Leading up to 1924's restrictions on immigration, Americans, i.e. English stock Protestants, were angered with *exactly* the outreproduction of oligarch's labor pets—displaced in farm & factory; when their own future got no investment/noblesse oblige.
What @mattparlmer and this commenter don't realize is from the 1850s to 1920's America imposed ever greater numerical & even racial limits on immigration as the tide grew, essentially cutting it off in '24 until '65, all the while bullying non-assimilants.
Yes—Italian and Irish origin Americans today are hardly so, and essentially mixed up into the biomass of 'White America'. But that was the product of a CENTURY of effort, and still doesn't address the Industrial & Sexual Revolution's dual depravities against a proper Oikonomos.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If US nationality were strictly 'based on ideas' it might consider deporting #ArunaKhilanani
It can't, and in fact the political mainstream calls this notion 'un-American', no matter how deep one's roots.
So a core US political aim is erasing those who are Americans by descent.
This means inevitable enmity as Whites (i.e. European origin Anglophones, ethnically defined by English settler stock, cf. Anglo-American law) will be minority of US citizens.
The mainstream 'Red vs Blue' or 'Urban vs Rural' America is really 'White America' vs 'US Empire'.
An almost entirely White America elected a Congress which passed the 1965 Immigration Act, not long after one which overturned Truman's veto of the 1952 McCarran—Walter Act (which, while abolishing racial requirements in force since 1790, established hard national origins quotas)
Dissident rightists, pseudonymous or not, run into this issue repeatedly. What Buchanan and Brimelow were saying *when it mattered* is mainstream in the GOP, but far too late. Even Charlie Kirk rips off Nick Fuentes (who is many carbon paper traces downstream of Larry Auster).
When there's a GOP campaign or a Republican in charge, rightists who aren't interested in Liberalism view this theft of vigor & semiotics as their ideas "getting traction". When Dems are in power and it happens, rightist dissidents screech about mimetic plagiarism. Pathetic. lol.
Almost all aesthetic signals get coopted from the unacceptable fringes where energy is, into the mainstream (laser eyes, wojacks, pepe, Very Online stuff) which desires their vigor
This is a fractally illustrative feature of decentralization, how "what's next" becomes status quo
Most secular values, that is, principles on which actions are taken or not to create, destroy, or sustain material realities, are post hoc rationalizations
Almost all your own conceptions of "the good" come FIRST as an aesthetic inclination, thereafter are articulated as values
Genuine spiritual values (mortification is people basically identifying the wrong ebd of this) are ones which are unchanging, universal, and do not serve petty material concerns—so they often impose great material penalties on their adherents.
In addition to NYers fun site design/cute artwork, this stood out:
"Two colleges in Pyongyang..often outperform American and Chinese colleges in the International Collegiate Programming Contest—a festival of **unsurpassed and joyful nerdery**."
there is a baseline of quantitative/logical knowhow that separates cognitively gifted people from the average—and a degree of grit, the ability to suffer with a purpose...and a canny, cunning nature, that separates the merely academically competent from real *killers*.
None of us are going to stop North Korea's cyber hackers. Again, ignore the news for what it is/The USA is over, etc. but look at this;
conservatives—a political species *only as old as WW2* keep opening a door labeled "FREE CANDY" are hit with a cattle prod and wail as it closes...they blink through the tears and greedily read:
Over time their generations; cohorts with as much proximity to the issue as you might get from being a young college republican to an elder statesman conservative organizer, die off/become unmotivated/make peace with loss
but, we can say biologically that to best avoid: severe birth defects, lower IQs, shorter lifespans, allergies, or straight up miscarriage/infertility, in general, most often, women should aim to have kids closer to 20 than 30