s logical, and consistent with the science on the subject.

              As I often say, I often don’t talk about the way I wish reality worked, because it doesn’t work that way. I wish the multicultural thing were possible… But I just don’t think it is. It’s like wishing nobody would ever rape or murder ever again, a nice thought, but it isn’t going to happen.

              1. So everyone sides with and prefers their own kind.

                Except for the fucking part. And the having babies part.

                So if we just make the US a mass orgy, all of your concerns disappear in a mass of writhing flesh.

                I’m down with that.

                1. But that itself is largely not true either… The overwhelming majority of people of all races breed with their own kind.

                  And if you look at the stats, most interbreeding happens between groups that would stereotypically be considered racially or culturally more similar… For instance whites and Hispanics interbreed a lot, it’s the most common in the US. Keep in mind your statistically average Mexican is 60-70% European blood, and although dysfunctional, Latin America IS a janky part of Western Civilization.

                  The next most common is white men and Asian women. Why? Because Asians are basically honorary whites. They vote poorly (left), but other than that they’re educated, affluent, law abiding, etc. They’re more white than the average white person!

                  Pretty much all other pairings are fairly uncommon statistically.

                  But technically, if we all became one freaky looking mixed brown mob, it would probably cut down on hostility… The thing is it would take centuries, and we’ll probably end up having secession movements, or outright ethnic warring LONG before then.

                  Personally I prefer to keep the world different. One mixed race blob of people is a lot less interesting than all the variations we have in the world. There is nothing that says we all have to live IN THE SAME SPOT to be friends, do business with each other, etc.

                2. Goobacks?

              2. I think the US is homogenizing. I keep seeing kids with nappy blond hair, light skin, and african features.

                1. A bit, but it has been calculated before, and with the very small percentage of people that breed outside their own ethnicity every generation, it would take multiple HUNDREDS of years before we’d be anywhere close to all one beige colored ethnic group. There would still be blonde haired blue eyed pure bred whites in 300 years, just as there would be super dark skinned pure bred blacks. They might be in the minority, but they would still number in the many millions.

        2. What? The US is still close to 75% white. And majority non-hispanic white.

          1. If you break down the data by age bracket, Whites are a minority between age zero and nine. In a couple of years, all elementary school grades will be White minority. This is not a reason to panic, but we have to think about a country that does not have a White majority. It’s time to stop writing textbooks with the assumption that White is the default and that White students enjoy majority status. Let’s consider the type of racially pluralistic nation we want where no race is a majority. It’s no longer majority and minorities. Everyone is a minority. In that world, why treat the White minority different from the Black minority?

            1. Gee, wouldn’t that be great!

              Too bad it’s not going to happen. If you want to see the future of America, look at South Africa. They have anti white affirmative action in a country where they’re not even 10% of the population anymore.

              THAT is the kind of future crazy leftists have envisioned for the USA. I see no trend among non whites to stop pushing for things that are specifically in their ethnic groups interests.

              I hope I do someday… But I won’t hold my breath.

          2. Ya know, I’m part Mexican, and part Indian. I tan from both sides of my family…

            I still don’t consider most 1st generation American Hispanics white. Why? Because they themselves tend to see themselves as something other than the “Anglos” in America and Canada. Self identification is a really important thing in the identity politics game.

            There ARE white Hispanics still, the 80-90%+ Euro blooded elites from down south, but not most of them. Many don’t know that down south the light skinned still consider themselves different from the more mixed folks, and the mixed folks return the favor.

            Now, I think a lot of Hispanics that are mostly European blood already, or intermarry with Anglos like my ancestors did will “become” white in a couple generations. But I don’t see the super tan, 60-70% Native blooded folks going that route anytime soon.

            And non Hispanic whites are definitely down to barely 60% now, some people estimate it is already under 50% because several groups are counted under Caucasian that most people don’t consider such. Like Arabs, Iranians, and others.

            Either way, this is the largest mass migration in human history, and the fastest demographic shift too. It will not go smoothly.

        3. So you don’t consider Hispanic whites to be “white enough”.


          I mean, that’s the only way you get to that “minority” figure, if you don’t count whites who are also Hispanic.

          1. I’m part Mexican myself on my moms side, AND bonus Indian blood from my dads side.

            I don’t consider most Hispanics to be white. As I said above, they don’t see themselves as white. At least not most of them. And they’re easy to pick out of a crowd. In a post I made above I said that I think the being able to pass test is vitally important to self identity… And most Hispanics cannot pass. So you combine seeing themselves differently to begin with, along with not passing… And you end up with “not white.”

            There are the upper classes from all over Latin America which tend to be heavier on European blood. THEY can mostly pass, and tend to consider themselves white to boot. Many “Anglos” don’t know that the skin tone hierarchy is alive and well throughout Latin America. They all know it, but Americans are mostly ignorant to this fact. Look at all the rich and powerful Mexicans you can find on Google, they’re all waaay more Europeans than the average Mexican.

            1. With an intermarriage or two I think a lot of Hispanics will lose the identity, AND be able to pass. Hence they will be “white washed” so to speak! LOL

              This is more or less what happened in my family. My grandpa still looked very much like a little Mexican/Native dude, although he was only about 1/2 non white. My mom looks almost Italian, with some native features, despite having zero southern European heritage other than the Spanish from gramps Mexican side, and in fact being mostly German and English. My dad has some native from his dad, but it didn’t show up in his features, so I got lightened up, and more European looking… I tan a bit, have brown hair and eyes, but have pretty much straight northern European features.

              Assholes like me will be common in the future… But only if we don’t let in so many unskilled Hispanics that the whole country turns into Mexico or Colombia.

        4. In some neighborhoods, people test you out by criticizing a group and looking at your reaction. When you don’t stand up for your own group, or groups normally associated with your group, that is seen as weakness and a sign that you are fair game. If you do speak out, that is seen as racism if your skin is white. Yeah, White kids are stuck in a bad situation, because their older relatives are afraid to stand up for them, the school curriculum blames them for historical wrongs, and they are too young to stand up for themselves.

          1. As somebody who grew up in a minority majority town as a kid in California, I think I got a couple decade early dose of what the future may be like… In short, a lot of white kids didn’t take any of that shit from black or Mexican kids. This tendency will only get stronger.

            I was insulted for being white all the time, and I tended to not put up with it. I’m not an idiot so mostly figured out how to avoid trouble before things got too serious when I was older, but a lot of people just called the brown people insulting names right back, beaner, wet back, nigger etc. When you’re in the minority, none of that PC shit seems to matter much…

            Funny thing is, I learned pretty early on by dropping the fact that I was part Mexican on the Mexican kids that they would magically be cool to me all of a sudden… I had a few Mexican gang banger buddies who had my back in high school! Guaranteed if I wasn’t part Mexican they wouldn’t have been cool like they were. Funny how that stuff works, huh?

  10. Vietnam draft-dodger

    Has the term ‘draft dodger’ meant anything since the Clinton era? Aren’t non-intervention, conscientious objection, anti-conscription, etc. core libertarian sensibilities? Didn’t plenty of draft dodgers fit the modern day definition of refugees? You know what? Fuck it. Nick’s got him a white nationalist to insult.

    1. No self-respecting libertarian would ever use the term “draft-dodger” as an insult. To dodge the draft is a heroic act.

      1. It’s used as an insult to those who advocate for war later in life after doing everything they could to avoid fighting in one themselves.

        1. It’s used as an insult to those who advocate for war later in life after doing everything they could to avoid fighting in one themselves.

          ^ This.

        2. And Trump’s pulling us out of illegal wars. So feel free to start calling him libertarian

          1. Bolton told him he couldn’t do it. You’re at least one news cycle behind.

          2. Illegal! Defined … very … creatively, I guess.

            (“International law”? Isn’t law, and doesnt’ seem real illegal here anyway.

            Constiutionally? Congress doesn’t seem to think there’s no valid declaration of war, and could act to end any war it thought violated its powers of declaration. It has not and continues to not.

            “I think it’s a bad idea and I wish slightly different forms had been observed” != “illegal”.)

        3. I thought that was “chickenhawk”.

        4. It’s like those public school supporters who never got certified to be public school teachers or those non-cops supporting a prohibition against plastic straws!

      2. To dodge the draft is a heroic act.

        I dunno about heroic, but certainly muddled, nuanced, and at least partially favorable to libertarian beliefs. Maybe at one point it was used to undercut warhawks or something. This day and age, it sounds like an anachronistic reach back in history to send the message “Conscription is OK as long as hypocrites I don’t like are being conscripted.”

        As long as the goat gets fucked, who cares?

    2. Draft dodger should still mean something. That entire generation has been a complete waste of space ever since the 60’s. And it would have been far better for the US if some worthless piece of chickenhawk shit like King had gotten killed in Nam instead of those far better Americans who did get killed there.

  11. Actually Nick, White Nationalism is VERY American. It was what the nation was founded on, and we kept enshrined in law until 1965. And even then they only managed to pass it by lying to the American public about the likely implications. If they had said what they knew was going to happen was going to happen, Americans would have never allowed it to go into law.

    Just sayin’.

    NOW, you can say that America is horrible, and awful, and evil, and that we should have been better… But white nationalism is at the core of America. That is one thing that prog tards are right about. Many founders were against slavery, but none of them considered other races to be equal to whites. Mostly they thought about shipping the slaves back to Africa if they were freed. That was what Thomas Jefferson thought would be the righteous thing to do. Hell, he was probably right! Hell, they didn’t even consider a lot of other Europeans to be good enough.

    So don’t go repeating a lie that America was founded to be a multi-racial utopia. It WAS NOT. You can say that is a bad thing all you want, but you can’t say that was the original intent.

    1. Again. When you read the founders of Canada, they held the same views as the American founders. It was the time. I think it persisted right up until the ‘white man’s burden’ in the 19th century.

      I agree neither country were founded on the premise of ‘multiculturalism’. And nor are we ‘nations of immigrants’ technically. That came later.

      Other than that, it’s hard to really decipher ‘original intent’.

      1. I don’t know a ton about early Canadian history. I guess more than most, but not a ton. I mostly assume it was the same deal as the American colonies pre revolution. We were British colonies. We allowed in small numbers of other Europeans. The founders intended to keep this land for themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY. They decided to let in “white men of good character.” That was it.

        They wanted all the land for their British selves, and their British kids. They more or less begrudgingly accepted other “good” northern Europeans as being acceptable. But the founders even bitched about Germans, Swedes, etc. They wanted to keep it as British as possible, but northern Europeans got a pass as being tolerable. Southern Europeans weren’t really considered acceptable, but they let small numbers of them in even early on. I suspect if they’d got a flood of Italian immigrants in 1805 or whatever though, instead of a mere trickle, that they would have amended the laws to ban them. LOL

        No matter how you slice it, we WERE NOT founded to be multicultural as an explicit thing.

        1. Actually, at the time of the Revolution, Germans, Swedes and the Dutch made up significant majorities in some parts of the thirteen colonies.

          New England and the South were predominantly English but in many parts of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania one of the languages mentioned above would have been what you would have heard spoken.

          That’s one of the reasons that the Founders did not include a national language in either the Constitution or in early legislation. If they had German would have almost certainly been made an Official Language and possibly Swedish and Dutch as well. With the Louisiana Purchase came a large Francophone population and with the annexation of Texas and the occupation of New Mexico and California a large Spanish speaking population was added.

          English becoming the predominant language of the USA is an example of “spontaneous order” rather than of legislative fiat. In the same way English became the predominant world wide language of business, diplomacy and science in the latter half of the 20th century. Formerly French and German predominated in diplomacy and science, so much so that until the 1960s many universities required a course in German for a degree in Chemistry or Physics.

          1. Incidentally “Pennsylvania Dutch” is actually not Dutch but a variety of Low German dialects spoken by immigrants to a large belt of country stretching from Maryland up through Pennsylvania, Western New York into the western part of Upper Canada (present day southern Ontario) and some of their descendants. Like most languages imported here it has acquired its own American character.

            German immigration was welcome largely because the King of England was German (the British Crown only lost Hanover as a possession because Hanover had a male only succession rule so that while Victoria was crowned Queen of England her uncle became the Duke of Hanover after George IV died).

            George III was, in fact the first of the Hanoverian Kings who even spoke English and took an interest in governing England (and by extension its colonies and possessions). His father and grandfather took no interest in being English Kings and largely left the business of government to the First (or Prime) Minister and the Cabinet. This led to a sort of “benign neglect” that led to the rise of the primacy of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and so called “responsible government” whereby the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the “government”) is responsible to the Parliament which is in turn responsible to “the People”.

            It was in this “global” atmosphere that the USA was formed.

            1. Pretty sure ‘Pennsylvania Dutch’ became a common term about the same time the German Spitz was renamed the American Eskimo Dog. Somewhere right around 1917.

              (Also, don’t forget that Germany didn’t even exist until 1871.)

              1. Not from my understanding.

                The way I heard it before was this:

                In English, back in the day they used to refer to ALL the Germanic peoples as “Duits” AKA Deutsche, but pronounced messed up. This included the low countries, Austria, Switzerland, possibly even Denmark, etc. Obviously they referred to their national names when appropriate too, but in broad terms they were all Duits to the Brits.

                The Germans settled here when they were all still lumped together. Later on English people stopped calling the Dutch the same thing as the Germans, and Duits turned into Dutch, and German for the other Germans… But in the colonies the Germans ended up being called Dutch because reasons…

                And there you have it. Whatever source I read that from seemed reputable at the time, so I think that it accurate.

          2. I knew almost all of that! Didn’t know they required German for physics degrees though! LOL

            My family is actually Pennsylvania Dutch from my dads moms side. They were here before the revolution, and were of course German.

            That said, people from the British isles (English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish) were a strong majority of the country from what I understand. The others were just sizeable minority groups. I don’t know the numbers, and too lazy to google, but I get the impression somehow it may have been a 70-80% British type situation at that point. They were certainly not less than 50%.

            Also, by the time of the revolution most Dutch and Germans ALSO spoke English, if they even spoke their original language at all. Many of the people involved in the revolution had Dutch names, but were speaking English at least in their public life.

            But it’s all interesting stuff! I knew the English kings were Germans, but when I first learned they ALSO actually controlled a valuable German Duchy until Victoria, it tripped me out! Just seems so weird.

        2. New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania were Dutch and Swedish colonies before the British conquered them. That’s why we had to think about integrating different nations from the writing of the Constitution forward.

      2. We are a nation of (largely white) immigrants who shared common ideals. Ideals which happened to be great ones.

    2. Jefferson even wrote that he thought whites were superior to blacks and that blacks were the lowest race.

      Ben Franklin wrote that the English and German (Saxon), ie Anglo-Saxon, cultures were the best on Earth and that all others, including other European cultures were inferior. Anglo-Saxons (and Nordics IIRC) were the “true” whites, not like those swarthy Italians and Slavs and such.

      1. Actually, Jefferson’s ideas on race and, for that matter, the institution of slavery evolved. I would like to see a citation on where “Jefferson even wrote that he thought whites were superior to blacks and that blacks were the lowest race.” Such a statement does not even begin to describe any of Jefferson’s writings that I am aware of on the subject.

        Actually the best way to sum up he ideas of Jefferson, Franklin and the other intellectuals or philosophers of “American ideas” at the time is that they did, in fact, believe that “all men are created equal” but that geographical and environmental factors had lead the into certain negative cultural and behavioral practices that were hostile to human progress and happiness. Thus, only by education and, essentially, conversion to the ideas the Western Enlightenment could the “lesser races” be brought into the mainstream of society.

        1. In believing that “only by education and, essentially, conversion to the ideas the Western Enlightenment could the “lesser races” be brought into the mainstream of society”, “the Jeffersonians” were in some part the forerunners of the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

          What makes the “modern” Progressive’s call for “multiculturalism” so ironic is that the message of the late 19th and early 20th century Progressives was one of regimented conformity to a set of rules based on the idea that Western European Civilization, particularly that which espoused Anglo-Saxon values and evangelical Protestant Christianity represented PROGRESS and that everyone who didn’t realize it had to be dragged “kicking and screaming” into the 20th century.

          This meant cultivating the the “white trash”, “teaching the geechee” out of blacks, setting up a “secular public education system” to depapify the wops, dagos, micks and guineas, “killing the Indian to save the man” and so on. None of this was to say that any of these groups were intrinsically “inferior” but that their cultures were. This Progressivism was not anti-capitalist in and of itself, it simply called for a “more enlightened” kind of capitalism. Many of the “rich and powerful” of the day identified as “Progressives”.

          1. I’m not going to look up an exact source, but I have read Jefferson quotes where he pretty flatly says blacks are not the equal of whites.

            In that famous quote where he says he knows the blacks are destined to be free or whatever, his very next sentence was something to the effect of “And I am equally sure that the free negro can never live along side the white man. He doesn’t have the same nature or the intellect…” yadda yadda yadda. That’s a very rough paraphrase, but pretty much the sense of what he said.

            My best way to put his opinion from my reading is: He thought slavery was wrong, period. He accepted that some blacks were as intelligent as some whites. He also thought the AVERAGE black was far less intelligent, and they could never be sufficiently civilized. Therefore, he didn’t believe we could live along side each other after they were free. He also said they smelled really bad and were ugly.

            Even amongst the moralists of the time, this was what basically 100% of them believed. Even in the 1860s most abolitionists believed blacks to be inferior, but still didn’t think slavery was right. I don’t think this makes any of them bad people. IQ by ethnicity actually seems to prove their point… So unless somebody finds an environmental cause for the massive IQ gaps… Nobody has come up with a way to explain the gaps, other than it being genetic.

            And they were correct that Anglo-Saxon values are superior. Results speak for themselves!

      2. “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”-Karl Marx

        “It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product.” -Karl Marx

        To Arms ,To Arms twitter rage boys. Why is this racist still being celebrated in institutions of higher learning?

    3. This may be a surprise to you vek, but the “Cornerstone Speech” was made by the losers of the Civil War, not the winners.

      1. Your point? I’m not in favor of slavery. It is morally wrong. Other than slavery, I think the south was in the right on that one too. Slavery was the single biggest issue, but it was far from the ONLY issue.

        Also, that doesn’t mean I can’t read statistics. Even if there are zero inherent differences in people, history shows clearly that multicultural societies are incredibly unstable. Cultural clashes are a cluster fuck every damn time. I don’t think the trouble is worth the non existent gains.

        The only thing America has to show for vastly higher murder rates, rape rates, robbery rates, welfare use, voting for higher taxes, voting away gun rights, etc etc etc IS ETHNIC FOOD. Because all those things above are directly attributable to non whites in the USA. All we got out of the deal is tacos dude. And we didn’t NEED to become a minority to get tacos, you just need a few.

        On the plus side, Asians are good on everything but their voting records. So not all immigrants are THAT BAD.

        I’m a mixed breed bastard myself, so if anything I think it just shows that I can rise above being emotional about the subject, and think it through rationally.

        I can always just change how I identify if Hispanics take over the country and turn it to utter shit… I just don’t want to see that happen is all.

    4. Which is why the Constitution limits so many things to white people!

      Oh, wait …

  12. If a person can claim to be whatever sex they want then anyone can claim to be racist or not its their choice no bubble needed. I for one claim people who are for open borders are the racist bent on destroying the one thing that attracts immigrants.

  13. So Nick is actually against identitarian politics or just if that identity is white.

    Black power, Black Lives Matter, NAACP Black Congressional Caucus is all great?

    God what a fucking hypocrite. I mean if we are really concerned about identity politics Steve is your number one issue?

    Give me a fucking break.

    1. Gillespie is a leftist with the appropriate amount of fully internalized white guilt.

      1. I mean identity politics would be gone if we just get rid of Steve Fucking King. He’s quite the problem.

        Reason is a fucking joke.

      2. Superior to the inferior Steve King makes Nick the supreme white supremacist.

    2. Of COURSE he is only against white identity politics… Because it’s icky if white people defend themselves against racially motivated attacks against their group interest!

      Keep in mind, every welfare program in the USA, every progressive tax, etc is a direct transfer of wealth from mostly whites, along with Asians and Jews, to other ethnic groups. But to mention such a thing would be racist, so I won’t do it 🙂

      1. Interracial crime is overwhelmingly black on white but shh, we have Steve King to worry about

        1. Also, just completely assumed and beneath the surface; immigrants are a race *and* inherently non/anti-racist.

          1. Unless they immigrate from Europe and have white skin. Then they are assumed racist and driven back to Europe.

        2. Yeah, don’t talk about how vastly more whites are murdered, robbed, raped, etc by blacks every year than whites do to blacks. That would be racist!

          I’m so sick of this shit.

          The truth is, I wish America were 80-90% white, and 10-20% Asian, and we can squeeze a few Jews in there because they make good movies! THAT would be a fucking awesome country.

          The rest of these people, whatever the reason, are a fucking disaster. It all shows in the statistics. Frankly, I don’t care what the reason is. If white people are such evil racists, why don’t all the bastards just leave the country and go to somewhere else?

          Our murder rate would drop by 85%, our welfare usage would drop by more than half, etc etc etc. America would be close to a paradise if we didn’t have all these people here.

    3. Black power, Black Lives Matter, NAACP Black Congressional Caucus is all great?

      Has he ever voiced support for any of these things? Maybe BLM, but that’s not like the others (at least in theory).

      1. Show me the attacks on black lives matter, not as a violent group (they aren’t that bad), but as an identitarian one.

        Show me attacks on the black caucus.

        Show me attacks on the hispanic caucus.

        Leftists hate western civilization. If only they could take all the shit white people made and use it against them, the world would be a better place

      2. I think that is the wrong question. He isn’t supporting King or white nationalism in this article. I think the better question would be “has he ever had similar objections to those organizations” to which I would have to say I don’t know.

        1. Reason will VERY gently, once in a blue moon, make small criticisms of some of those groups. I can’t recall for Nick in particular. He’s so super trendy he might have never said a single negative thing, but I know some Reason articles have delicately done it before.

    4. Where did he say anything favorable about non-white identitarian politics?

  14. True, but what about the radical black nationalism of Block Yommoma and his buddies like Calypso Louie Farrakhan?

  15. Backlashes against anti-white racism are springing up all over North American and Europe. Political movements that used to be too tiny to note are now major parties winning significant power. Why?

    Because backlash is one of many inevitable negative consequences of identity politics.

    1. When you’re being attacked AS A GROUP, by other people organized AS A GROUP, you have no choice but to defend yourself AS A GROUP.

      This is a logical outcome. Ethnicity has been a primary organizing factor in human history. About the only thing I can think of that has ever trumped it has been religion… And usually even that only wins the day for awhile, if there is some other religion to rally against. Once that threat is gone, the ethnicities go back to fighting each other.

      It is human nature. The people that thought multiculturalism would actually work were fucking morons. Anybody who knows human nature knows it was bound to fail. I just hope Europe saves itself, because America is probably already beyond saving. The only way we can pull it out is to split up the country.

  16. Iowa. It is amusing when the Welfare and crony republicans (The Farm Bill) start pounding their chests about rugged individualism. What an Asshole.

  17. >>>(among other things, he speaks only of men and he owned slaves for a time)

    type of people who take the time to read you don’t need to be constantly fed these unnecessary lines. Crevecoeur lived *during that time* – leave the equivocation to weaker minds

  18. This is sloppy journalism. Gillespie uses a smear article as the source to write a smear article. King may be a horrible racist, but without context for those quotes it sounds like he is interested in maintaining American/western values. Unrestricted immigration does have an effect on the culture and it’s worth noting that things change when a racial majority in a country rapidly declines towards minority status. Like usual, he interprets what he wants to (in spite of evidence) be outraged about and lays it at the feet of the right.

    1. “Unrestricted immigration does have an effect on the culture and it’s worth noting that things change when a racial majority in a country rapidly declines towards minority status.”

      Good luck with that around here. Reason turns more people republican than Fox News could ever dream

      1. I came to Libertarianism from the right/Republicans. I found Reason a few years ago and liked that it had less emotional appeals than the relatively right-wing outlets I frequented (among a diet ranging from Vox to Breitbart before Breitbart’s death). That changed in the lead-up to the election of 2016. The editorial staff went from libertarian with a range of right-left preferences to what is now almost exclusively left-wing/progressive. Gillespie used to be more centrist and Welch was center-right leaning. It sucks, but Reason is rapidly shifting to a clone of Vox/Huffpo with the exception that the word “libertarian” isn’t used as a pejorative

        1. The shift actually started much earlier than you suggest. If you go back, it’s almost astounding how happy these guys were when Obama got elected in ’08. The one and only policy that they ever truly consistently criticized him about during his eight years in office was his drone strikes, and to this day the entire group still refuses to assign to him any blame whatsoever for the debt accumulated during his watch. They still adamantly claim at least once every couple of months or so that Paul Ryan and the republicans deserve ALL of the blame.

          Personally, I believe there was nothing accidental about any of this. I believe that slowly, gradually getting Reason to where it is now was always their intent right from day one. It’s a absolute textbook, masterpiece real life example the strategy Saul Alinsky mapped out for how to infiltrate and take over and organization.

          1. Yup. I don’t remember the very first time I read anything on Reason, but I know by maybe 2002 or 2003 I was reading it now and again. I’ve been on again off again over the years.

            There has been a MASSIVE shift in how progressive this place is. They used to be a lot more “purist” in their arguments for things that tended to overlap with the left, like say gay rights. Now they literally don’t even bother… They just shout “It’s mean to not give gay people every single thing they demand! You’re a Nazi if you won’t want naked biological boys in the shower room with your teenage daughter!!!” and make totally emotional appeals. It’s all feelz.

            They don’t seem to give much lip service at all to right-libertarians, despite them making up the majority of libertarians I have met IRL… Which makes me think they’re majority in general.

            It is very much a case of Reason being intentionally transitioned. I think a lot of it is also them being too cowardly to stand up against the MSM bullying. They’re too afraid to take an unpopular stand on something that seems to have negative morals attached to it.

            Sad. I hope a good, pro, right-libertarian publication comes about someday… Or Reason transitions back at least.

  19. Sounds like a SJW.

  20. Libertarians for Steve King!

    What a worthless, inconsequential, sad bunch of fake libertarians.

    1. Letting Steve King be Steve King is more libertarian than being a shill for Bill Kristol.

  21. What is “White Natonalism”? “White” is not a nation.

    1. Neither is Black, Red or Yellow.

    2. You know that people misuse the word nation today right?

      A “nation” IS essentially a group of people. It is traditionally an inherently ethnic thing. The root of that, nat, as in nativity. Like you’re blood related, kin.

      People just misuse it, and treat it as having the same meaning as a state, which is a political entity.

      For instance, the Kurds are a “nation” in the traditional meaning of the word, BUT they do not have a state.

      So while white being a nation is too broad to meet the traditional usage, Germany being a nation is not. Germany happens to be a nation AND a state, but that state doesn’t include ALL Germans either. There’s Austria and some in other bordering countries. In the traditional usage Austria is part of the German nation, but not part of the German state.


  22. If anyone wants to populate our civilization with my babies, hit me up. I’m ready immediately.

    1. How big is your apartment? There’s a homeless shelter in my town with many women who have given up hope waiting for that housing voucher.

      Times never change. Around 200 years ago, an American man would tell the father of the perspective bride that he bought a house as a sign that he was ready to get married to his beloved.

      1. Times never change. Around 200 years ago, an American man would tell the father of the perspective bride that he bought a house as a sign that he was ready to get married to his beloved.

        This is an example of times having changed

  23. This column is yet another data point in support of the idea that libertarians are just leftists who dislike the DMV.

    The entire Democrat Party platform is based on the idea of racial Balkanization but instead Gillespie gets the vapors over the statements of a single Republican.

  24. America should have only white people in it.
    Also, no one that is right handed, have brown eyes, ten toes, testicles, a vagina or lungs.
    You have to draw the line somewhere.

    1. Is that second part requiring that people have ALL those features to be disqualified… Or just each one individually.

      Either way, the way you wrote it, you could have AT LEAST a left handed, blue eyed, 9 toed, eunuch with one lung.

      That would make for a hell of a country!

  25. I’ll prove white nationalism isn’t American! I’ll approvingly quote this: “What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European”

    Is Nick secretly arguing for white nationalism, or was he really drunk when he wrote this, or what?

    1. I mean, I don’t hang out on stormfront or whatever they hang out at now, but that’s the most white nationalist thing I’ve read in a very long tmie

    2. Not all Europeans are white. Some are classified as swarthy. I think there’s a check box on the census long form for that.

      1. There isn’t.

      2. How do you classify the Greek who’s ancestor fled modern day Turkey when Greece won its independence? Are the ethnic Albanians in Turkey Asian while the Ethnic Albanians in Albania are European? Did Sicilians become White when the Normans arrived?

        1. I mean, “Europe” can get a little confusing in Russia, but none of these are close cases. His claim wasn’t about being “white,” but European. Yes, it’s not perfectly congruent, but for something 200+ years old? Pretty damned close

      3. Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751
        — Ben Franklin

        24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.I could wish their Numbers were increased.
        And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.


        1. Ben Franklin on Europeans of Swarthy Complexion, as distinct from White People.

    3. And we remained exactly that by and large until 1965, when we probably signed the death warrant for the country known as America. The nation MAY continue on using the name, but it will clearly not be the same country any longer.

  26. It is not hard to tell when an article is a complete slander. When the author cites an unrelated source more than the subject of the article, that is a pretty good sign they are lying. King is not a white nationalist. To say that he is is just a lie. Gillespie has always been dim witted and trite but he has generally been honest. I am sorry to see that he has lost even that virtue.

    1. Jesus tapdancing Christ, I had to check for a moment that i wasn’t at Stormfront.

    2. “Truth is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples.”

      Postmodernism. And Nick is a fan. So why would you expect him to be honest?

      Did you miss Nick going full “No True Communism”?
      “Totalitarians professing communism killed millions of people, but this analogy is flawed. Hitler was the leader of Nazism, Stalin the leader of…Stalinism, not communism.”

      1. HOLY CRAP. I missed that one since I don’t do The Twitter.

        Holy shit, these people that run this rag are fucking horrible. I didn’t even think any of them would stoop THAT low.

        1. As much as I come here for my 2 Minutes Hate against Reason, I was shocked Nick would go that far too.

          Marxist apologetics brings in the cocktail party invites.

        2. To be clear, the first quote is just my parody of the Left.

          But given Nick’s “No True Communism”, I didn’t want to possibly leave the impression that the first quote was Nick.

  27. The three pillars of white American culture are Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. If persons of other cultures wish to come and embrace these sacred traditions all are welcome.

  28. “Still, even if the Vietnam draft-dodger can’t be swayed…”

    Cheap shot. Especially for folks who claim to be libertarian.

  29. We do need for white women to have more babies. Both in the US and in Europe.

    1. Don’t forget Asian countries, and a lot of other places. IMO the simplest and best thing is to simply have nations at replacement rate. We definitely don’t need growing populations in the world today… And rapidly shrinking has a lot of problems too. But a veeery slow decline, or perfect stasis, is quite manageable. If the last few places breeding like rabbits would just chill the fuck out, the world would be on a pretty good trajectory. I’m lookin’ at you Africa!

  30. “White Nationalism Is Deeply Un-American”

    Factually incorrect for the majority of America’s history.

    1. “White Nationalism Is Deeply Un-American”

      Nothing ironic like a deep, deep ‘libertarian’ like Pleather Jacket telling us what the approved form of group think is.

  31. “He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.”

    I’m surprised to see Nick quote this.

    Today, the Left considers it white supremacy to suggest that immigrants only *become* Americans by assimilating to American “prejudices and manners”.

  32. “his sort of thinking signals nothing more than the death rattle of the racial collectivism”

    The Left has been pounding the drums of racial collectivism for a couple decades. All politics on the Left is steeped in identitarianism, including racial. That’s what they are. Identitarians.

  33. White Nationalist term is a media created term bringing up thoughts of the KKK..
    White Nationalist: the term itself, as in anything with the word White before it is a racist term bringing up thoughts of the KKK. how about his, American nationalist? the media would also call this a cover name for the KKK… and the thought process, if you are white, voted for Trump, support a Constitutional Rep then you are by that alone a KKK supporter, racist, and of course privileged.

    1. Right?

      The funny thing is, EVERY single nationalist in Europe is definitely and inherently a white nationalist, since all European countries are white!


      1. “EVERY single nationalist in Europe is definitely and inherently a white nationalist, since all European countries are white!”

        They’re all mammals too. That doesn’t make them Mammal Nationalists.

        American White Nationalism was always multiethnic, with the group of ethnicities qualifying as White expanding over time.

        European states tend more toward ethnonationalism, e.g. Swedens for Swedes, but not Germans, Italians, Brits, Greeks, …

        1. True.

          Ethnonationalism is all fine by me.

          Look at how much whining the left does about all the cultures Europeans destroyed via colonialism. Native Americans in north America, Aztecs, Inca, Maya, all the wankers in Africa, India, etc etc etc.

          They correctely point out that it was kind of fucked up what we did. Not only that we killed them, and took their shit, but that we completely wiped out their cultures as well…

          Yet they’re advocating EXACTLY that in Europe and America. WTF.

          I think it is fine for Swedes to tell WOPs to piss off and stay in Italy, and I think Italians should be able to tell Swedes to do the same thing. There is nothing wrong with retaining your culture.

          How fucking boring would the world be if EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY was just one generic blob of consumerist bullshit, with zero traditions outside of shopping on Amazon and drinking lattes at Starbucks? Because if you destroy culture, that’s basically all that is left. I don’t want to live in a world like that.

          That said, I think the trick with America is that the other whites could assimilate and disappear into the society. I think most peoples could move around Europe without destroying the culture, provided too many didn’t move in a single generation, because a German could culturally become a Swede easily and blend in.

  34. The Alt-Right is Not Right – It’s Left…..The alt-right is myth
    One of the pillars of conservatism is “The Golden Rule,” which automatically precludes white nationalism or racial supremacy of any kind.
    According to McPaper, the white nationalist/supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2008. If he uses the term alt-right to identify himself and his fellow believers ? this begs a question?
    Was President Woodrow Wilson a member of the alt-right? He was a racist white supremacist.
    So were President Lyndon Johnson and the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd.
    Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to halt the spread of the black race. I’d call that white supremacism.
    The KKK was the enforcers of the white supremacist Southern Democrat Party, the Dixiecrats.
    Alt-right demonstrators hit the streets adorned with Nazi paraphernalia and Confederate flags.
    Neither of those symbols represents American conservatism.

    1. In fact, the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, which these nuts appear to be so fond of, was a tale of combat between two competing leftist ideologies ? fascism and communism.
      Neither faction incidentally resembled conservatism or what we’ve come to know as “the right.”
      The German KPD was the largest communist party outside the Soviet Union during the 1920s.
      It was the Trotsky-inspired KPD or German Communist Party vs. the Hitler led fascist “National Socialist German Workers Party” (Nazis).
      There were no “right-wingers” involved at all.
      And did I see the word socialist?
      By cracky, I did.
      I don’t know of anyone who would confuse conservatism with socialism.
      The alt-right is myth.
      It’s a name crafted to confuse the public into thinking these loons were spawned out of the conservative movement.
      It should actually be relabeled, or labeled properly as the National Socialist American Party, because they are in fact fascists – not of the right and certainly not conservative.
      But because of our woefully inept education system in this country, most believe fascism and Hitler were right wing.
      They couldn’t be more wrong.
      The fascists were leftists who had/have a lot more in common with communists than with free market conservative capitalists.
      The major difference between fascists and communists is that the former is nationalistic and the latter, internationalistic.

    2. It depends on how you want to define terms.

      IMO, I think it is fair to call MOST political parties and movements “mixed ideologies.”

      Nazis had a number of typical right wing/conservative sentiments, and also some left wing ones. The Alt Right is the same. They don’t have a problem with identity politics, and are traditional in many other social ways. They’re mixed on economics, some being more right others more left. And so on.

      NO movement has ever been pure anything. I guess what is reasonable to label them might be what are their core beliefs vs ancillary ones? Or if they have more that lean one way than another? But they’re all mixed.

  35. In a New York Times interview, he says:

    “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization?how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

    The Times article was *not* an interview. The quote appears in the article. The best I can identify a citation for the quote is a link to an interview.

    From the Article:
    Mr. King, in the interview, said he was not a racist. …
    “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization ? how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

    The only interview mentioned in the article by King was:
    In an interview in August with a far-right web publication in Austria,

    Here is the interview. The word supremacist does not appear. The string “supre” does not appear. White only appears 3 times, and not in anything approaching the quote.

    Hey, Nick.

    The article you link is *not* an interview with King. The article itself does not clearly cite the source, and the only apparent citation appears to be false.

    How about you be a journalist and supply the citation for this phantom quote?

    1. It *was* an interview.

      King discusses it on the House floor. Unfortunately, King rambles and rambles, so even his prepared remarks are hard to follow in the video, and worse from a transcript.

      He says it was a 56 minute interview, not taped.

      He says the first sentence of the quote was in the context of a discussion of how a number of slurs are loosely thrown about in the media to attack people. How did that happen?

      The second part he says was from another part of the conversation, where he was just recalling learning about Western Civilization in class.

      Give his inarticulateness and imprecision, who knows what he actually said. But it seems unlikely he would have shared his secret dream for a White Supremacist takeover of the US with a NYTimes reporter.

  36. You know what else is “deeply un-American?”

    1. Adhering to the terms of treaties with Indians?

      1. Oh snap!

        1. True story! My family should probably own half the southeast or some such nonsense, since we’re supposedly descended from a fairly powerful Chickasaw chief! But such is the nature of losing wars. At least the white side of my family has a town named after us in California, so I guess it ain’t so bad.

  37. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work -online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by -sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link….


  38. White nationalism as a concept inherently leads to troubled waters, perhaps even eventually to tyranny, but so does the seductive meme of “democratic socialism.” One of our local Seattle lefties, travel guru Rick Steves, is doing a TV “documentary” on the history of fascism in Europe and how it is resurging. That type of guy never mentions how many communism killed and oppressed in Europe over a far longer span, nor how many in the EU sphere still dream that Marxism can be gentled and perfected.

    1. See, but that’s a lie.

      White nationalism does not have to lead to anything negative at all.

      America WAS white nationalist as a matter of policy until 1965. We fought wars to free slaves. We did shit tons of humanitarian stuff around the world. So on and so forth.

      Wanting to keep your home country a stable and homogenous nation DOES NOT imply you have to be an imperialist, evil, oppressive, or anything else.

      How do I know?

      Japan. They’re Japanese Nationalists, or Asian Nationalists if you want to be broader. They DO NOT let people immigrate there in any real numbers. Has that led them to mass murder lately?

      NO. So that whole line of reasoning is bullshit that is used to guilt trip white people into not defending their own interests. America is a weird thing, but in Europe they 110% have the right to not allow in A SINGLE IMMIGRANT if they don’t want to. That is their homeland, and everybody has a right to have a homeland.

      1. “Ethnonationalism is only bad when Whitey does it”

        1. Of course! Because white people are uniquely evil, or something. Just forget about Arab atrocities, the Mongols, Chinese imperialism, etc etc etc.

          In other news, I may move to Eastern Europe someday if the entire rest of the western world is dumb enough to destroy itself.

  39. The rate of intermarriage was up to 17% in 2015 and is was still rising. The greatest proportion of intermarriages are Caucasian to Hispanic (around 40% of all intermarriage). Remember the Cheech and Chong song about Mexican Americans? They have a son-in-law named Jeff.

    1. This is true. And that song is friggin’ amazing. That is probably the best line in the song too!

      What is interesting though, is that if you look at the intermarriage stats, you see very clearly how what people would describe as “anecdotal guesses” are totally there in the stats.

      Whites and Mexicans, especially lower class whites, are pretty similar culturally. I’d know since I have a chunk of both of those in my family tree! And it is in fact very common, and it’s fairly balanced sex wise.

      White males and Asian females is another super common one. But very few Asian men and white women. Almost no white guys and black chicks, and a small number of black guys with white chicks. I know that one is the most popular interracial couple the media likes to push, but it’s actually quite rare, but far more common than white dudes with soul sistas. There are a decent number of black/Hispanic too, but very few black/Asian of any variety.

      Overall though, the numbers are not super huge. Whites and Asians are actually proportionally the most unlikely to intermarry IIRC, whites are just the biggest chunk of the population still.

  40. Wow, those are some pretty unpolitic things to say. This Steve King guy doesn’t seem too bright.

    However, as weird as he sounds in 2019, he’s probably just average and normal for 50 years ago. So some work is required to show what’s “Un-American.”

    Lots of things could be Un-American, such as the majority of the Democrat party platform — especially their primary strategy of voter replacement through demographic change driven by a policy of unreasonably high immigration levels.

    So, digging deeper, what’s really being said here?

    “equating America with whiteness is fundamentally un-American”

    I agree entirely. The ideals of America, rooted in the broad tradition of western civilization, include a principle of moral universality — we believe our truths apply to all of mankind. This concept of the universality of mankind and the human condition, and everything surrounding it embodying western thought, is obviously deeply Christian-influenced.

    But — what’s funny here is that Nick himself is condemning things for being “un-American.” Well, well. What is Nick doing when he does this, if not preaching the supremacy (yikes-scary word!) of western civilization and American ideals? A civilization which historically just so happens to have lighter skin? But which nonetheless was composed of many different ethnicities, nations, languages and subcultures? Why all the obsession with skin color?


    1. 2/2

      At the end of the day, the ideals and abstractions of America or western civilization are just the tip of the iceberg. They are only embodied and realized in the groups and nations of actual people who live them out. And even though we believe our ideals are universally true, they’re obviously not universally accepted as of yet. Shouldn’t we be careful about how much of the political power of citizenship we give away to those who remain entirely or predominantly foreign in their culture and beliefs, lest we lose or damage what was built?

      The key that open borders libertarians always ignore is right there in the Crevecouer quote — “melted,” i.e., assimilated. Assimilation takes a lot of time and deliberate effort, just as the development of western culture took millennia. It takes a truly clueless ivory tower nitwit, or a degree of malevolence, and probably both, to suppose that we can dump unlimited amounts of immigrants into America or another western nation, and assume that they will be instantly transformed as if there was some “magic soil.” This sort of idea is a plan hatched entirely from avarice, ignorance, and outright ill will.

      1. Time, shmime!

        America has magic assimilation dirt!

      2. Don’t use common sense around here! It’s not allowed anymore on Reason, or any progressive media outlets either.

  41. A free man does not obey his government, he directs it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.