Demography is Destiny - American Renaissance | Jared Taylor writes about the problems caused by diversity

submitted by Jacinda from amren.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

On the flip-side, demographic shifts are unambiguously changing the structure of our society and the world. The decline of the West coincides with the decline of white Europeans as a share of the population.

Yes but is that because the masses are the difference or is it because the elites were replaced? Most people are raceless, they don't have an effect on the Destiny of a Culture, only the Culture-Bearing stratum do, these are the great men of Will who move history. The people in power are no longer the Culture-Bearing stratum of Europe, instead they're jews and White jews who are Culture-Retarders (hold back the culture from developing by clinging to old ideas IE reactionaries) and Culture-Distorters (outsiders of the Culture that can't help but to subvert the Culture's destiny, as long as they are sufficiently empowered and conscious of their own destiny). There have been empires in the past where the ruling class and ordinary citizens were massively outnumbered by non-citizens and slaves yet they remained vitalistic because the people in power were the vitalistic Culture-Bearing stratum of their particular Cultures.

Of course a 100% white country would be better, but the real problem is who holds power. A 99% white country where the jewish 1% holds the power is more doomed than a 75% white country where the Culture-Bearing Europeans are in power. Think of it from the perspective of trajectory, if you give Belarus to jews today what will happen? They will quickly become descendant. If you give America, Britain, Germany, France etc to Europeans who are bearers of the Idea of the Future what will happen? They immediately become ascendant. Power is everything, we need the right people in power.

You mention jews; do jews' high IQ scores, cunning and willingness to lie not have as much to do with their success as ethnocentrism?

jews don't have high IQ, that's a myth that has only been perpetuated since the 60s when jews had full control of the social sciences. Before that, when the people conducting the tests were white, jews were considered to be dullards.

I think instead of blanket statements (demography is/is not destiny) it's better to build a model of social behavior that can predict trends with accuracy. If we did it it'd be a heck of a lot better than what leftists could come up with, since they deny basic truths. So it'd take a combination of racial consciousness, IQ, economic situation, level of diversity and so on. All of these factors together predict the fate of nations.

I think that all these things are downstream of the system and elite class in society. It doesn't matter if the crew members on the ship are 120iq average, all of the same race etc if the captain is intentionally steering them into a storm.

Read Imperium. Yockey, expanding on Spengler's ideas, created a science of Culture.

[–]AFutureConcern 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes but is that because the masses are the difference or is it because the elites were replaced?

It's because the elites were replaced, you're right. They are the ultimate cause. The masses are just a tool they are using.

Culture-Retarders (hold back the culture from developing by clinging to old ideas IE reactionaries)

I disagree with this characterization of reactionaries of course but I will leave it there...

Of course a 100% white country would be better, but the real problem is who holds power. A 99% white country where the jewish 1% holds the power is more doomed than a 75% white country where the Culture-Bearing Europeans are in power.

Yeah we agree mostly, we're just arguing over the magnitude of the effect. Once you get below 75%, you can no longer honestly say you live in a white country, and even whites in power would have to start listening to the demands of nonwhite groups. To restore the nation you now have to talk about repatriation which many people don't want.

I think where I disagree is that since we do live in a liberal democracy, that's what makes the demographic shifts more important where they wouldn't have been for past empires. Of course, the elites are not all elected, but to suggest that the political class are not at least somewhat constrained by popular opinion is silly; of course, they do have the power to shift that popular opinion, but the way they've chosen to do it is through demographic replacement.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I disagree with this characterization of reactionaries of course but I will leave it there...

Why? You think looking back to a time that has been made redundant by the world political situation, technology or any other host of factors isn't ineffective? There's a difference between holding Traditionalist principles, being a vitalistic right wing revolutionary, and being an impotent reactionary. That difference is the difference between the Fascist and the Reactionary.

Once you get below 75%, you can no longer honestly say you live in a white country, and even whites in power would have to start listening to the demands of nonwhite groups.

I think where I disagree is that since we do live in a liberal democracy, that's what makes the demographic shifts more important where they wouldn't have been for past empires. Of course, the elites are not all elected, but to suggest that the political class are not at least somewhat constrained by popular opinion is silly; of course, they do have the power to shift that popular opinion, but the way they've chosen to do it is through demographic replacement.

Really? So in 80%~ White Britain the elite can completely ignore White interests but in 13% black America the elite are compelled to listen to black demands? How'd you figure that one? The elite don't listen to anyone's demands, they manufacture groups' demands to meet what they want then pretend to make concessions. The 60s is full of this, a bunch of jewish CIA and media ops masked under the guise of black movements and the like. How do jews get everything they want in America as less than 2% of the population and Whites get literally nothing at about 55%?

Of course, the elites are not all elected, but to suggest that the political class are not at least somewhat constrained by popular opinion is silly

I made a thread on this topic on both The3rdPosition and DebateAltRight on the 12th of May this year, you can check the archives for this thread; it has examples of the will of the people being completely ignored. Here is a comment from it:

"There was a paper in 2014 'Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens'.

They looked at 1779 policy changes from 1981 to 2002 and in 2015 Martin Gilens (one of the co-authors) did a follow-up where he looked at 2245 policy changes from 1964 to 2006.

What they found was that policy changes were driven entirely by elite opinion and to a lesser extent by special interest opinion. According to them average citizens preference had almost no effect on policy change. Whether the average citizens 90 percent opposed a policy or 90 percent supported a policy, it still had about a 30% chance of happening.

With economic elites the story is radically different. If they all oppose something, it doesn't pass and if they all support it, it'll have a roughly 60 percent chance of getting passed.

For interest groups the important effects are around the middle, when interest groups began to net support change.

Alt Hype goes into the methodology of this study, some criticisms to it and a few more studies (one of them showing how Autocracies respond better to the will of the people than democracies), in depth here: https://youtu.be/Bpqb9LDfARg

He discussed the topic in a general way in another video here: https://youtu.be/wcU2hVXLsB0"

[–]AFutureConcern 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why? You think looking back to a time that has been made redundant by the world political situation, technology or any other host of factors isn't ineffective? There's a difference between holding Traditionalist principles, being a vitalistic right wing revolutionary, and being an impotent reactionary. That difference is the difference between the Fascist and the Reactionary.

No, I consider reactionary thought to be simply a rejection of the Whig view of history - not the desire to revert to a prior state, but a belief that either at some point in the past we took a wrong path, or that we are on an inevitable path of decline. I suppose by my definition many fascists would count as reactionaries. For me, technology absolutely is the factor that makes your description of reactionary thought inapplicable to the modern age, but I also think that without significantly scaling back technology humanity is doomed anyway. I definitely believe that the ascendancy of technology is a "wrong path", and in the political sphere the ascendancy of liberal democracy is a "wrong path" also. I think if you squint, both technology and liberal democracy look like the same thing which is a progression toward freedom from constraints; in technology's case, material constraints, and in liberalism's case, social constraints. A progression toward freedom from constraints may also be referred to as increasing entropy; an increase in disorder over time. For these reasons I call myself a reactionary.

Really? So in 80%~ White Britain the elite can completely ignore White interests but in 13% black America the elite are compelled to listen to black demands? How'd you figure that one? The elite don't listen to anyone's demands, they manufacture groups' demands to meet what they want then pretend to make concessions. The 60s is full of this, a bunch of jewish CIA and media ops masked under the guise of black movements and the like. How do jews get everything they want in America as less than 2% of the population and Whites get literally nothing at about 55%?

I have to say, I really have no good answer to this. You're right.

What they found was that policy changes were driven entirely by elite opinion and to a lesser extent by special interest opinion. According to them average citizens preference had almost no effect on policy change. Whether the average citizens 90 percent opposed a policy or 90 percent supported a policy, it still had about a 30% chance of happening.

I remember this study but I forgot how extreme the conclusions were. You make a compelling point and you've changed my mind on this. Maybe it is not so unreasonable to say that the opinion of the public matters not one bit.

Do you think, then, that demographic replacement is not quite the killing blow to Europeans that many others make out? That instead, both cultural decline of our societies, and mass migration, are both a consequence of lack of racial consciousness among whites? Don't you think that mass migration and miscegenation are causing a general loss of ethnocentrism in all races but Jews, and this is the reason mass migration is pushed by the elites, to maintain their power?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, I consider reactionary thought to be simply a rejection of the Whig view of history - not the desire to revert to a prior state, but a belief that either at some point in the past we took a wrong path, or that we are on an inevitable path of decline. I suppose by my definition many fascists would count as reactionaries. For me, technology absolutely is the factor that makes your description of reactionary thought inapplicable to the modern age, but I also think that without significantly scaling back technology humanity is doomed anyway. I definitely believe that the ascendancy of technology is a "wrong path", and in the political sphere the ascendancy of liberal democracy is a "wrong path" also. I think if you squint, both technology and liberal democracy look like the same thing which is a progression toward freedom from constraints; in technology's case, material constraints, and in liberalism's case, social constraints. A progression toward freedom from constraints may also be referred to as increasing entropy; an increase in disorder over time. For these reasons I call myself a reactionary.

I agree but you can just say Left vs Right or Mechanistic-Materialist vs Organic worldview or something. When I say reactionary I mean the temperament and tendencies of people who either cling to a rotting order or try to bring back one that is out of date according to the material conditions of the world. I'm not referring to the timeless principles of society and statecraft. Fascism is of the right, of the organic worldview; it's a Revolutionary Conservatism in a sense. The reactionary mindset nowadays manifests in paleocons vs fascists, the paleocon says white people are killing themselves the fascist says we're being killed. Reactionaries essentially act like everything is out of control, human will means nothing etc. Revolutionary minded people put forward the idea that white people can actually be saved, it just depends on action.

Do you think, then, that demographic replacement is not quite the killing blow to Europeans that many others make out?

I think most of these narratives are defeatism or used to try to scaremonger people into voting for the GayOp Party. How many times have you seen 'once Texas flips it's all over for white people, the GOP can never win again!' or something like this? Since when has the GOP helped whites? I say it all the time but Civil Rights and 1965 immigration had more right support than left and 6/9 presidents since then have been GOP, so it would seem they're the foremost enemy of whites then.

That instead, both cultural decline of our societies, and mass migration, are both a consequence of lack of racial consciousness among whites?

Well it's a lack of power but power will come from racial consciousness. Jewish strategy is so effective because the average jew actively works for jewish interests. They spam mail politicians, calls, donate money to jewish orgs etc. Look in jewish newspapers and stuff, they have instructions for ordinary jews to do stuff to help jews. Of course usury is a massive cause of their power but their level of racial consciousness is unmatched, jews are essentially all organised into a worldwide mafia. This is what whites need to emulate if they are to gain power, we need to create what is essentially gangs/mafias.

Don't you think that mass migration and miscegenation are causing a general loss of ethnocentrism in all races but Jews, and this is the reason mass migration is pushed by the elites, to maintain their power?

Yes, our entire society is designed around alienating and deracinating people in every way imaginable. People see the endless propaganda in media but they rarely think about the psychological affect of the technological society. Our entire society is designed around avoiding the re-emergence of the Authoritarian Personality: suburbs, cars, non-walkable cities, small business being replaced by supermarkets, kitchen appliances reducing the need to leave the house as often. All of this breaks down communities and Social Capital which was the building block of the fascist revolutions.