Feed on
Posts
Comments

Shot:

From Talia Lavin:

The truth of the matter is that anyone who willingly declares themselves [sic] a Republican is aligning themselves [sic] with an administration whose official policy is to torment minorities, to empty the public purse both for private gain and for sheer cruel parsimony, to strip away healthcare from the afflicted and to comfort the wealthy.
***
Anyone who is a current Trumpist might as well be an ICE agent ripping an 18-month-old child from its mother’s arms, or shipping a five-year-old boy to Michigan to dream of his father and weep in a stranger’s house.
***
One companion to the legion of Trump-voter-as-curious-oddity portraiture is the endless stream of op-eds prevailing upon liberals to be more tolerant. To cease being smug. To simply reach across the aisle, grasp a hand, and speak softly, leaving the big stick at home.

To which I say: tough nuts, sugar. When they go low, stomp them on the head.

Chaser:

From AnotherDad:

I have no problem with this Talia Lavin creature.

We just don’t belong in the same nation. She can live in her ICE-less, borderless, feminist utopia for as long as it lasts and i can live in a normal Western nation–America.

All the world does not have to be sane and beautiful. There should be a place for crazy, slimy ugly creatures as well.

***

JackD: You (and others) keep saying stuff like this but basically you are espousing a partition and civil war. Did not go that well the last time. Short of partition/expulsion/violence/self-exile, do you have any plan for living peacefully in the same nation as Lavin and her kind (especially if they become the majority)?

***

Short Answer: You got a better idea?

Longer Answer:

1) The “nation of immigrants��? (immigration forever) or worse “open borders��? program is essentially a death sentence. It means the US ends up getting shittier and shittier until it’s so crowded and mediocre that no one else wants to come … and immigration can finally, blissfully cease. That–immigrationism–*alone* is a bigger fault line than we had in the 1850s when the quarrel over slavery was mostly between at least between related Anglo origin groups, and with high-quality, good-faith leadership (which unfortunately we didn’t have) could have been tractable. And beyond that we have the sheer nuttiness of the left that you see in say the gay-marriage hysteria (round up the Christian cake bakers!) or “transgender��? nonsense.

In sum, the left has an end-to-end “dead man walking��? agenda, which is hostile to men being men, women being women and together having replacement fertility and instead pushes population replacement. Basically it is genocidal towards white Americans.

Given that, if we don’t win, what’s the alternative but to try and leave?

2) As i’ve said many times before, the most important thing about saying “separation��? is its propaganda value.

The plain fact is the Democrats coalition-of-the-fringes is parasitic on the white American nation. Even its most prosperous metros–NY and Washington–are prosperous precisely because they extract through finance and through taxation from a large prosperous white (or formerly white) nation. (Bay Area admittedly a bit different.) It’s precisely the fact that generations of white guys–my ancestors–have built up such a rich prosperous nation, that these parasitic fringes can exist.

(This is, if anything, even more obvious when it comes to immigration. Why are immigrants here? Because white guys built a better nation than their ancestors did back home … and they want a piece of it.)

White people standing up for themselves and saying “Fine, you have your multicultural, open-borders utopia. We’ll pass.��? is useful because it unmasks the actual “Who whom��?. Despite all the whining about oppressive white men, the reality is the reverse. The fringes can’t stand the thought of white people having their own nations, taking care of their own business, working for themselves rather than providing loot. White people are their serfs. Proposing separation unmasks this.

[…]

People with different cultures belong in different nations. That’s the gist of it.

America absorbed a lot of people back-in-the-day with the assumption they would–over time–be able to adhere to the Anglo American nation. That’s over–deconstructed.

It’s clear now, we are not people of one nation. We don’t even seem to be people of the same universe! Personally i would even call the mental milieu Talia Lavin operates in a “culture��?. But whatever the hell it is, it isn’t mine and it’s not the fairly sane and reasonable American culture i grew up in. There’s really no point in even pretending to have something called “politics��? between us. We’re not in the same “polis��?.

Majority or minority there are a *lot* of people in America, who still think like me and value being part of the old America that was part of the Western Civ. We have the right to carry on with that. It says so in the Declaration, and i can feel it in my soul.

Beautifully stated. The case is made for peaceful separation. Will we get it? Probably not, but we have the moral high ground to demand it.

Demoralization agents like JackD who sneer “the separation didn’t go so well for your side last time” are arguing from a disingenuous inference that the facts on the ground before Civil War I resemble the facts on the ground now, as Civil War 2 looms. It’s nonsense. CW1 was a regional war, demarcated by clear large-scale territorial holdings, between competing White Anglo-ethnics. America now is a hodge-podge of races, delineated not regionally but along an urban-rural divide. JackD’s “side” in Civil War I is today concentrated in coastal shitlibopolises. The other side is everywhere else.

And guess who has all the guns and the sympathy of the military.

Two weeks of blockades cutting off the water, food, and internet supplies to the big shitlib cities would end Civil War 2 before it got off the ground, and the peaceful separation can commence.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: