Identity Stalinism, by Steve Sailer.
The roar of racist rage from the great and good directed at an innocent Kentucky boy is all about implementing the Democrats’ grand strategy, which is to assemble a coalition of the margins of American society: immigrants, welfare mothers, tech billionaires, transgenders, hedge-fund guys, black church ladies, gays, Jews, the unmarried, movie stars, felons, and so forth and so on.
In contrast, the more similar you are to a Minuteman of 1776, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP appeals to Core Americans, the Democrats to Fringe Americans.
Mass immigration offers the Democrats good reason to hope to overwhelm their foes in the long run.
But merely listing the Democrats’ constituent interest groups points out the main problem with their master plan: Their various fringes can’t stand one another. …
The progressive stack is purposefully kept vague, other than that white Christian males are at rock bottom. …
As these examples from the weekend suggest, the only way the Democratic Party can hold together is by constantly ginning up excuses for Fringe Americans to hate Core Americans even more than they hate each other.
Because the Democrats’ fundamental problem is all the hate roiling their own constituents, they project onto Republicans their own tendency toward hatred. …
This political logic generates much hate hypochondria in the media. For example, countless trained journalists watched a brief video of the American Indian leftist trying (and failing) to provoke the poor kid and immediately concluded that the reason they felt so much hatred toward the white youth is because he was the hater. …
The Democrats’ fundamental problem is that white people, on the whole, just aren’t hate-filled enough for their strategy to wholly succeed. For example, earlier in January, The New York Times was in a lather about how a Great White Defendant in Texas had purportedly gunned down a beautiful black child. But when the cops arrested two black criminals, the embarrassing incident was quickly memory-holed. …
Under the current dispensation, the white boy’s manly impassivity under assault just proved he was the bad guy. As Orwell wrote in 1984:
“…to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime….”
A commenter at Steve Sailer’s:
How can we, as a nation (of immigrants), allow children to wait at bus stops with smirks on their privileged faces? Is this who we are? Shouldn’t we be punching those faces? Isn’t that the moral thing to do? I’ve used question marks, but can any of these facts really be questioned?
We will not have equality in this country until all smug, smirking faces at all bus stops are getting punched.
