January 29, 2018

Black vs. immigrant tensions heating up; nationalists should ally with blacks

A few weeks ago I advocated mobilizing blacks in order to defeat amnesty for illegal immigrants and the broader push to import all 10 billion of the world's population in the coming years. Black people hate other races (while tolerating American whites since they're used to us), especially immigrants who just came here and think they own the place -- and especially when they try to hog all the credit and benefits of being minorities.

The 50-year cycles of collective violence that Peter Turchin has documented will see another peak circa 2020, and as usual these riots will be more easily inflamed between people of different racial, ethnic, and national origin groups. Only this time, the twist is that the political zeitgeist is all about the split between immigrants and Americans -- pitting African-Americans against the new immigrant groups who are Latino and Asian.

These groups are all at open war with each other on the West Coast, where gangs are entirely along ethnic lines. But it's about to boil over into the mainstream as well. Right on cue, here is Tariq Nasheed blasting a Grammy speech by Cuban immigrant singer Camila Cabello, who was promoting the feel-good new-immigrant narrative about how "America was built by DREAMers" (lots of "thank you for telling it like it is" in the comments from blacks):

Whereas the African-American narrative history is about having been brought here against their will to toil in the fields for no pay, the new immigrants' narratives are about coming here eagerly to enjoy a higher standard of living. Blacks resent these prospering newcomers for trying to marginalize the black narrative about having been unwilling victims. "Being a minority in America," in the black view, is supposed to reflect historical victimization, not being in charge of your own fate and seeking a better life in another country.

Blacks resent not only Latino and Asian immigrants for trying to hijack their minority narrative in this way -- they react the same dismissive way to clueless liberal Ellis Islanders who try to commiserate with blacks about having been discriminated against when they first came here as an Other ethnic group. If you weren't brought over here in chains, if you weren't forced to literally slave away in the cotton fields -- save your sob story about "No Irish Wanted" signs.

Aside from cultural narratives, the cold hard economic reality today is that blacks are far more harmed by opening the floodgates of immigration, as immigrants compete with lower-skilled workers and pack themselves into urban housing markets, both of which disproprotionately hit African-Americans.

So it comes as no surprise that a Harvard-Harris poll finds that blacks are the most eager to dramatically reduce immigration numbers. Half of them want the lowest possible numbers that are still greater than zero (1 to 250,000). The current level is around 1 million.

According to the General Social Survey, blacks are about the same as whites when it comes to wanting lower immigration, when you control for population density. Generally, rural residents are more for reducing immigration than urban residents. But when you look within a large city, blacks and whites are about the same; within the suburbs, they're the same; within rural areas, the same. The only reason it looks like whites are the most in favor of reducing immigration is because they are more likely to live in rural and small-town areas than blacks are.

And of course, within each level of population density, the "other" racial group (a mix of Latino and Asian) is markedly different from both the whites and blacks in being against reduced immigration, and in favor of increasing it.

Now, the clueless cuckservative response to this is to tell blacks, "Well, guess you're gonna have to leave the DEMOCRAT PLANTATION and jump on board the Trump train!" Wrong. The solution is to form a bipartisan movement to reduce immigration going forward, to give as little amnesty as possible now, and to deport the most of the illegal population.

Blacks will never vote GOP in large numbers, whether it's Reagan or Bush or Trump or anyone else. And why should they? It's the Democrats who take care of them, with the exception of bringing in all these immigrants, who they then promote at the expense of black people. Everything else in the Democrat platform benefits blacks, though, so they're only going to want to change this one big issue within their own party -- not change parties.

But if that's a key area of overlap with Trump voters, why turn down an alliance just because the other side won't totally join your own side? To win, we only need to form alliances -- not to pull off total conversions.

Indeed, after the failure of a populist re-alignment on the GOP side, that's only more reason for the populist-nationalists who voted Trump to crash the Democrat party and serve as the cavalry for other groups among the Dems who have similar goals as ours.

Shrinking the military footprint after failed imperialism? We can ally with the peaceniks. Single-payer healthcare? We can ally with just about any grassroots Dem group. Reducing and undoing mass immigration? Not with white-guilt liberals, but with the African-Americans who form a large and influential chunk of the Democrat base.

Obviously the framing would be different to appeal to African-Americans than working-class whites, but it's already being put out there by blacks themselves for us to adopt. Being a minority in America means having gone through historical victimization and suffering a lower standard of living. Current government programs are meant to correct that historical injustice. None of that applies to Latino or Asian immigrants who willingly come here en masse to enjoy a higher standard of living. Only to Native Americans and African-Americans.

On an informal level, we can easily encourage black resentment at being marginalized by these new immigrants. It's already there, we just need to stoke it. They understand that it's zero-sum when it comes to cultural attention and government programs -- it's either blacks or the Latino/Asian immigrants.

Just remember: no lame give-away messages about why they need to vote Republican or read Milton Friedman or something retarded like that. Your goal is to sound like a New Deal liberal from the Civil Rights era who, in this strange new world of mass immigration of Latinos and Asians, wants protectionism for the historical black community against the immigrants.

It's going to take a shift that seismic to turn the tide on immigration in this country. When the black section of the Democrat base starts demanding an end to mass immigration, as a form of economic and cultural self-defense, then we'll see some real serious shit.

Populist-nationalists should join them outright in re-directing the Democrat party's priorities, while free-market conservatives who remain in the zombie-GOP should be willing to sacrifice something in order to get an end to immigration as we know it. Would Congressman Steve King be so opposed to "Medicare for All" if it could be traded for deporting most of the illegal population and reducing future immigration to a fraction of what it is now?

In these topsy-turvy endtimes for Reaganism, we're going to be striking all kinds of unusual deals.

GSS variables: letin1, race, srcbelt


  1. I like how Nasheed accuses immigrant groups of disrespecting blacks. Contrary to what you hear, division is good, it serves a purpose. Sometimes you want to let your enemies weaken each other, sometimes you want to separate things into their proper place.

    The liberal lens of white privilege and white supremacy obscures what would otherwise be obvious: other minorities don't like blacks and blacks don't like other minorities.

    For all their resentment against whites, it's in the best interest of blacks to cleave tightly to whites. We're the only ones burdened with the combination of benevolence and guilt to feel responsible for supporting black economic and cultural improvement. Ambitious Hispanics and Asians are more likely to view blacks as nuisances, threats and competitors, and they feel no need to apologize for slavery or jim crow.

    Whether a "white supremacist" likes it or not, blacks are Americans. We share a sordid history, and blacks have a much stronger claim on what it means to be an American than an Hispanic child who was abandoned in a foreign country by his criminal parents.

    A robust economic nationalist platform has to find room for our real minorities if we want to push back against the ungrateful latecomers.

  2. And blacks are not even our "enemies" to begin with, not politically anyway. They don't like us -- so what else is new about two different ethnic groups not liking each other? As long as they tolerate each other, it's fine.

    We both have an interest in keeping diversity to a minimum -- whites and blacks, not a zillion other new immigrant groups who will fracture the society.

    Blacks support most of the policies that the populist-nationalists wanted to see from a Trump administration -- using big government (tariffs) to punish corporations that abandon America and take good-paying jobs with them, healthcare where anyone who can't afford the hospital bill will have it covered by the government, shrinking our global military footprint and re-investing that money in rebuilding America, and on and on.

    Blacks have been left out in the cold by the shift in the economy toward internet tech and finance, where everyone is suppose to cobble together 10 "gigs" in order to avoid starvation and homelessness for another month.

    They're not the ones running these labor-intensive companies that demand cheap labor uber alles -- agriculture, general contractors, etc.

    Aside from hating-yet-tolerating white people, how are they different from Trump populists? More skeptical of the police, I guess. Wanting liberals on the courts. Lenient law enforcement in general.

    On the major issues facing the nation, though, they're on our side in wanting to repeal and replace Reaganism. We just have to highlight who our common enemy is -- not just the waves of immigrants, but those who are bringing them here to begin with, the greedy employers who want cheap labor at the expense of the American people(s).

    A million immigrants per year are brought in at the behest of the white Chamber of Commerce, not unemployed blacks living in housing projects.

  3. Blacks are already being replaced...with other blacks, mostly educated, English speaking African ones who can handle the work in tech and finance (and healthcare and education). Married black mothers are (in order of likelihood) immigrants themselves, married to immigrants or nonblack men, or married to native-born black men. The first two groups are a majority of married black births and have been since foreign births among blacks hit double digits. Foreign born blacks as a group have "white" OOW numbers of around 30% while historical-American blacks have 80%+ numbers, resulting in the 70% OOW rate actually beginning to decline as the foreign born % of births steadily increases. They always had lower OOW numbers, but the initial waves had Hispanic levels around 50% OOW, and there's been a consistent decline.

    And the collapse in unwed births has begun.

    Your posts about this idea are mired in a 1970s view of black demographics, as far as the married population of blacks goes. And you'd need to persuade the married folks. But they are mostly immigrants, and they are the 2-3% working in tech, and they are having above-replacement kids and they are affording the expensive school districts and private schools. Trump has nothing to offer them. And as for the married historical-American blacks, we're outmarrying successfully or marrying second-gen immigrants and barely marrying each other. So even there the shifts aren't in favor of all that much pro-Trump focus.

    It's a curious blind spot. Historical American blacks are basically the next set of Native Americans. Our tfr is practically at NA levels once you subtract the immigrants and mixed marriages, and it's clustered among multi-gen single parent urban enclaves that are finally seeing social media and scattering of poverty-class blacks drive down teen and 20something births. There's just a little bitty core of historical-American married blacks and it's shrinking, not growing.

  4. Politically engaged blacks are even less foreign than their numbers overall.

    According to GSS, among blacks who voted in 2012, 95% were living here at age 16, slightly higher than the 92% of the overall black population.

    Simple explanation: foreigners are either ineligible to vote, or don't consider themselves citizens enough to participate in US elections. Similar pattern among Hispanics -- foreigners are ineligible or don't care to vote, vs. native-born.

    Among blacks who voted, only 34% were married (not so different from the 30% who were married among non-voters). By contrast, whites who voted were 64% married.

    So going after the black vote doesn't mean targeting married people. Unless you mean Republicans trying to get their vote -- which I explicitly said is not the goal. Blacks will never vote GOP in big numbers, and that's totally fine.

    We just need their large chunk of the Democrat base to ally with populist-nationalists on the immigration question, across party lines.

  5. Wow, this post was eerily accurate about how things would end up going down in 2020. Under BLM the blacks rioted in a bunch of urban cities and burned down those cities, especially focusing on immigrant owned businesses. Then they started attacking Asians and Hispanics in various cities like NYC, causing those groups to shift heavily towards the Republicans in 2020 and 2022.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."