The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Rise of American Fascism

[Pointedstick]

I'm starting a new thread about this article because I am convinced that it is vitally important for everyone to read. This article is, by far, the best explanation of where Trump came from and why, who is to blame, and how the tension could be defused without necessitating a president Trump.

As a Trump supporter myself, this article was eye-opening, but every word rings true. Trump opponents will probably agree with the emotional tone, but its implications may be uncomfortable.

Here's the beginning:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the ... m_20160302

College-educated elites, on behalf of corporations, carried out the savage neoliberal assault on the working poor. Now they are being made to pay. Their duplicity—embodied in politicians such as Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—succeeded for decades. These elites, many from East Coast Ivy League schools, spoke the language of values—civility, inclusivity, a condemnation of overt racism and bigotry, a concern for the middle class—while thrusting a knife into the back of the underclass for their corporate masters. This game has ended.

There are tens of millions of Americans, especially lower-class whites, rightfully enraged at what has been done to them, their families and their communities. They have risen up to reject the neoliberal policies and political correctness imposed on them by college-educated elites from both political parties: Lower-class whites are embracing an American fascism.

These Americans want a kind of freedom—a freedom to hate. They want the freedom to use words like “nigger,” “kike,” “spic,” “chink,” “raghead” and “fag.” They want the freedom to idealize violence and the gun culture. They want the freedom to have enemies, to physically assault Muslims, undocumented workers, African-Americans, homosexuals and anyone who dares criticize their cryptofascism. They want the freedom to celebrate historical movements and figures that the college-educated elites condemn, including the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederacy. They want the freedom to ridicule and dismiss intellectuals, ideas, science and culture. They want the freedom to silence those who have been telling them how to behave. And they want the freedom to revel in hypermasculinity, racism, sexism and white patriarchy. These are the core sentiments of fascism. These sentiments are engendered by the collapse of the liberal state.

The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by anointing Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate. She epitomizes the double-dealing of the college-educated elites, those who speak the feel-your-pain language of ordinary men and women, who hold up the bible of political correctness, while selling out the poor and the working class to corporate power.

Read the whole thing.

[Pointedstick]

People who grew up upper middle class like IBLOL and me and other educated people who support Trump probably fall into this category:

Fascism is aided and advanced by the apathy of those who are tired of being conned and lied to by a bankrupt liberal establishment, whose only reason to vote for a politician or support a political party is to elect the least worst. This, for many voters, is the best Clinton can offer.

[MWKXJ]

Last paragraph, with which I agree wholeheartedly.

There is only one way left to blunt the yearning for fascism coalescing around Trump. It is to build, as fast as possible, movements or parties that declare war on corporate power, engage in sustained acts of civil disobedience and seek to reintegrate the disenfranchised—the “losers”—back into the economy and political life of the country. This movement will never come out of the Democratic Party.

IMHO, Jim Webb was the only candidate headed down this road in the race, but the Democratic Party---to its infinite shame---chose instead to double-down on Alinsky gender, class, and race baiting.

[I Shrugged]

I think it's very overwrought. The underlying premise about Trump's popularity is right, but it's quite a stretch to go from there to fascism (as he uses the term).  Still, it's worthwhile to keep it in mind.

[MWKXJ]

These Americans want a kind of freedom—a freedom to hate. They want the freedom to use words like “nigger,” “kike,” “spic,” “chink,” “raghead” and “fag.” They want the freedom to idealize violence and the gun culture. They want the freedom to have enemies, to physically assault Muslims, undocumented workers, African-Americans, homosexuals and anyone who dares criticize their cryptofascism. They want the freedom to celebrate historical movements and figures that the college-educated elites condemn, including the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederacy. They want the freedom to ridicule and dismiss intellectuals, ideas, science and culture. They want the freedom to silence those who have been telling them how to behave. And they want the freedom to revel in hypermasculinity, racism, sexism and white patriarchy. These are the core sentiments of fascism. These sentiments are engendered by the collapse of the liberal state.

...the above is---at best---a halfhearted attempt at understanding the reasonings and motivations of White people.  If it were possible to reason with this cartoon-like characterization, I'd ask the author what more Whites need to sacrifice in order to make him feel secure.  Given his language, it's difficult to even imagine an end to his demands, barring a complete disinheritance or extinction.  If the author were honest enough to provide a list of "penances" owed by Whites, a question would follow:  "What are you willing to give to make Whites feel secure?"  I suspect he or she is in reality demanding a mile and giving an inch.

American Whites have gone from over 90% of the U.S. population to just over 50% in a single human lifespan.  Judges, congressmen, and even presidents are now openly preselected and marketed based solely on their exotic ethnicities.  A sitting U.S. president is a direct beneficiary a prejudicial cultural milieu's laws which blindly favor and condemn entire races ( despite the fact that the President's father's family was never subjected to US slavery, but I digress ).  Again, what more do Whites need to surrender to appease the author?  Their lives?  If Whites attempt to politically organize in the manner of AIPAC, they are shouted down as fascists.  If Whites attempt to live in ethnostates in the manner of Israel, the news media, internationally-funded politicians, and free-market economist "experts" influence policy in such a way to destroy homogeneity.  If Whites attempt to craft laws to reduce immigration ( legal and illegal ) or deny benefits to aliens, the laws are rescinded or ignored.  No.  Rather than being fascists just under the skin, American Whites would appear to be infinitely patient at this point in the United State's decline.  The question should rather be: "when will Whites fight for their interests?"  The article, while containing accidental truths, is overall, hysterical in its aspersions.  While the author condemns Whites for his projected desire for a "freedom to hate", it appears that in reality it his he who desires the freedom to despise Whites without repercussion.

I suspect that the author is more a part of the problem than he realizes.

[Libertarian666]

Here's the beginning:

These Americans want a kind of freedom—a freedom to hate. They want the freedom to use words like “nigger,” “kike,” “spic,” “chink,” “raghead” and “fag.” They want the freedom to idealize violence and the gun culture. They want the freedom to have enemies, to physically assault Muslims, undocumented workers, African-Americans, homosexuals and anyone who dares criticize their cryptofascism. They want the freedom to celebrate historical movements and figures that the college-educated elites condemn, including the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederacy. They want the freedom to ridicule and dismiss intellectuals, ideas, science and culture. They want the freedom to silence those who have been telling them how to behave. And they want the freedom to revel in hypermasculinity, racism, sexism and white patriarchy. These are the core sentiments of fascism. These sentiments are engendered by the collapse of the liberal state.

About 20% of that is fascism, and the rest is freedom.

Let's analyze these claims one at a time, shall we?

They want the freedom to use words like “nigger,” “kike,” “spic,” “chink,” “raghead” and “fag.”

That is called "freedom of speech". It's protected by the 1st Amendment.

They want the freedom to idealize violence and the gun culture.

The freedom to "idealize violence" is part of being human, just like the freedom to idealize anything else. How can anyone tell anyone else what to idealize?

I'm not sure what "the gun culture" is, other than the right to keep and bear arms. That is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

They want the freedom to have enemies

Everyone has the freedom to have enemies. How could it be otherwise?

, to physically assault Muslims, undocumented workers, African-Americans, homosexuals and anyone who dares criticize their cryptofascism.

Now we're finally talking about fascism, or at least thuggery. Certainly this is not acceptable in any free society, so I'm on board with objecting to it.

They want the freedom to celebrate historical movements and figures that the college-educated elites condemn, including the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederacy.

As long as they don't use violence in this celebration, they have the absolute right to do this.

They want the freedom to ridicule and dismiss intellectuals, ideas, science and culture.

See above.

They want the freedom to silence those who have been telling them how to behave.

Again, using violence to silence anyone is unacceptable and might be considered fascism.

And they want the freedom to revel in hypermasculinity, racism, sexism and white patriarchy. These are the core sentiments of fascism.

There are plenty of people who "revel" in these "sentiments" without acting violently toward others, so the fact that fascists may also be in favor of them does not mean that everyone who favors them is a fascist.

And what about feminism, political correctness, and misandry? Why are they morally superior to these "sentiments of fascism"?

So this is basically a pile of crap other than where it rightly decries violence.

[Pointedstick]

Hey, wait a minute ... maybe I'm missing your point, PS.  Are you thinking perhaps that fascism is the answer?  I know the blood drinker is, but I hadn't thought that you were, but maybe I'm making too broad an assumption.

"Fascism" is a loaded term in most political discourse; what is it really? I think it's a combination of nativism and socialism, with the government driving private firms to unashamedly follow a nativist agenda, and with all the attendant social changes that a society of this type empowers.

Let's face it, we already have socialism. So this movement is really about changing from cosmopolitanism/internationalism to nativism. It's about having the socialism benefit average citizens rather than foreigners or elites.

If you really think about it, the most fascist president in our history was FDR. And he's beloved by the left. He created jobs programs, built a shitload of infrastructure, ushered in fantastically popular nativist transfer payment programs, sided with workers over business elites, spoke about the glory of the American worker, encouraged communitarian patriotism, stuff like that. His brand of "fascism lite" staved off the triumph of true, actual fascism--or communism--in this country when popular dissatisfaction with elites was reaching a fever pitch.

If Trump is successful and governs similarly, I think there's a good chance his presidency will be a lot more like FDR's than Mussolini, and he'll be remembered as one of the great American presidents. Now I know that FDR isn't too popular around these parts, but it's worth remembering that without him and his policies and his presidency as a pressure valve, it's quite possible that the USA would have fallen victim to real fascism or communism like countries all over Europe were during that time. When the masses grow weary of being exploited, extremely ugly things can happen. And that's to say nothing of the economic crisis of the time.

[Pointedstick]

I agree that the third paragraph where the author describes the attitudes of working class white people veers off into leftist gentry class snobbery, conflating the "harm" of having a different culture to the harm of hurting people, and totally misreading racial attitudes. Still, I think the rest of the piece is spot-on, and this paragraph perhaps inadvertently showcases the truth of his argument!

[Libertarian666]

I agree that the third paragraph where the author describes the attitudes of working class white people veers off into leftist gentry class snobbery, conflating the "harm" of having a different culture to the harm of hurting people, and totally misreading racial attitudes. Still, I think the rest of the piece is spot-on, and this paragraph perhaps inadvertently showcases the truth of his argument!

Whew, that is a lot better. For a moment I thought you had gone off the rails.

But since that paragraph is his attempt to show that this is a fascist movement, and since that paragraph is mostly nonsense, that vitiates his argument very seriously.

[Libertarian666]

The comments on that article are really something. If the commenters ever got together, and I had the Communist flag franchise for that meeting, I'd be able to retire!

[WiseOne]

In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

Another Trump, perhaps more vile, will be vomited up from the bowels of the decayed political system.

As the above sentences underscore, the article is just a little over the top.  It's kind of hard to imagine the US political system being overthrown by a single presidential election - there's this little thing called Congress and this other little thing called the Supreme Court that will still exist.  And I think it's a bit insulting to paint lower class Americans as wanting nothing out of life except to go back to the good old days of lynching, mob violence, and overt racism and misogyny.

The kernel of truth in the article is that there is indeed a large population that has been forsaken - heck, "kicked in the teeth repeatedly" is more accurate - by the actions of both parties, and this population is now making its presence known. Trump has merely named exactly what those actions have been and given them the label they deserve.

[Pointedstick]

Heck, FDR even extrajudicially imprisoned a very large number of American citizens in concentration camps. That's daaaaaaaangerously far from fascism-lite and close to outright fascism. And yet the country survived, didn't abandon electoral democracy and fall into authoritarianism of some sort, and FDR went on to become a patron saint of liberalism, the way Reagan would be for conservatism.

It's always felt weird how modern liberals lionize FDR. He was a quasi-fascist who unabashedly elevated the working class and proletarian interests over social elites or cosmopolitanism culture. There are a lot of parallels to Trump, right down to mastery of the newest form of that era's mass media--radio for FDR. He was the reality TV star of his time, politically speaking.

[Mountaineer]

This thread is fascinating.  It made me again think of the book "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen Covey.  In that book there is the concept of "circle of influence" and "circle of concern".  I then reflected on how things have been within my "circle of influence" over most of my adult years.  Not much has changed, regardless of who the President is or which party he represented.

Able to shop where ever I want?  Check
Able to worship where ever I want?  Check
Able to have the friends I want?  Check
Able to live where ever I can afford?  Check
Able to cross state lines without a hassle?  Check
Able to rent a car for a reasonable price?  Check
Able to travel where ever I want relatively cheaply?  Check
Is food available?  Check
Able to invest money however I want?  Check
Were my children, grandchildren able to receive an education?  Check
Were my children, grandchildren able to play sports of their choice?  Check
Able to express my thoughts on a forum such as this?  Check
And the list goes on .....................

My conclusion:  No need to get my knickers all twisted up over the small shit of which bozo is going to be in so called power next.  I'll do my part and vote, but it is going to be decided by a lot of people way outside my circle of influence.  I'm going to stay inside my circle of influence, remain calm, and just buy more ammo.  It's all good. 

... M

[MediumTex]

Let's face it, we already have socialism. So this movement is really about changing from cosmopolitanism/internationalism to nativism. It's about having the socialism benefit average citizens rather than foreigners or elites.

You know how in the Godzilla movies there is some future fantasy destruction event that the country is struggling valiantly against, but the subtext is that the viewers are really trying to mask (or perhaps "re-imagine") the recent history of having been completely defeated in reality.

Maybe our fascination with the Singularity is our own way of trying to "blot out" the pain of knowing our country suffered a similar individual liberty defeat at some point in the last 20 years, no longer belongs to its people, but instead to a devious set of non-human interests that are beyond the reach of voters who would like to get rid of them.

Imagine if you threw Donald Trump at Godzilla.  I'm willing to say that it might be a good fight for a couple of seconds, but Godzilla would win.  Godzilla would eat him and look around to see if he dropped any pieces. 

When I look back at Perot's campaign in 1992, I remember feeling the moment when I knew that his popular momentum could carry him into office, but that moment passed way before November, and in retrospect I realize that this was inevitable.  Godzilla is not going to sit there and watch some noisy clown show the voters pictures of Godzilla having his way with the last five Presidents.  Godzilla is not going to let him get too close to any kind of real power before shutting it down.

Maybe Trump really is big enough to actually get into power, and maybe he is good enough to do something useful once in power, but that's two big assumptions, and if you are wrong about either one of them, then Hillary either becomes President, or many will wish she had, which would be good for another FDR-style run of Democratic Presidents, which I think a lot of us would not be in favor of.

***

On the racism topic, one of my favorite political buzz terms that everyone says now is "dog whistle" issues, which would presumably be issues involving the racist pro-white politicians making racist pro-white promises that only the racist pro-white constituents are able to hear.  That's such a pathetic image of not-quite-evolved dog-like people with weak and indefensible ideas that their leaders can't even speak about using regular words.  It's convenient that the white racists are so stupid that they probably don't even know that the liberal media has cracked the "dog whistle code" and is telling the world how bad it is and how bad they are even as they continue doing it.  Those rascals in the media!  So clever!!!

I can't imagine attacking a poor ethic group like poor whites in our country are attacked in any society, in any country, anywhere, without sooner or later having a revolution on your hands.  No one likes being treated like that.  Patriotism is like a protective coating that keeps a society out of open revolt when times are bad.  But the coating can be worn through, and history is littered with examples of "breached coating" when it comes to love for country finally succumbing to hate for tyranny.

If I had been a white male working class Democrat in the 1960s who believed in civil rights like Lyndon Johnson did (which he really seemed to) and I got into a time machine and came out in 2016, when I looked at the advertising images, the popular entertainment, the government propaganda, and the brainwashing techniques used on employees at the corporate level in our country today, I would say: "What the fuck happened to the white men?  They seem to mostly be gone, and the ones who are left appear to be in the process of becoming women.  What have you done!!!"

My 1960s self would say that 2016 is not at all what I had in mind when I was envisioning a color-blind country with equal opportunity for all.  What we have today looks more like some kind of perverted version of that ideal society, with changes imposed way too fast on way too many people.  I think that a lot of white people feel like certain minorities have taken more Free Passes than they are owed (whether or not this feeling is legitimate to others, it's legitimate to them).  The society feels fragile and not well thought out.  Our society seems better in many ways, but also weaker.  It's like the blueprint was good, but the building team was composed of incompetent ideologues. 

The thing that I fear is that white people seem to have a different way of falling apart than some other ethnic groups.  When white Americans fall apart, they go on shooting sprees and sit in cabins and build things that blow up.  It's like they express their inner disintegration in a desire to destroy the whole world.  It's sad to say, but I don't know if society could handle the effects of a truly hopeless poor white America.  It seems like this arrangement would finally culminate in some kind of worldwide mass shooting spree at the end of which everyone would be dead. 

I think that things like confederate flags and gun ownership are like pressure valves to some whites that operate in the same way that welfare checks might operate in the ghetto.  These are things that help you feel like the society is working in your favor.  They help you to feel like you are part of that society.  If you take things like that away (even with good intentions), it can have wide and unanticipated ripple effects.

[MediumTex]

Not to get too far off topic here, but what led to your affection for fascism as a small boy?  I don't think I learned about fascism until I was a good bit older, I guess in my teens.  It was presented negatively, and I've held a negative view of it for my whole life.  I'm curious what attracted you to the idea.  I'm guessing one/both of your parents held such views?

It isn't as PointedStick speculated, that it has to do with selecting the least bad option.

Rather, I see that "lesser evil" process as the process of democracy. Democracy is the system of compromise, and I've learned time and time again that compromise sucks.

Compromise could very well be defined as selecting a sub-optimal solution to keep the peace, i.e. to appease many other groups who desire options that are even more sub-optimal. As Ayn Rand said, "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win."

To me it seems much simpler and better to first remove the other groups, then pursue an optimal solution.

This is a general form analysis, and holds true regardless of what problems, solutions and conflicting groups are involved in any given situation.

Fascism has indeed been presented to us in a negative light ever since we all learned about how evil and awful the Nazis were in 6th grade and roughly 80 times a year ever since. However, this is one issue on which nobody makes the slightest attempt to be "fair and balanced." You will never hear a single normal person say "wait a minute, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, these various fascist movements actually had a lot of good points." That is completely taboo to discuss and even to consider, and thus we miss many potentially good discussions about how problems within a society may be solved, or even how society itself may be structured - leading to the paradigm of the last generation, which was capitalism vs. communism and the historically rather recent left/right spectrum and complete ignorance of all other possibilities.

People call many things fascist so it's probably important for me to be specific about precisely what I endorse and why I endorse it.

Would you say that Japan is a sort of "pacifist fascist" country?

For most of its history, of course, Japan was anything but pacifist, and it seems like it was quite fascist then too.

[MediumTex]

My 1960s self would say that 2016 is not at all what I had in mind when I was envisioning a color-blind country with equal opportunity for all.

It's like the blueprint was good, but the building team was composed of incompetent ideologues.

Was the blueprint good, or are we just decades later observing the natural consequences of the blueprint described in my first quote? That is the exact premise I think more people need to check.

The society feels fragile and not well thought out.

I think that things like confederate flags and gun ownership are like pressure valves to some whites that operate in the same way that welfare checks might operate in the ghetto.  These are things that help you feel like the society is working in your favor.  They help you to feel like you are part of that society.  If you take things like that away (even with good intentions), it can have wide and unanticipated ripple effects.

You are very perceptive to understand the ill effects of mass perception that society does not work in favor of your ethnic interests. This is related to why society feels fragile and not well thought out.

Mass ethnic resentment does not lead to good, engaged, purposeful contribution to society. Where there are two ethnicities, one will be perceived as dominant and the other will become resentful. Therefore, multiculturalism is a poor idea if your goal is peace, unity, feelings of civic duty and productivity.

Well, if you have a multi-ethnic society, you can either try to make it more inclusive, or you can make it acceptable for some groups to victimize and stigmatize other groups. 

Your solution seems to involve exporting all non-whites, and that just doesn't seem realistic today (even if it were what a majority of the country wanted).

If we had wanted an all-white society, the time to have thought about that would have been before we brought all of these other ethnic groups into the country in the 18th and 19th centuries, and then failed to prevent many others from entering illegally through our weak border enforcement in the 20th century.

But however we got here, we have a multi-ethnic society, and I think you have to tailor solutions to that reality.  I don't see how you can possibly talk about transforming a multi-ethnic society into an all-white society without the discussion turning dark pretty quickly.

[jafs]

Maybe that's a sign that the idea isn't actually that great an idea.

I grew up in NYC in the 1960's and 1970's, and it was a fantastic place to grow up, especially as a teenager.  One of the things that made it so great was the diversity of cultures there, and the ability to experience them easily.  You could go down to Chinatown for dim sum lunch, or to Little Italy for late night coffee, the Ukrainian area on the east side, etc.

There was a wide variety of art, music, etc.  I used to go to the Vanguard and hear world-class jazz, but also to Lincoln center for world-class classical music (I was very lucky to know somebody that worked at the Mostly Mozart festival).

I'm sure there were some inter-group frictions, but a lot of the time, it seemed as though everybody co-existed quite well to me.  When we were the only non-Chinese in a Chinese restaurant, we didn't feel any hostility at all, for example.  My family (white) used to go up to Harlem and socialize with folks up there, and I don't remember any problems at all.

To me, my experience there is a microcosm of how a multi-cultural society can work very well, and in some ways, offers a much richer tapestry than a more homogeneous one.

As far as crime goes, I'd have to look at the statistics again, but I believe that there's a lot of crime within ethnic groups, ie. black on black, white on white, etc.

[Libertarian666]

This thread is fascinating.  It made me again think of the book "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen Covey.  In that book there is the concept of "circle of influence" and "circle of concern".  I then reflected on how things have been within my "circle of influence" over most of my adult years.  Not much has changed, regardless of who the President is or which party he represented.

Able to shop where ever I want?  Check
Able to worship where ever I want?  Check
Able to have the friends I want?  Check
Able to live where ever I can afford?  Check
Able to cross state lines without a hassle?  Check
Able to rent a car for a reasonable price?  Check
Able to travel where ever I want relatively cheaply?  Check
Is food available?  Check
Able to invest money however I want?  Check
Were my children, grandchildren able to receive an education?  Check
Were my children, grandchildren able to play sports of their choice?  Check
Able to express my thoughts on a forum such as this?  Check
And the list goes on .....................

My conclusion:  No need to get my knickers all twisted up over the small shit of which bozo is going to be in so called power next.  I'll do my part and vote, but it is going to be decided by a lot of people way outside my circle of influence.  I'm going to stay inside my circle of influence, remain calm, and just buy more ammo.  It's all good. 

... M

Let's go over a few of those again:

Able to have the friends I want?  Check, unless they are "terrorists", in which case Ted Cruz would like to remove your US citizenship
Able to cross state lines without a hassle?  Check, unless you might be carrying contraband like a plant
Able to travel where ever I want relatively cheaply?  Check, unless they take away your passport for "owing money to the IRS"
Able to invest money however I want?  Check, unless it is overseas in which case you are subjected to onerous filing requirements with horrendous penalties attached
Able to express my thoughts on a forum such as this?  Check, although everything we do online is being watched for "suspicious activities"

[MWKXJ]

One of the things that made it so great was the diversity of cultures there, and the ability to experience them easily.  You could go down to Chinatown for dim sum lunch, or to Little Italy for late night coffee, the Ukrainian area on the east side, etc.

The above arrangement sounds more like Apartheid than the Section-8-enforced diversity most of America is compelled to suffer through.

[ochotona]

Disclosure: I am the son of immigrants from China. my siblings and I were the first generation in our family born in the USA.

My personal opinion is that America is drifting into the ditch because it has abandoned or discarded it's original White Anglo Saxon Protestant "cultural operating system", which has many strengths and also many terribly harsh and violent imperfections (how the 1.0 version treated women, children, minorities, Gays, non-Protestants, the environment).

I'm all for improving the operating system, but not discarding it. We are in the process of discarding it for I have no idea what. Huge amounts of risk in so doing.

The problem is, White Americans think they "own" that operating system, and this mis-perception of ownership gives them the right to license it to other groups. No, they developed this cultural system, over many centuries, through war & conquest, immigration and trade (into British Isles, and later to North America), scholarship (which has always been international in nature, even in the Middle Ages); but God did not given them title. If you believe otherwise... show me the title documents. Show me the proofs.

The cultural operating system is in the public domain, people. It is proven to work across diverse groups in the USA, so long as those groups desire to (here's the dirty word hated by multi-culuralists) "assimilate". Yes, assimilate. Not so very bad! I enjoy being an assimilated American. I think many, most groups desire this also. Large ethnic groups have trouble because the public schools teach in their language, a severe crutch, and they don't have the opportunity to rub elbows and socialize with Whites, who don't seem to want to reproduce they way they used to, so they are headed for minority status by 2050?

Any talk of shipping people out, etc., is just a repetition of the terribly harsh and violent imperfections mentioned above. It's foolishness and ugly.

[jafs]

The neighborhoods were somewhat distinct, but there were also mixed neighborhoods, like the one I grew up in.  There were gay/straight, black/white, etc. people where I lived.

And, it's nothing at all like apartheid, as the arrangement was completely voluntary, without any governmental involvement at all.  But, you know that, and are just being inflammatory, I suspect.

As a nation of immigrants, we've always been multi-cultural, and the question of how much assimilation vs. how much retention of native culture is good wasn't ever settled, if I remember rightly.  The metaphors were "tossed salad" and "melting pot", the first implies more diversity and the second implies losing more of that.

I liked the diversity, and the ability to experience different cultures, and it would have been much less interesting without that.

[ochotona]

I think most of the problems in this country would vanish if a large number of people lived according to the Boy Scout Oath and Law, and if we still endeavored to teach these things to our youth. But I'm just an old timer speaking nostalgically. What the hell do I know.


A Scout is, AND DONALD TRUMP MOSTLY ISN'T,

Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,    (Trump does manage to create financial value)
Brave,      (I think Trump may possess a certain kind of bravery)
Clean,      (Trump looks physically clean)
and Reverent.

[MWKXJ]

But however we got here, we have a multi-ethnic society, and I think you have to tailor solutions to that reality.  I don't see how you can possibly talk about transforming a multi-ethnic society into an all-white society without the discussion turning dark pretty quickly.

America has not yet "got here".  There are still "11" ( probably closer to 40 ) million illegal aliens in the United States who could be legally removed if a president willing to enforce the nation's standing border laws were to be elected.  This is the known as the Eisenhower solution, is precedented, and was successful in the past.  Trump directly mentioned the Eisenhower's solution in his stump speeches and is currently running for president.  While America would not be a all-White society after an Eisenhower solution-expulsion, if illegal aliens were to be removed, Whites would at the very least be demographically in control of their inheritance for a few more decades, perhaps long enough to pass another Johnson Reed Act and repeal the 14th amendment.

[ochotona]

The Johnson Reed act was a very poisonous piece of legislation. There was hysteria at the time about "The Yellow Peril" and that if Chinese were allowed to come here, male and female pairs, they would "breed" and wreck America. So they let Chinese males come as guest workers, but no women. Margaret Sanger was very anti-Chinese... she spoke about "eugenics" solutions.

After WW-II, when it was so blatantly obvious to everyone that Asian Americans were not a Yellow Peril, when America saw the blood and guts of the Japanese-American 442nd Infantry Regiment in France, Italy, and Germany, then Asians were allowed to emigrate.

That's when our family came over.

So look at the contributions of Asian-Americans to American from end the of WW-II to the present and tell me straight-faced that a redux of Johnson Reed in 2017 would be a good idea.

My daughter is half-Chinese, and half-descended from people who contributed to the American Revolution (she is a member of DAR). So is she "half-acceptable" in the thinking of those would re-impose johnson Reed? How do those racial mathematics work out? What's the algorithm? If she had been born overseas with a non-US citizenship... would being half White Anglo American in her heritage make her more acceptable to emigrate to America? What if 3/8th? 7/16th? These are real policy questions. What are the answers? And isn't it just the ugliest thing to think about?

It sounds like effing Adolph Hitler. We're not going there.

Isn't it just the same as flawed thinking as "affimative action"? Two sides of the same racism coin? Violence, genocide and death on Heads, and over-compensation, cultural self-loathing, and liberal pandering / patronizing on Tails?

[jafs]

Even if we removed all of the illegal immigrants, we'd still be a multi-ethnic society.

And, it would cost a lot of money to do that, much more than most people would want to spend, I would guess.

We could repeal the 14th amendment, no question about it, and we could craft reasonable laws/policies about immigration as well.  But without that repeal, birthright citizenship will continue to be a constitutional right.