So, hey, can we talk? About that whole race replacement thing that the left thinks it's doing?
Yesterday I got instantly salty at a commenter, (granted a new one, and I'm a bit paranoid right now for reasons) and realized it was because I hadn't unpacked things in the text that I kind of need to, so we're all on the same page.
Understand, I'm still possibly wrong -- again, the whole crystal ball being on the blink thing. In fact, it's never been not on the blink -- but I don't throw things out without thinking about them, and when I think about them it's rarely a trivial amount. I just don't always explain. And also the last couple of weeks have involved a lot of night-staring-at-the-ceiling which makes me testy and not very clear. (And no, I don't know why.)
First, why I don't like doing a deep dive into this: It's the perfect leftist Kafka trap. It is, yes, something they're trying to do and have been trying since the sixties (more subtly, via skewing our immigration policy) because their prophet, Gramsci, told them that people who can tan are perfect, natural Marxists. (Not especially. And yeah, I can tan. When I go near the sun, which I haven't recently.) However, to talk about it, you get dragged into racial discussions in Leftist terms. Which, because all the leftist terms and assumptions are enormously racist (it's like they can't help themselves. It's the whole Marxist people as widgets) then allows them to call US racists. For using their terms and definitions.
Avoiding that takes an awful lot of unpacking. And the unpacking can get profoundly weird.
So, first, the vexed question of race. Race, at least as Americans see it, is the purest bullshit. Actually, race, as most humans see it, is the purest bullshit. In the US this is just more so, and with a swirl of more shit on top brought on by the government wanting to know your "race" and the left filling your head with shit about race and protected and victim groups for the last sixty years give or take.
There's a lot of shit there, in fact, but no matter how much you dig, there is no pony at the bottom.
Now, like most of you who went to school when there was still a class called anthropology and not the utter shit (yeah, it's the word of the day. Roll with it. Put galoshes on first) of "social studies" which as far as I can tell translates to "Marxist indoc", I learned there were three races: Caucasian, Negro and Asian. From that there were any number of subraces. Oh, Amerindians were considered I THINK -- but please, it's been fifty years -- a sub-race of Asian. Or perhaps Caucasian. Who the heck knows at this point? Indians (dot) on the other hand were solidly Caucasian.
This was bullshit, of course. Though the definitions in your head are bullshit too.
The definitions in the head of the people around me were even crazier. There was a lot of talk -- and poemifying -- on the "Portuguese race." Look, bring a microscope. Find me a "Portuguese race." The country is the reservoir tip at the end of Europe, and everything and everyone in humanity left a deposit. The same applies to the "English race," btw, with little wheels. Sure, Anglo-Saxon, because they were preserved in amber and never consorted with anyone else.
Now, race is not visible under the microscope, unless you're looking for diseases that are characteristic of certain groups. And even then, ladies, gentlemen, and platypuses, those diseases are mostly the result of extreme inbreeding and often appear in other groups, randomly and no one is sure why.
Sure, sure, there are certain genes the movements of which we're getting better at tracking, but in the end when your 23andme says that you are 50% French what they mean is that of the people they test, 50% of your genes appear predominantly in France. They're getting "better" with testing historical skeletons (which explains my fondness for axes. Don't ask. Apparently some things breed true over a thousand years or so) and with deep-DNA studies that trace the movement of humans throughout pre-history and history.
But mostly races are a visual thing. You look at someone and you "know." Except what you "know" varies from culture to culture and people to people.
Put a Norwegian (at least pre-Middle-Eastern immigration) next to a Zulu and there's an obvious difference, but in the middle there's a vast sea of "I know them when I see them" and a lot of it is... Oh, wow, I'm so proud as you're all chanting it at home. Yep. "Bullshit!"
Like most of you -- by a hair. We have lots of kiddies reading this. I approve -- I was taught the old theory of how races came about. That too is bullshit. No, we don't know the details of how much bullshit it is, but the things like Negro (look, dudes, I don't care what it sounds like. That was the word for the race back when. DEAL) hair being the way it is to provide protection from the sun? Just-so-Darwinist stories.
The last time I did any reading about how visually/physically distinct races came to be the whole Darwinist "just so" of "Blue eyes emerged during the ice-age because they're best in low-light situations" thing was not just in doubt, but in deep, deep doubt.
Mind you, that book also seemed to think there simply wasn't enough time for distinct races to emerge, but I wonder if they had heard of the Siberian fox experiment, so I'll dismiss that.
And yes, I read stuff like that. I have to, because I create fictional worlds, and I have to figure out how these things came to be so I can see if they make sense in my world.
If I had a guess most of the visually and physically distinct "racial" characteristics are the result of what other human sub-species we absorbed in which region. And inbreeding. There's only one thing humans like better than screwing everything that moves (or even waves in the wind) and that's screwing their close family. Over and over and over. Shrug.
But until we know a heck of a lot more about genetics -- and even then, maybe -- the emergence of visually and physically distinct "races" will remain a phantom, dancing at the end of the dark corridor of pre-history.
Now add to that that people can be trained to identify sub-groups as different races when no such thing makes any sense from the POV of races. And that the visual distinctions thus learned can slice very fine indeed.
I remember during the Bosnian war people from the US saying that they really couldn't tell the difference between the combatant factions. But they could. Oh they could. In the same way, when I lived in Portugal, I could tell someone from the South by looks. This despite the fact that Portugal had been a country for over 1000 years and that on a recent visit, I found myself by accident (I rarely watch TV on purpose) in front of the TV, watching a national gymnastics team competition and thinking the entire group of girls from all over the country looked like sisters, or perhaps cousins at "worst". Because that's how homogeneous the whole country is. Oh, and I could do a parlor trick. Being from a country where we got a lot of tourists, I could tell you with an amazing degree of certainty, which COUNTRY the tourists came from on sight, before hearing them. For a while after coming to the US I could guess the predominant make up of people I met by country. Like, you know "your ancestors are primarily Spanish, with a bit of Greek." Eh. Parlor trick. I've lost it since.
Americans on the other hand -- Americans born and raised here -- see race in places that no one else sees it, and in ways no one else sees it. It reminds me of the Far Side cartoon showing the penguin bathrooms with "only they know the difference." Let's face it, in a world where Meghan Markle is black, anything is possible, and I'm probably a svelte blond.
When I came over in the 90s I was amazed at the number of people who thought I was from south of the border, in the Americas, including Mexico, which pardon me is not the same genotype at all. But that was because I didn't realize the US government was engaged in the charming experiment of creating a new race ex-nihilo, by defining Latin/Hispanic as a separate ethnic group.
Perhaps that's not what they thought they were doing -- who knows, with government -- and they do say in the paperwork that it's a cultural not racial group. But people are simple, and once the group existed, they started seeing it. And nine times out of ten people look at me and go "Latin." More importantly, they do that to my kids (unless younger son has let his hair grow, and then it depends on how far he lets it grow. Or older son... Let's say during an apartment-hunt in the not best part of a town, we realized after a long day that everyone had been visually identifying him as black, despite poke-straight hair.) And when it comes to my kids, it can't be by body language. More importantly, my kids, looking at their childhood pictures, recently, informed me they looked "ethnic as sh*t." Shrug. They look human to me. Most of the time. (Exceptions made for moments I came into their shared bathroom and found them peeing for distance and style.)
So, race is a phantom, and the ability to tell a race on sight, or even the definition of "race" changes and has changed even during my own lifetime, much less over the centuries. The characteristics that go with each race? Even more so. I found this out by reading old books. Did you know that black people were presumed to be compulsive gamblers? No? Neither did I. The stereotype had changed.
And because some or a few of you will bring up IQ and other such bullshit, which is even more bullshit than race. IQ results by race are bullshit, because IQ is highly dependent on socio-economic conditions, nutrition and conditioning. As in, if you present someone who's never taken a multiple choice test with a multiple choice IQ test they'll do worse than those who've been taking them since they were 10. And nutrition... Let's say that in real terms of survival, people who are starved in childhood are often left with cognitive deficiencies. BUT on top of all that layer the fact, please, that a lot of the IQ tests "of Africans" bruited about were taken by the apartheid regime of South Africa, for the purpose of proving Africans were inferior. Consider some selection might have (almost certainly did) take place. And the fact we don't know what IQ is for.
Yeah, Africa is a rank mess. But it is a rank mess because it is where our ancestors were kicked out of over time. Stop staring at me. For "our ancestors" I mean not racial, or not really. I mean the people on this blog. We're odd. Goats among sheep. There's a high chance our ancestors were too. (It's.... transmissible, somehow.) Africa was an ideal environment for early humans, and all those who were weak or disturbed the pattern got kicked out over millennia. What that left behind was not an environment devoid of goats as such. We still get those out of Africa: the ones who don't fit in, the ones who want more. But what it left behind was an unbreakable system of tribal cohesion. Many tribes. Africa is a mess because it's a collection of crab buckets. Very successful crab buckets. It has nothing -- or very little -- to do with race, and a lot to do with the fact that this is the default state of the human species: Little tribes that hate every other tribe around them.
And yeah, the independent "decolonized" countries of Africa are a mess too -- we'll get to that in a moment, because absolutely this is the left's definition of "decolonization": a Marxist spoils system based on race. -- but that's because we left behind our most lethal colonial export: Marxism. It makes all the tribal stuff worse, and destroys any hope of modern, functional civilization. To make it worse, we've infested their institutions of learning, and take their brightest and educate them in our equally infested ones. Yeah. It ain't pretty.
Anyway, so much for race. There are genetic human characteristics that go with physical characteristics, but, because of rats in head, we aren't really studying them. Because we can't trust you zanies not to run out and say, kill all redheads because that will diminish violence. Or something. Perhaps in a world without WWII these links are better known. If we find a parallel world, we'll ask. BUT the characteristics, to the extent some have been accidentally found are much much finer than "dark skin, short time preference." (That btw seems to be a characteristic, in the US at least, of Welfare, because it wasn't like that before from what we can tell.) As far as we can tell it's the sort of thing that would make the physiognomists of old happy. Stuff like "Long fingers means likely good with mathematics." (No, not that I know. I just PFAed, because even though some of those characteristics have been found, they're hard to track down, probably deliberately.)
Also, I don't care what your 23 and me tells you (remember, it mostly goes off recent populations/movements) let me assure you that you are a complete and thorough mutt. All of us are. Because there's only one thing we humans like more than sleeping with our relatives, and that's sleeping with.... everything. Remember there used to be many human subspecies (and how that came about I leave you to contemplate in your free time, given that even pre-historic humans seemed to travel everywhere, and so isolation doesn't explain it. If you say "Different colony ships" I'll make you write a book, though) and now there is one human race. What happened to the others? Well, we ate them and f*cked them. I'll leave you to work out percentages.
That process, and the fact that for probably much of our time in pre-history there were visually distinct tribes (in some amount) over the ridge probably accounts for our ability to magnify characteristics into "whole different race" even when "only they can tell the difference" because humans are also cheerful cannibals, usually of "the other tribe" so it is, as our oldest fairytales tell us, for a child to know if he/she is among a tribe that will eat him/her.
So much for race as it really is a "construct." And if you tell the left that, you'll get the reeeing to end all reeing. They are absolutely convinced that sex -- a thing with observable characteristics all the way from the microscopic to, well, naked inspection -- is a construct, but race, a thing that is defined differently and seen differently at different times and places, is immutable, locked in forever, will never change. Set in stone.
And what they mean by race, btw, is more and more JUST skin color. By this magic, Kamala Harris, a woman of almost pure Caucasian ancestry is suddenly "black." (Ah. I have more African features. And again, given some time in the sun, like in Spring when I'm gardening, I'm at least as dark.) And Palestinians, the dregs of the Middle East, which in turn is solidly Caucasian, Mediterranean sub-race, (waves in I should know) are "brown" and therefore an untouchable minority. Oh, and Hispanics are also brown, and -- the left assures me -- must have Indian admixture (arches eyebrow and challenges the bright lights to find Hispania on an ancient map.) And therefore we can't stop them coming over the border because that would be racissssssss. Like we'd be less upset if ancient Vikings were pouring over the border. (Though I could finally get a decent ax. Also, pardon me, I need to go do the ritual to banish a plot bunny. D*mn it. I thought I'd fumigated my office.)
To the left there are whites, blacks and browns. Nothing else matters. Oh, and that dictates every characteristic of your behavior and attitudes. Hence, anything that allows you to be successful in modern society is white supremacy. And encouraging Welfare-pets (many of them, increasingly, not even vaguely brown) to loot and terrorize is "decolonization."
To understand the left and what they're trying to replace with what, you have to understand three things:
First, they view everything in terms of groups and group success or failure, and because they believe creation is impossible (you know, they're not aliens. They're fairies) they believe that the way groups rise and fall is through theft and oppression of each other. In other words, Marxism. A deeply broken model of reality.
Second, their predominant grouping of humans is by skin color. I don't know what they do with edge cases like me. (Oh, actually I do, when they have full rein. I just rather not think about it. Mass graves.) In their head, they've made whites -- and by that they mean mostly Northern Europeans, unless they need to throw all Mediterraneans in too, to make their crazy theories work -- uber-colonizers, and basically the sin-eaters of humanity. If something is bad, they blame "whites." Considering that some of their idiots think there was no rape in the Americas before Europeans landed, it's a bad variety of crazy. (If we get a time machine, let's strangle Gramsci in his crib, just in case.) BUT the most important thing to understand is that there's no individuality or free will. Groups act as the definition of the group. This is how AOC could think that Amerindians, oh, pardon me, Native Americans could come out of the reservations to teach us to respect the environment. They just know. Anyone with Amerindian blood is born with an innate knowledge of how to use every part of a buffalo or pray to the great spirit or whatever the comic-book noble savages of the early twentieth century could do. (Give me a minute. I need to tell the Mathematician to enlighten me on how to take care of the environment, due to his percentage of Amerindian. It should be worth it!) Which leads us to the next point:
3 - It's not that they don't know history. By and large they know what happened. Sort of. At least they know what happened to vast numbers of people fighting and moving around.
What they're missing is cultural distinctiveness or individual influence.
In other words, it's all skin color. All of it. (This is why they think Kwanza is an "African" holiday. They're virgin of knowledge there's more than one sub-race/linguistic divide/and probably the most diverse (truly, not in their meaning) cultures on planet Earth in Africa. Thinking all of Africa has the same "values" is like thinking Germans and Portuguese will behave exactly the same. (Sorry. just shot coffee out of my nose picturing that. Took a moment to clean up.))
Okay, now that we're set up. The left's Gramscian delusions got a shot in the arm in the sixties, when a lot of the countries in Africa "decolonized" violently and instituted Marxist dictatorships of various kinds. See, dark people were natural communists! Now to bring that here! And therefore they set an immigration policy that favors Africans, and after that various people who can tan, in the hopes that by population replacing, they'd get their wonderful Marxist paradise.
What they were missing (not an exhaustive list) was that a) Marxism was a colonial import from Europe. b) it was particularly strong in Africa, because Russia was in the process of colonizing Africa under cover of so called "decolonization." i.e. a lot of the independence movements were financed/supported/taught by the USSR. (Colonization is debatable, in this case. Although Russians sent "experts" and Cuban cannon fodder, I don't think they ever moved in in numbers. Cannibalization might be a better term. You see, communist countries need to steal from other, more functional societies to survive, and Russia gorged itself on Africa, as China has been doing more recently.) c)that in practical application, on the ground, Marxism was often a cover for much deeper tribal conflict and domination that had been going on for a long time. This, btw, made the whole thing far worse, more violent, and infinitely less productive. Since the left confuses destruction with "ushering in utopia" this was to the good, for them.
Anyway, over the last, oh, 40 years, Africa has eaten itself by "decolonizing" but really "being eaten by the Marxist mind virus" which lent cover to tribal genocide and also destroyed what there was of functional society in the continent. The left looks at such horrors as Rhodesia, or what happened to South African farmers and rubs its hands.
You have to understand: at heart they're enormous racists. I mean, that's obvious from thinking that kin color means character and philosophy, right? But what I mean is, they really believe that whites are superior. (Whatever your definition of white.) They also believe that other races, ultimately destroy everything and need superior whites to "lead" them. Hence the constant harangues on "raising consciousness" etc. Their argument with "white supremacy" as they view it, aka the propagation of functional behaviors, is that we "racissss" think that it can be demanded of all races. I.e. their problem is that we try to make them poor darkies behave like "us" and look down on them when they don't. Them poor darkies are like chilluns, you see, and we should just give them make-work and show-positions (like president of Harvard, say) and then the enlightened whites -- the left -- do all the work behind the scenes and look after them poor blighted darkies.
Excuse me, I need to go rinse my fingers in alcohol after typing that. But it is observably the left's view. Look how they excuse poor Academic performance or outright stupidity and still try to raise people to positions of supposed command because they tan. No non-racists would push forward total wastes of space as Claudine Gay or Kamala Harris. And let's not forget Karina Jean-Pierre, whose main qualifications to be the voice of the white house are being somewhat tan, and a lesbian. (And almost as stupid as Kamala Harris.)
Anyway, so the left in the sixties conceived the amiable idea of replacing "white" in the US with dark skinned people, with the idea that inevitably, in the dialectic of history (gag, splurch) they'd kill most of the whites, leaving only the enlightened ones (the left) to "lead them." (You have to understand that the left aims for feudalism, more or less.)
This was happening too slowly for their tastes. (They've had more success in spreading dark-skinned genes with tech visas, but that's something else, and something for later.) And they're old. And they have been waiting for the glorious end state of Marxist revolution a long time. So now, they've just opened the border, to achieve their glorious population replacement FASTER.
I don't, honestly, know whether importing mostly military age males was design or accident. Or yes.
I mean, yes, I can see their little reptilian minds (minds shrink on Marxism, and become very simple) focused on all these "fighting men" who can take out Americans if they get upitty. The left is stupid enough to view this as the end-run on the fact we refuse to give up our guns. (Thank you, Founders, for your foresightedness on the second amendment.) It won't work, because-- never mind. Later. But I can see them thinking it would.
On the other hand, immigration usually is a thing of working age males. Particularly the sort of immigration they're encouraging, which is economic migration. Look, I should know this. Over his working life, grandad worked in Brazil, Venezuela and South Africa. Grandma stayed home and raised the kids. (Every time he visited, they had another kid, so...) And in the village, when I was growing up, most of the working men worked for at least some time in ... at the time usually France or, more rarely, Germany. Most of the time they came back with enough money to build a house and start a business. Their wives never left. Only like 10% of them ever "sent for" the family. And those might never come back, or come back at retirement, with or without their kids in tow. This is the model still in people's heads, leading to people asking me, when I visit, when I will "return" and why in heaven's name did I let my sons marry "outside the race." (They miss that my husband is not Portuguese, or it doesn't matter. I'm not sure. Also, my mom put it best when she finally told one of her friends that my husband would be more likely to retire in Portugal than I, and that I'd become "wholly American" -- like it was some kind of a disease. LOL.)
So, this is to an extent normal. But it's not that normal in the US, where a lot of the previous flows of immigrants were either whole families, or males who sent for their families after a time and more often than not settled her, or their kids did.
It's just.... I'm almost sure that the left hasn't thought about this in conjunction with their "population replacement" scheme. Right now they're just seeing "fighters" and "illegal voters" and nothing else.
And yeah, the commenter yesterday -- and another one, one of my old-time friends -- said that males can do it, by impregnating all the women, or something. And yeah "this is the mechanism of Western Civilization."
Look, the left can have their illusions -- and their sexual fetishes -- but you're not REQUIRED to buy into them, even if you went to the same schools.
Yes, most of civilization; most of human history to be honest, is the result of conquering males impregnating conquered females.
The scenes of horror almost for sure played upon a vast number of all of our ancestresses went something like this: in the dark of night, invaders arrive, outside the village and attack. They kill every man over the age of three (or sometimes every man down to infants. They might or might not kill the elderly women.) And then they impregnate every female. The psychological mechanisms for this are as old as time. Women will turn on a dime to "fall in love" or at least attach to the conqueror (being hypergamic is a survival value) and the civilization conquered will survive only in female-genetics, some words, and maybe the odd tale or two.
Right. That much is true. But if you don't see the difference between that and what is actually happening, you have leftist blinders on.
Not only haven't the invited invaders killed every man, it's unlikely to happen without... well, their being squashed like bugs.
Yes, there's any number of criminality and nonsense, but you know, that's because they're recruiting from various groups from communists to militant Muslims. And there's a vast Cartel presence. But the ur-scenario that destroyed many sub-populations throughout pre-history and history is just not there.
Two other things to consider: if you say "but they have testosterone, unlike our soyboys and they will--"
Coughs into hand. The cough might sound like "bullshit". The decline in testosterone in male populations is WORLD WIDE. No. Look at that again. The decline is world wide. Which is why it's inexplicable. I can understand cultural trends in the west making males less virile, through some kind of mechanism. But it's world wide. And yes, viable sperm production is down worldwide as well.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that not playing as much physically in childhood, but sitting in front of screens, which, yes, is a worldwide phenomenon save for maybe tribes in deepest Amazon (Have they been tested?) leads to lowered testosterone and sperm production. But it could be anything else, including the fact we are as a whole fatter worldwide, and fat is a feminizing "organ" as it produces female hormones. (No, for real. Though it's more like 'pseudo female hormones'.) But that's a guess. See "unexplained."
What you're confusing for "masculinity" is "unruliness" but women in the third world behave like that too. It has more to do with instability and "lack of rule of law" than anything else.
Women are hypergamic. Women in the west are still hypergamic. And while the PUA and such think this correlates to primitive brain functions -- and it does in certain women. Usually the ones more inclined to the one night stand lifestyle -- the truth is in the west women tend to look for leftist men -- or men who make leftist mouth noises -- for a reason. Because leftism has inserted itself in the west as a "conquering culture" and therefore gives off powerful and success vibes. Remember all the women fainting over Obama, who is at best (AT BEST) as someone here put it "a skinny closet-case"? It wasn't race. It was giving off the "conquering leftist male" vibe. Because that's how f*cked our society is by the Marxist virus. This also led to men of beta inclinations swooning over his pant crease. (Rolls eyes.) That is the real unconscious attraction.
Most of the men coming in are the product of the last twenty years of relative plenty abroad. Yes, some of them come to work and make money while also getting welfare. But the drift I get from various "victim profiles" is that a lot of them came over because they thought they would do nothing and get a lot of money and adulation. What is due to them, you know, since we somehow did them wrong, as their Marxist education taught them.
They tan, sure, but they're no more ready to make it in American society than our men and boys are. And let me tell you, I've talked of this before, but the last 20 to 30 years, we've morphed into a society that destroys men. And boys. The Marxist certainty that all males are evil, because throughout history women were "oppressed" (mostly through being weaker, and also being the child bearers, but never mind) has done a number on society.
Increasingly, we're a society that doesn't appreciate men and/or boys and pushes them out of everything we can, leaving them with no place, no role, and no ability to earn money or raise a family.
In practical fact, it's not QUITE that bad. Kids are finding their place, but it takes longer, since all the mechanisms are designed to sideline men. So around thirty or forty, they're finally starting a family. BUT--
But, like the reduction of testosterone, the surplus males with no role is also a world-wide phenomenon.
The reasons are different: from the ability to choose by sex BEFORE birth and selective abortions in highly chauvinistic cultures; to Islamic cultures, which always marry all available women to successful older men, and one successful older man will marry several women, young men are surplus to requirements all over the world.
Add to that mechanization making the need for big, strong men less in manual professions and therefore manual professions less well paid... and the fact most of these cultures are still extremely chauvinistic and worship the male archetype of the PHYSICAL conqueror to whom every woman defers.
Which takes us on an interesting side-spur -- bear with me. I know this is already too long, but it links to what is likely to happen with the current invasion, if anything -- of the events in Israel on October 7th. That particular bit of nightmare fuel connects very deeply with the history of mankind, because it is a replay of those scenes of our pre-history. The conquering males come in and claim their place with unimaginable violence.
Except.... Except they killed everyone. Killing men and children and babies is more or less normal, but they raped AND KILLED the women.
A friend looking at it, said it was mostly lackanookie. These men had never got any and in fact knew they couldn't keep what they got. Therefore they killed the women in an orgy of wantonness, because they hated what they couldn't keep.
To an extent we saw this, kind of, with Amerindians attacking frontier settlements. But only to an extent. They took mostly children and teen girls, and killed adult women. Though they might take some adult women, if they looked meek enough, and beat them into submission as much as possible, etc. I wonder if that was because adult pioneer women had proven dangerous, but that's speculation. Note the "braves" of the Amerindian tribes were often kicked out to form raiding parties that were all-male. So there was strong lackanookie there, as well.
I won't point out that there is strong lacknookie among our young men, too. Or more important, lack of sane women that they can marry and build a family with. This is thanks to Marxist indoctrination of our girls in school (Marxism. Is there anything it can't make into shit?) It's a minor miracle that "violence against women" is as low as it is. And again, most men are finding their way, but late, and limpingly. And women start getting saner -- as a friend told me, and at the time I didn't believe him. I'm sorry, you were right -- around 27. Not ideal for reproduction, but not bad.
Here's the thing, though: The men they have sent over: and at this time we're very much in recruitment and sending over from farther afield, mostly China and Africa, are, besides being wholly unprepared to survive in a tech society, the ones they wanted out of their homelands, because they're useless, crazy with lackanookie, utterly without prospects or hope.
If you're going "oh, shit." congratulations. You win the golden shovel. Yes, there's going to be trouble. Lots of it. There already is, in terms of increased criminality. And how it plays out, only G-d knows.
Ultimately there will be deportations, I think. Probably in vast quantities, and hopefully not on visual-identification or a lot of American born and bred, and absolutely integrated young men (and women) will go too.
BUT the American population is armed, which is something most of the incoming aren't used to. More importantly, Americans don't react as they'll expect, which... yeah, will make things worse, but also make it less likely we'll see a lot of incidents like what happened in Israel on 10/7. I think even one of those, in large numbers, that can't be covered up, will cause a convulsion none of us wants.
And replacement? Bah. Not unless they find a way to grow babies in vats. As far as racial replacement, the left's project has been more successful in ways they didn't and probably still don't realize were even happening: American men importing foreign brides. For some reason, a lot of these seem to be Asian. So, there's that. Though to be fair, Asians are something the left doesn't know what to do with.
True America is soaking up everyone's surplus, purposeless males right now. And because this is one thing I agree with Pope Che on, right now we have a massive problem with youth unemployment. Specifically youth MALE unemployment (Which Pope Che won't say.) That's what's happening. We're getting all the sons that parents hope will somehow become successes here, and send money home.
The problem being we're ALSO a society profoundly hostile to males.
So... there will be an increase in gang warfare, a swelling of welfare ranks (already happened. In fact, I think the ranks are mostly replenished from abroad) one or two -- maybe -- bright stars who rise above all the conditioning and expectations to make a success of themselves.
But mostly? A vast number of rudderless males with nowhere to go and serious lackonookie.
Dangerous, scary, unstable, and a problem that will unfortunately probably solve itself. And give our ideological enemies a chance to point at our "massive" prison population as a "failure of capitalism."
What won't happen is population replacement. Or the left's adorable little fantasy of all the dark people rising up and killing all the white people as happened in Africa. (Some bright bulbs expected this to happen when Obama became president. They expected black supremacy. (Pinches bridge of nose.)) Because those are stupid fantasies based on seeing history but understanding nothing. Which is a good thing. I mean, top down plans for vast amounts of people never work, but imagine if they were slightly more competent how much trouble they'd be.
For the rest? It's going to get rough. Really rough. Hold on to the sides of the boat and teach the children well. All the children. Ignore the left's (mentally handicapped) definition of race. Teach them all well. Make them Americans.
We will survive this.
No comments:
Post a Comment