Given the Supreme Court's dismissal of Texas v Pennsylvania, it looks like the Cathedral is poised to take back full control, and the Constitution is just an interesting relic on some paper.
That in mind, I figure it's high time I started to share around something I've been working on for a while: I wrote and annotated a significant re-write of the US Constitution.
Here's the plan I propose: All the states that supported the Texas complaint should stop recognizing the DC Establishment as any sort of legitimate government, and should form a new government of the US under this updated constitution. Let any part of one of the other states set up a replacement government and rejoin as states, but leave the cancer cities like Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles out of the deal. Leave them behind to collapse in their own failure, but save as much of America as we can from their mistakes, and preserve as much of the military and economic power as we can, so that China and its allies don't get a chance to take over.
It's a hard road, and there are a lot of people to convince that it's better to leave the Washington establishment behind, but balkanization has major risks to national security, as well as economic costs. This path preserves that security and many of the healthy sectors of the US economy, leaves behind the absurd government overreach that the Cathedral has built up, and maintains the American identity that many people consider to be core to their life.
Hoping to get feedback on this plan, and the changes to the Constitution, from you guys here first, before I start spreading it around to more official channels.
This shit right here. This shit, right here, is why you should be reading Immigration and Cultures, along with Conquests and Cultures.
Your comment, on it's very face, is utterly ignorant of the subject matter I just spoke about, while claiming that my statement is dumb. You seem to have no understanding of American society prior to around 1970. Don't worry, I'll teach you.
Antisemitism was a norm in American history. White identitarianism was institutionalized into American society. These two systems existed at the same time, and actually part of the same system. Socialism also promoted antisemitism. Antisemitism and White protectionism was a major part of the Progressive Era. It was under these conditions of white identitarianism, protectionism, and antisemitism, that Jews were identified as a group utterly incapable of integrating into American society, due to their low IQ. It was assumed that these low IQ populations would out-breed White (really just Saxon) populations until the white race would be all but utterly trashed within only a few decades.
Once again, the progressive narrative wasn't just wrong, but was a total inversion of reality.
All populations in America saw significant increases in average IQ. The average IQ of Jews rose significantly. The Saxoninoid race did not die out within a few decades. They aren't going to die out either. The assumptions about intelligence, population, and reproduction rates of the Progressive Era were all wrong. Mostly because Progressives, Socialists, and Malthusians are fucking retarded.
But, there's still more wrong with your statement. You just assumed I was talking about America, and not South America, Africa, or SE Asia. I tried mentioning that, but brain skipped over it in a desperate attempt to defend a racialist narrative about white people. You complained about white people not being able to congregate in their own societies in communities (despite the fact that they did), and you seem to have forgotten that Brazilians, Ethiopians, Nigerians, Malayans, Indonesians, and plenty of other non-white populations were out-competed by those same immigrant groups. As wrong as your beliefs are about whites not engaging in white identitarianism, it's even more wrong in Malaya.
Wait, there's still more that's wrong with your statement. You've asserted the word "Superman", which I didn't say. You meant to say "Ubermensch", and to associate that with Hitler's complete and total misreading of Nietzsche. There is literally no one on Earth more ignorant of what Nietzsche was talking about than Adolf Hitler, and attempting to associate "blood" with actually seizing responsibility of yourself is a direct contradiction of Nietzsche's entire point.
In fact, if these immigrant group's successes were based on some permanent genetic trait, we would see the same level of success in every immigrant group across all countries and we would see the same level of success in the immigrant's country of origin. We don't. In fact, the immigrant populations mimic only the specific locales and time periods from which they originated. Different Japanese immigrant groups from different Japanese provinces at different times created vastly different cultures in North and South America because they represented a very specific segment of people from very specific places and times.
The common feature of success is not genetic predisposition, but behavior and culture itself. A culture of success breeds success, and a culture of failure breeds failure. Fostering a culture of dependency... breeds failure. This is why Leftism kills itself, it promotes dependency and guarantees the death of any useful & successful culture. Voluntary immigrant groups in general tend to be more successful than their domestic originators because they represent a swath of the most aggressive, ambitious, and non-risk averse population. This is why you see the opposite among mass migrants from socialist or authoritarian countries who are being incentivized to create corporate plantation colonies in the first world. They aren't of that same pioneering spirit.
And so there's still one last thing you got wrong. What you call "nepotism", is just racialism, but you've decided that 'racist' should actually have a positive connotation, and that's why you don't want to associate it with Jews. If you were willing to be honest, you'd say that the Jews were doing nothing wrong in regards to 'nepotism', because you want to have white people do the same. You want white people to give a subtle wink and make sure "their people" are "taken care of". Unfortunately for you, neither Whites nor Jews do this. Now, in reality, what everyone of the groups I mentioned had in common was a willingness to become a 'middle man minority'. To find gaps in the marketplace, and take advantage of those opportunities by providing an intermediary group to the domestic population that is willing to do beneficial, but otherwise unpalatable work to the domestic population. Why it is unpalatable differs from society to society. It could be sectarian issues, religious issues, political issues, or even a lack of technical skill in some particular niche. What these middle-man minorities actually have are close communities, able to effectively share human capital among themselves, for the benefit of all (including whoever is paying them). A tight-knit community has the ability to use their shared knowledge, experience, to fit it's members into well-placed opportunities that would otherwise be unknown to an atomized individual. There is also the fact that these close-knit communities create a communal feed-back in the event that a community member violates a social norm that could harm the reputation of the community. A blacksmith's son might be hired on a ranch to help fit his father's horse shoes to the animals by a rancher that has developed a good business relationship with the father. If the son is derelict in his duty, he is not simply fired, but the rancher can go to his father, and social punishment will set the boy back on the right path.
Now, couldn't white people do this? ... Yes, they did. It's in the book. The chapter on German immigrants is quite vast for all of these same reasons. This is the methodology of success.
Now, onto what I actually said.
Protectionist policies make their target audience non-competitive. This is why unions destroy labor, Feminism destroys women, Welfare destroys black families, and Racialism attack the identity group it seeks to protect. It promotes weakness and dependency in the very groups it claims to uplift by making those groups dependent on the authoritarian providing them a protection racket. Instead of promoting individual initiative, protectionism disincentives it. Instead of building strong communities, authoritarianism makes everyone dependent on the authority's bureaucracy as a community.
Except they did. It's exactly why they were targeted. Resentment is a very useful political tool to a power establishment that seeks to maintain it's protection racket, while securing a popular base. The politics of resentment that you are buying into will serve you just as badly as it has served everyone who came before you. My biggest criticism of all of these groups is that instead of telling resentful submissive like yourself: "No, we owe you nothing", they typically say, "Okay, we'll help you" and grant you the paternalism you seek, which only worsens the resentment, and guarantees the inevitable violence from the establishment seeking to secure itself.
The next time you think "Golly gee whilickers I sure don't like those Jews", just remind yourself: "Suck it up buttercup, the Jews you nothing."
i assume you are talking about S.E.A chinese and i have S.E.A chinese ancestry and i'd appreciate you stop using our name to keep trying to defend the things the tribe does.
The thing about the places like indonesia in S.E.A(south east asia) that had issues with us is that they tended to be muslim countries, others did not have such problems with us. secondly we were disliked for doing better but we did not have the "conspiracies" surrounding us like the tribe does over media and banks cause guess what? we do not control those things at all (which i cannot say thats the same when it comes to the tribe) Neither do we engage in the kind of politics the tribe does which is constantly trying to tell others (/ host locals) they can't have any sort of care for their own or own culture , accusing racism. Yet turning around and practicing extreme nepotism for themselves , (nor do we have a religion that literally calls everyone else "beasts and animals" or say that we are the "god''s chosen" to "leading the goy")
so please speak for yourself instead of dragging us in to this ok?
First, I don't give a shit what you want. You don't speak for anyone but yourself, and I don't care if you think the comparison is one you think brings a bad reputation to your "tribe". That's not my problem. I do not care what you think your ancestry is, and I don't care if you feel an urge to defend it from something I didn't say. That's a personal problem.
Secondly, I was actually saying that most overseas Chinese, regardless of geographic location, tend to do all the things I've said. It's part of a culture that those immigrant communities promote, mostly resulting in great benefit for them.
Yes they did, that's what the mass killings were for.
Actually, in SE Asia, it's worse because it promotes explicit politics of resentment that allegedly only Chinese Communism can solve.
It's actually gotten much worse recently in Africa as the ChiComs have been promoting Social Justice as a weapon against African nations, and putting their own immigrant populations at intentional racial advantages within those African countries.
This is not to say that the Communist Bandits give a shit about Chinese people, they've been happy to watch Chinese ethnic cleansings when it suited their overall strategic objectives. Just like any Leftist.
Doesn't sound like you've met Jews. "Goy" really just isn't used that much. "Gentile" is more likely. And the overseas Chinese do have one religion that's like that: Communism.
Why don't you try speaking for yourself, instead of declaring yourself the racial arbiter of all Chinese immigrant populations?
"goy" doesnt really get used much? oh really? i've seen it quite a lot. ( and i already told you that the ones that had problems with us tended to be muslim countries . We had no such issues with Thailand or Philippines or others) And i can speak for chinese immigrant populations more than you can speak for us. You want to defend the tribe speak for yourself don't use us .
Also wow who invented communism and I do not like CCP yet them promoting their own interests isn't quite the same as what the tribe likes to do which is installing self hatred in the locals and constantly telling them they are racist against others and can never care for their own or own culture , pushing immigration and pitting other minorities against them. . .
Stop reading white nationalist cry-posts and you'll see it significantly less.
No, you can't. You are not a representative of anything but yourself, assuming you're not just a liar and a troll. I wouldn't be surprised if you were an idiot white nationalist desperately hoping that I would take a non-white person's claim to identitarianism more seriously than his. (Hint: I don't)
I don't have to speak for them either, and I'm not. I'm simply telling you what is. I don't care that you don't like it.
I don't have to defend Jews. The Jews did nothing wrong. There's no need to defend doing obviously sensible shit.
White people.
I don't care. What did I just say? You don't speak for Overseas Chinese people. Your opinion about the CCP is not a reflection of Chinese people. You are not the arbiter of your race. You may come down from your high horse at any time.
Once again, you're pointing out your own ignorance. I told you, the Communists are doing literally everything you're complaining about, and they're doing it in Africa at this moment. Hell, there's a good chance they're pushing it in America at this very moment. I don't care that you don't like it and would rather blame the Jews because you think it makes Chinese people look bad. It doesn't. You're just an idiot conflating the Communists with people.