Our society has managed to simultaneously discover identity politics and that identity groups tend to vote together:
“We’re just like you! Make society friendlier to us!”
“Okay, but why do you all vote for the party I don’t like?”
Even when you control for ideology, ethnic voting still shows up. This graph shows only conservatives–conservative blacks are still extremely unlikely to vote for Republicans. Conservative Asians and Hispanics actually do vote Republican on balance (in this particular poll), but about 40% of them still voted for the Democrat.
Non-Jewish whites are the most loyal conservative voters, even among self-professed conservatives.
The problem with immigration is that we live in a democracy.
Republicans now regard immigration as a massive attempt to demographically swamp the electorate by bringing in new voters who’ll vote Democrat because this is the functional result of immigration. Whether intentional or not, that is absolutely what it does.
Identity politics and awareness of identity-based voting are incompatible. “We’re just like you, we just vote for everything you hate,” is not a winning argument.
I’m reminded of the time Julian Assange naively asked why his enemies had all taken to putting ((())) around their names and got called an anti-Semite in return:
Polite society often requires politely not noticing or not pointing out other people’s differences. A store clerk helps an customer find a “flattering dress” without mentioning the customer’s obesity. A teacher helps students catch up in school without calling them stupid. And we don’t mention that different ethnic groups have different political ideas.
“They’re just like us,” and “I don’t see race,” are both lies people tell to try to get along in large, multi-ethnic societies. Obviously ethnic and racial differences are easy to see, and different groups have different cultures with their own norms, values, and beliefs. Chinese culture is different from Ghanian culture is different from Chilean culture is different from gay culture is different from video game culture, and so on.
The pretty little lie of democracy is the idea that people vote based on rational, well-thought out ideas about how government should be run. In reality, they vote their self-interest, and most people see their self-interest lying in solidarity with others in their ethnic group. Even when they aren’t voting pure self-interest, cultural similarities still result in voting similarities.
The insistence that people must see race was accompanied by increased demands for racially-based benefits/an end to racially-based harms–that is, the change was triggered by a perception that being more racially aware would benefit minorities. But this leads, in turn, to increased visibility of ethnic voting patterns, explicit vote-counting by ethnicity, and ethnic voting conflict.
I see three ways to resolve the conflict:
- Obfuscate. Pretend ethnic differences don’t exist and scream “racist” whenever someone notices them.
- Admit that ethnic differences are real and that everyone is voting in their own self-interest.
- Admit that ethnic differences are real and get rid of voting.
Option One is the Left’s strategy. These are the folks who insist that “race is a social construct” but at the same time that “white fragility” is real and that “whiteness needs to be abolished.” They’ll also threaten to send you to gulag for stating that Affirmative Action exists because blacks score worse than whites on the SAT. (True story.)
Option Two is the Alt-Right strategy. If the Pittsburgh shooter’s motive remains opaque to you, here it is: the majority of US Jews vote Democrat and support immigration policies that will continue giving Democrats a majority.
Option Three is NeoReaction aka neocameralism. Remove voting and you remove the incentive to shoot each other over demographic cheating (perceived or not.)
(This blog favors Option Three, the strategy that doesn’t involve shooting each other, but we understand why others might not.)
ETA: Perhaps there ought to be an Option Four: People stop arguing so much and try harder to get along. I’m not sure exactly how this would come about, but I know there are people who believe in it.
evolutionistx 
More then that, the various White ethnic groups vote differently.
LikeLike
This is true. It’s groups all the way down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ps, I don’t see why I should forego my forefathers patrimony because non Whites, jews and yankees are fucking up the ideals of a constitutional republic, limited government, maxim individual sovereignty etc etc
Let them fuckers go create their own nation out of some wilderness
LikeLike
Why? Because your forefathers ceded power to non whites, Jews, and Yankees. “Should” doesn’t enter into power relations. They simply are. You might as well complain about how they — we — genocided the Indians. Well, yeah, they/we did (more or less). So… what? The Indians have largely stayed dead, and those alive have stayed relatively powerless compared to them/us. I guess maybe in the future the progs will give your hapless descendants a casino.
LikeLike
My fore fathers were conquered by yankees and non Whites after a fairly horrfic war. I have no illusions. The land of my people is occupied by a frogein and hostile invader
But as things get worse you will see more shootings like in Pittsburgh and Trump was a vote on some sort of pan ethnic White collation. Even if most of his supporters don’t understand that.
The game ain’t over yet and my decdants will have options my generation did not
LikeLike
I think it’s worse that you make it out, EvX. People don’t even vote in their self-interest via racial blocs. They just vote their racial bloc. Self-interest seems to have precious little to do with voting.
But I agree with you on option 3. The whole idea of slicing up power into nanoslices and handing it out to completely undeserving, unprepared, uneducated, and unwise nanosovereigns is retarded.
LikeLike
” They just vote their racial bloc.”
This is true. People are dumb/short-sighted. They vote for things that I really don’t think are in their interests, often just to fuck the other side or because they’re scared or their sense of ethnic solidarity is riled up.
I think you mean “disagree” on option three.
LikeLike
I agree with you in favoring 3.
LikeLike
Smart guys always think they will end up on top in option 3 type situations. They are naive fools with 0 boots on the ground in option 3 type situations but smart folks sure do tend to favor them. They also dont generally have the social skills to do really well in such environments or understand the smart guys abo be them in situations like that have 0 problems with destroying the smarter guys who are bellow them on the food chain.
I will say this to the day I die. The two dumbest people in the room are the guy with the lowest IQ and the guy who thinks he has the highest. To much time living inside their heads and not enough time in the real world
How about option 5, peacefully splitting the current mess of a nation up a long ethnic/ cultural fault lines?
I promise you removing voting will cause the bodies to hit the floor. I doubt most folks are ready for that shit but most smart folks are dumb enough to think the fall out won’t touch them or theirs
LikeLiked by 1 person
The big flaw with option 3 is that voting acts as a check on the aristoi. No voting, no Trump. Only one Cathedral boot stomping on your face forever.
The aristocracy of the Roman Empire was checked by the propensity of the populares to burn down mansions when upset. That doesn’t work nearly as well with geographic separation or with inequal firepower.
LikeLike
In neocameralism there are “voters” — the stockholders. Of course the degree to which they are “aristocrats” is debatable; it depends on their numbers. If few, then they are aristocrats. But it is certainly possible to imagine widely distributed stock, held by a great variety of owners. For example, state stock would probably be seen as the ultimate blue chip and thus held by many of the same entities which hold blue chips in our current reality: pension funds, retirement funds, index funds. It may be that most people in a neocameralist society have a tiny bit of ownership, particular if they are forced to save in low-risk investments for retirement by the state, which seems a prudent policy.
The difference in quality between democracy — egalitarian voting by right — and corporate control — which is inegalitarian, and property — is not in the voting per se. it’s in the distribution of power over the short and long term.
In democracy, there is never incentive to educate oneself, because the marginal effect of one’s vote is always essentially zero. And thus most voting is carried out in ignorance, and essentially expressive. Thus tribal voting. So even in the short term, performance is poor.
In stockholder voting, the small shareholders have the same near-zero incentive to vote well. But (a) there are largeholders, and (b) the smallholders are not subjected to massive social pressure to have opinions, and vote them, on things they know nothing about. Also, most smallholders are probably indirect owners anyway: they own a fund which actually owns the stock. In this case, the fund managers are the actual owners, and since they pool the “votes” of millions of smallholders, they do have the incentive to vote well.
In the long term, because the vote is property, power is gradually redistributed from the uninterested and/or incompetent, to the interested and competent. The uninterested sell their stock because they don’t care about politics. The incompetent sell because they screwed up somehow and need money. Every sale of stock tends to improve the voting quality of the stockholders. Contrast democracy, in which you cannot sell your vote and so the quality of the electorate is set by its genetics and culture.
LikeLike
I am well aware of the theory of neocameralism. Who are the stakeholders? Aristocrats. Who will buy the shares? Aristocrats.
Aristocrats are not your friends. Aristocrats are the Cathedral. Why did aristocrats destroy the old order? The King is the greatest threat to the aristocracy. Neocameralism, by virtue of stockholders controlling the executive office, cannot pose a credible threat to the aristocracy.
Who staffs the banks, mans the bureaucracy, dwells in Ivory Towers, and runs the corporations? None other than the same old bluebloods, I assure you.
Smart does not mean good. All too often, smart is the enemy of the people.
Also, as SFC Ton noted, smart people often aren’t equipped to handle the forces they greedily unleash. The aristocrats of Russia rolled out the red carpet for the reds. How little they knew…
Fie on stock voting schemes. Just make an honest burgher like SFC Ton king and hope he leaves everyone in peace. We lust for the power that destroys us.
LikeLike
Whereas I have no problem being ruled by the best, assuming they have the proper incentive to rule well. Currently they have the incentive to rule poorly. Insecure power is a dangerous thing.
LikeLike
The “best”, by which I mean a population bred for centuries for high IQ and FTO, despise you and power is by nature insecure.
If there can be any incentive to rule well, it is fear of a just king (his other qualities are less relevant) with the loyalty of the guns.
LikeLike
White supremacy was invented by the corporarchy in order to convince Whites in the 99% to vote against their own interests.
The powerful right-wingers like Donald Trump and the Koch brothers who own the Rethuglican party promote White supremacy through their monopolistic domination of the media so poor Whites will not understand that it is not Blacks, Hispanics and Muslims taking away everything they work for but the greedy billionaires they voted for who cut their own taxes. If we just seized the wealth from all of the billionaires we could feed, clothes and house everybody and nobody would have to work unless they wanted to.
LikeLike
Do all non-white countries vote to seize the wealth of greedy billionaires?
LikeLike
Ironically, if you get rid of voting, it becomes much easier to maintain a myth that we’re all in one boat and really all on the same side. And to a large extent it probably would ameliorate ethnic tensions. At least the two wolves cannot be accused of voting on what to have for supper.
Option 4: Stop arguing and try harder to get along is the really nice super-hajnal approach. It actually works, when the super-hajnals force their culture down upon subject peoples with an unwavering iron fist: “You shall be nice like us or we will make your life a living hell.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. I need to write some posts on Neocameralism. It’s time.
LikeLike