Walls work - This shows the effect not of the West Bank anti-terrorist wall but of the new fence Israel built on its Egyptian border to keep out black African economic ...
3 hours ago
It’s become more of a white party in recent years, of course, and adopted some wrongheaded positions on civil rights enforcement, but it was still possible to be a Republican without feeling like you were violating basic decency on matters of race. Most of the Republican establishment, from the Bushes to McCain and Romney, fought bigotry, and racism was not a common feature in the conservative moment.You could be a good progressive and adhere to the secular religion while dissenting on the level of taxation, abortion, school prayer and gun rights.
Between 1984 and 2003 I worked at National Review, The Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard. Most of my friends were Republicans.No doubt true.
In that time, I never heard blatantly racist comments at dinner parties, and there were probably fewer than a dozen times I heard some veiled comment that could have suggested racism. To be honest, I heard more racial condescension in progressive circles than in conservative ones.
But the Republican Party has changed since 2005. It has become the vehicle for white identity politics. In 2005 only six percent of Republicans felt that whites faced “a great deal” of discrimination, the same number of Democrats who felt this. By 2016, the percentage of Republicans who felt this had tripled.David, I'm going to blow your mind here. Conservatism is largely a white American thing. What happened is you and your conservative ideologues flooded the nation with non-white immigrants who are also anti-conservative. When America was mostly white, there were ideological battles between left and right. Now, the left largely makes anti-white arguments that overlap almost entirely with the groups we call "conservatives" (and "libertarians"). There is little practical difference in making a pro-white argument and a pro-liberty argument, except to the extent to which it is effective. Shifting politics in a white direction also shifts it in a right direction. In fact, that might be the only way to move politics rightward.
Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.
These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.The Left built an anti-white grievance machine because it could not win the ideological argument with whites. It had to use demographic replacement strategy to advance leftism. The reason the Alt-Right exists at all is because conservatives like Mr. Brooks did not and do not lift a finger in opposition to multiculturalism and demographic replacement, but instead cheer it on.
According to a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, for example, about 48 percent of Republicans believe there is “a lot of discrimination” against Christians in America and about 43 percent believe there is a lot of discrimination against whites.
I’d love to see more research on the relationship between white identity politics and simple racism. There’s clear overlap, but I suspect they’re not quite the same thing. Racism is about feeling others are inferior. White identitarianism is about feeling downtrodden and aggrieved yourself.
But three things are clear: First, identity politics on the right is at least as corrosive as identity politics on the left, probably more so. If you reduce the complex array of identities that make up a human being into one crude ethno-political category, you’re going to do violence to yourself and everything around you.The mask falls from the progressive.
Second, it is wrong to try to make a parallel between Black Lives Matter and White Lives Matter. To pretend that these tendencies are somehow comparable is to ignore American history and current realities.
Third, white identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Donald Trump is the maestro here. He established his political identity through birtherism, he won the Republican nomination on the Muslim ban, he campaigned on the Mexican wall, he governed by being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio.
And this is where the dissolution of the G.O.P. comes in. Conservative universalists are coming to realize their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict. This faction is prior to and deeper than Trump.The way to reduce white identity politics is to reduce the power of the left and identity politics by reversing demographic trends. Support Trump on nothing except immigration, and tell him to become as extreme as possible on immigration, such that the country experiences net emigration. Then, Mr. Brooks, and only then, will you reduce the influence of white identity politics. Or you can advocate for removal of leftists from power, but that's probably against your principles.
When you have an intraparty fight about foreign or domestic issues, you think your rivals are wrong. When you have an intraparty fight on race, you think your rivals are disgusting. That’s what’s happening. Friendships are now ending across the right. People who supported Trump for partisan reasons now feel locked in to support him on race, and they are making themselves repellent.
It may someday be possible to reduce the influence of white identity politics, but probably not while Trump is in office. As long as he is in power the G.O.P. is a house viciously divided against itself, and cannot stand.
It should also be said that in the day since the rally, the messaging coming from UTR has become even more confused; a jumble of them crying that they were the innocent victims and crowing about how much ass they kicked.I'm not going to tell people to put their physical safety in danger, but given its position in society, the AltRight should make itself more sympathetic. Everything said about the Nazi imagery and the rest is being said by others.
We used state-level data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010 for wages and immigration figures.A period with an oil and housing boom, two recessions, one of which was a financial collapse. All of which were far more important short-term factors for wages and unemployment. the most important factor is capital because wages are a function of labor and capital. The U.S. experienced a credit boom that ended in 2007. Rising credit supported wages, home prices, and demand for labor to build new homes.
The demand for migrant workers is driving up wages and encouraging some growers to mechanize.Legal visas are up. The wages of those who go through the legal process are up. The losers are illegal aliens and the businesses who relied on their labor.
More growers also are applying for "H2A" visas to ensure there will be enough workers available for the harvest.
"I haven't heard anybody complaining they cannot find labor, but I have heard complaints that there's not enough labor," said Mark Longstroth, a Michigan State University Extension Service tree fruit expert based in Paw Paw.
Wages for migrant workers are rising in Michigan as growers compete for their services. An estimated 90,000-plus migrant workers arrive in Michigan every year to help with the harvest, which starts with asparagus in the early spring and ends with the apple crop in the fall.
Migrant workers in the Great Lakes region were being paid an average of $12.28 an hour this spring, a 5.5 percent increase over the same time last year, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics.
For a time, we lived off the moral capital of the past. But the election of Trump shows just how desiccated the mainline code has become. A nation guided by that ethic would not have elected a guy who is a daily affront to it, a guy who nakedly loves money, who boasts, who objectifies women, who is incapable of hypocrisy because he acknowledges no standard of propriety other than that which he feels like doing at any given moment.First, the concerns with "standards of decency" is essence of the cuck. The barbarian hordes are burning down the village, but he berates you for misplacing the salad fork while setting the table.
Donald Trump has smashed through the behavior standards that once governed public life. His election demonstrates that as the unifying glue of the mainline culture receded, the country divided into at least three blocks: white evangelical Protestantism that at least in its public face seems to care more about eros than caritas; secular progressivism that is spiritually formed by feminism, environmentalism and the quest for individual rights; and realist nationalism that gets its manners from reality TV and its spiritual succor from in-group/out-group solidarity.
But where are people going to go for a new standard of decency? They’re not going to go back to the old WASP ideal. That’s dead. Trump revealed the vacuum, but who is going to fill it and with what?There is no standard you dolt. There is diversity and some tribe constantly opposing Protestants and Catholics who would enforce standards.
I could describe a similar vacuum when it comes to domestic policy thinking, to American identity, to America’s role in the world. Trump exposes the void but doesn’t fill it. That’s why the reaction against Trump is now more important than the man himself.Like a star consuming itself as it collapses into a black hole, the Cathedral is no longer even observing the rest of the country let alone engaging with it. It is too difficult to face reality, they are still in the stage of denial. Brooks is probably also experiencing a psychotic break:
War/battlefield experience may also trigger a psychotic break: when reality becomes unbearable, the mind temporarily breaks with it.Go home Mr. Brooks. It will restore your sanity.
Symptoms of psychotic breaks vary greatly, usually depending on the circumstances of diagnosis or any contributary substance ingested. Symptoms can range from harmless, sometimes unnoticed delusions, to violent outbursts and major depression. The sufferer may also be unable to distinguish reality from fantasy (for example, believing that a dream really happened or experiencing hallucinations that appear to be real.) Where a bipolar disorder is involved, crying, grandiosity, insomnia, irritability, and persecutory delusions may all or severally manifest themselves as symptoms.
At one level, India’s beef ban is silly and frivolous. Surely, a nation that sees itself as an emerging superpower in the 21st Century has bigger things to worry about than to ask “Where’s the beef?”Taleb explained how the dictatorship of the small minority works. In this case, the Hindu majority is being more intolerant and defeating the Muslim minority because Hindus care about cows than Muslims care about eating/exporting beef.
And seen that way, the issue is silly, gimmicky and unsubstantial.
But there is another way of looking at it. Beef is just a symbol of a larger transition. This is much more than a war on meat. This is a great liberal democracy going through the process of redefining itself (against the expressed wishes of its founders) as a Hindu nation that has no time for the liberal tradition.
This is a much more fundamental change in India’s national identity than the world has realised. And this just the beginning. The transformation will continue, with profound consequences, not just for India but for the entire region.