The support Hendrix is receiving is an unfortunate, but necessary corrective to years of relentless persecution and vindictiveness by both the Black community and the Left over racialized incidents.
Based on my experience of living in a majority Hispanic / minority white city (Tucson, AZ) and in a majority white / minority black rural area (NW Alabama), it seems that both scenarios work pretty well. What doesn't seem to work are majority black / minority white places I've lived (New Orleans, Birmingham, AL).
My home county in rural Alabama has 16,000 people and is 85% white, 14% black. Everyone mostly gets along, racial tensions are low, and the social problems endemic in the black community elsewhere are largely limited because of a lack of critical mass to (if you will) 'catalyze' serious problems. We have a lot of low-level crime, and illegal drug use (mostly Marijuana & alcohol) is high in our small black population, but is matched by high rates in our lower socioeconomic white population.
But this is still (to use Aaron Renn's formula) a 'positive' trending toward 'neutral' world society. The influence of Christianity is still ubiquitous. Schools actively observe Christian holidays, people still aspire to religious virtue, etc.
In fact, among Millennials and Gen Z, we're seeing an increase in mixed-race relationships and childbearing. It's common to see light-skinned children with white mothers and grandparents. (Of course, the marriage rates are tanking in the lower socioeconomic categories.)
I guess my point is to underscore yours: wherever there is a clear white or Hispanic majority with culturally dominant mores, things go fairly well. Go 40 miles south of us to another rural county in the blackbelt that is majority black, and things are very different.
(Sorry for being a little disjointed; I'm typing on my phone in dribs & drabs while doing other things.)
If you're correct, there will come a time when whites and blacks will refuse to interact with each other. From a sitrep perspective, do you see that transition as fast or slow? Do we wake up one day and suddenly we're shooting other races on sight?
This is where I think the Bosnia or Lebanon comparison breaks down, since those were religious as much as racial wars, but there are plenty of blacks who actively refuse antisocial black culture. Separation from whites would entail a huge fall in economic and social standing -- blacks will be hardest on the returning "oreos". However, I have a hard time seeing whites willing to turn on them en-masse and "vote them off the island". How do you see that playing out? Or are the postmodernists correct that "whiteness" is about more than skin color, so suburban blacks and whites might manage to align together (a class alliance within an underlying racial conflict)?
Which begs the question about other minorities. The Latinos are obviously the largest of these. My family having lived in Mexico, I can not see Latinos aligning with blacks. But would whites accept them? Or do they remain a separate group fighting for their own spoils?
Or is my imagination just too poor to realize how narrow race wars can really become?
Well, everything's fine until, one day, it's not. That's the real lesson I take from history. If Whites and Blacks do end up refusing to interact with each other, that may actually be the best possible solution. But again, that assumes a mutual respect of sorts. Blacks simply don't respect Whites enough for them to just stay out of each other's way. As Whites continue to to not push back against Blacks in any meaningful way, Blacks will never show them that respect, a respect that comes only from a war. Ironically, you have to show the other side that you're willing to wipe them out for them to treat you as equals. It explains why Blacks and Hispanics seem to stay out of each other's ways.
I've never liked the Bosnia and Lebanon comparisons, either. I've been critical of those who made such comparisons in the past. Where they're useful is that everyone got along fine in both Bosnia and Lebanon before the war. At the same time, there were very clearly tensions among the different groups. Gad Saad talks about how Jew hatred escalated in the time leading up to the Lebanon Civil War, even as everyone continued living in peace. Racial tensions are always quite high in America, but I think the fact that Whites are becoming a bit more "assertive" is a sign something ugly comes this way.
I think the two main sides in the coming split will be between Americans and the Multiracial Democracy. The former will be predominantly White, but not entirely, and the latter will basically reflect Hollywood's version of America's demographics. I think Whites will actually be split, Blacks will of course be with the Multiracial Democracy. In the interest of defeating Americans, Blacks will make common cause with Multiracial Democratic Whites. The question, of course, is what happens afterwards if they win. Blacks will undoubtedly turn their ire against the Whites they fought alongside, because they play second fiddle to nobody.
I've never been entirely clear how racial vs classist vs urban/rural you this this playing out. It sounds like you see a mostly classist division (by education, which is our modern class divide) that will overlap with our rural/urban split but still have some racial elements. Thanks.
It's going to be interesting to see how it breaks down. I often make the point that I think many of us are going to be surprised at which side everyone ends up landing on. Robert E. Lee was a Unionist, it's often forgotten, until the shooting started.
This is ultimately an ideological conflict. Those who still believe in Multiracial Democracy despite its obvious failure will make up one side, regardless of class and race. There will obviously be correlation in terms of class and race, but class and race won't be the defining factors. The only group that will be explicitly tribal are Blacks, but ironically, they're also quite opposed to multiracial democracy, because their politics are quite actually far-right ethno-nationalist. Some people made the argument that Hamas is actually a right-wing party, and it's not entirely wrong to say so.
Carl Von Clausewitz wrote in On War: "wars do not start when one people are attacked by another; wars begin when the attacked fight back."
You end by saying that America has been in an undeclared war for sometime (you could include the West generally) and you're right in so far as ignoring Von Clausewitz's distinction. It's been a one sided engagement thus far, but Hendrix exemplifies the change of now the attacked are fighting back. The result is the war is now beginning. The time is fast approaching when violence becomes less the monopoly of the left (BLM, ANTIFA, Pro-Palestine ) and violence is met with violence.
But lets also consider one thing in America's favor: according the Dr. Metz (the civil war expert) Trump has averted the tensions by acting as a "pressure release valve". If that true then maybe Hendrix's actions will also be a pressure release valve too. Where whites learn to no longer take the bullying passively.
Sadly, I doubt this is the end of cancel culture, it’s likely an evolution of it. Perhaps in the future, the SJW group chats will sit on “damning evidence” videos, tweets etc for longer in order to construct a “cancel narrative,” then ambush someone when they’re vulnerable. The bar for accomplishing a cancellation might be harder and they might have to be pickier with their targets. At the same time, the most common victims of cancel culture were more moderate liberals/progressives who made the mistake of taking SJWs /wokes in good faith, and also not truly understanding the narrative, and thus why their random comment or action triggered massive outrage. Still, I think it’s gonna be less possible to hair trigger murder someone over one bad tweet or whatever. The actual left, even the SJW left knows this does more self harm than good and have put some effort into reforming themselves to be less self destructive.
Tbh, while I agree with your overall post, I think for many, the Shiloh Hendrix incident was less racial and more just fatigue with canceling, and sympathy for a single mom who had insane things done to her over a word. For people like us, n-words aren’t even on the table for discussion in this, the only relevant part of the story was the doxxing, harassment, targeting employment, leaking social security numbers and posting her photos on escort sites. Absolutely NONE of this was justifiable over a word, it just wasn’t. Especially not to an obviously working class single mother. “Fighting racism” is just a false justification for digital sadism that totally absolves the sadist of any personal risk. I would say this if it was happening to a black person too, and I largely agree with you that racial tribalism is irreconcilable.
I'm in agreement and I think I might've said the same in the past. War is an act of mutual violence, which is also why the real war is yet to come.
I also hope that Hendrix acts as a pressure relief valve, that it reminds the Black community and the Left that Whites and the Right aren't just going to sit there and be punching bags. However, they'll eventually adjust to the new reality and instead of de-escalating, they may take what people like Hendrix did as a challenge and up the ante even more.
When people get used to having power, letting go of it is near impossible. I agree with you that it will ultimately escalate. All it takes is a few violent individuals on both sides to light the kindling.
An argument I've made constantly on this blog is that Whites were the one group that voluntarily let go of their power. It didn't happen overnight, but they did it without putting up much of a fight.
Blacks are now in that position and they're not going to give it up without a fight. Granted, they lack the power of majority, but as a minority, for them to have the power of a majority doesn't make any sense.
Dumb people are the problem
Lol, you're a cuck. And a race traitor if you're not just Fucking Jewish.
Nigger.
Based on my experience of living in a majority Hispanic / minority white city (Tucson, AZ) and in a majority white / minority black rural area (NW Alabama), it seems that both scenarios work pretty well. What doesn't seem to work are majority black / minority white places I've lived (New Orleans, Birmingham, AL).
My home county in rural Alabama has 16,000 people and is 85% white, 14% black. Everyone mostly gets along, racial tensions are low, and the social problems endemic in the black community elsewhere are largely limited because of a lack of critical mass to (if you will) 'catalyze' serious problems. We have a lot of low-level crime, and illegal drug use (mostly Marijuana & alcohol) is high in our small black population, but is matched by high rates in our lower socioeconomic white population.
But this is still (to use Aaron Renn's formula) a 'positive' trending toward 'neutral' world society. The influence of Christianity is still ubiquitous. Schools actively observe Christian holidays, people still aspire to religious virtue, etc.
In fact, among Millennials and Gen Z, we're seeing an increase in mixed-race relationships and childbearing. It's common to see light-skinned children with white mothers and grandparents. (Of course, the marriage rates are tanking in the lower socioeconomic categories.)
I guess my point is to underscore yours: wherever there is a clear white or Hispanic majority with culturally dominant mores, things go fairly well. Go 40 miles south of us to another rural county in the blackbelt that is majority black, and things are very different.
(Sorry for being a little disjointed; I'm typing on my phone in dribs & drabs while doing other things.)
If you're correct, there will come a time when whites and blacks will refuse to interact with each other. From a sitrep perspective, do you see that transition as fast or slow? Do we wake up one day and suddenly we're shooting other races on sight?
This is where I think the Bosnia or Lebanon comparison breaks down, since those were religious as much as racial wars, but there are plenty of blacks who actively refuse antisocial black culture. Separation from whites would entail a huge fall in economic and social standing -- blacks will be hardest on the returning "oreos". However, I have a hard time seeing whites willing to turn on them en-masse and "vote them off the island". How do you see that playing out? Or are the postmodernists correct that "whiteness" is about more than skin color, so suburban blacks and whites might manage to align together (a class alliance within an underlying racial conflict)?
Which begs the question about other minorities. The Latinos are obviously the largest of these. My family having lived in Mexico, I can not see Latinos aligning with blacks. But would whites accept them? Or do they remain a separate group fighting for their own spoils?
Or is my imagination just too poor to realize how narrow race wars can really become?
Well, everything's fine until, one day, it's not. That's the real lesson I take from history. If Whites and Blacks do end up refusing to interact with each other, that may actually be the best possible solution. But again, that assumes a mutual respect of sorts. Blacks simply don't respect Whites enough for them to just stay out of each other's way. As Whites continue to to not push back against Blacks in any meaningful way, Blacks will never show them that respect, a respect that comes only from a war. Ironically, you have to show the other side that you're willing to wipe them out for them to treat you as equals. It explains why Blacks and Hispanics seem to stay out of each other's ways.
I've never liked the Bosnia and Lebanon comparisons, either. I've been critical of those who made such comparisons in the past. Where they're useful is that everyone got along fine in both Bosnia and Lebanon before the war. At the same time, there were very clearly tensions among the different groups. Gad Saad talks about how Jew hatred escalated in the time leading up to the Lebanon Civil War, even as everyone continued living in peace. Racial tensions are always quite high in America, but I think the fact that Whites are becoming a bit more "assertive" is a sign something ugly comes this way.
I think the two main sides in the coming split will be between Americans and the Multiracial Democracy. The former will be predominantly White, but not entirely, and the latter will basically reflect Hollywood's version of America's demographics. I think Whites will actually be split, Blacks will of course be with the Multiracial Democracy. In the interest of defeating Americans, Blacks will make common cause with Multiracial Democratic Whites. The question, of course, is what happens afterwards if they win. Blacks will undoubtedly turn their ire against the Whites they fought alongside, because they play second fiddle to nobody.
I've never been entirely clear how racial vs classist vs urban/rural you this this playing out. It sounds like you see a mostly classist division (by education, which is our modern class divide) that will overlap with our rural/urban split but still have some racial elements. Thanks.
It's going to be interesting to see how it breaks down. I often make the point that I think many of us are going to be surprised at which side everyone ends up landing on. Robert E. Lee was a Unionist, it's often forgotten, until the shooting started.
This is ultimately an ideological conflict. Those who still believe in Multiracial Democracy despite its obvious failure will make up one side, regardless of class and race. There will obviously be correlation in terms of class and race, but class and race won't be the defining factors. The only group that will be explicitly tribal are Blacks, but ironically, they're also quite opposed to multiracial democracy, because their politics are quite actually far-right ethno-nationalist. Some people made the argument that Hamas is actually a right-wing party, and it's not entirely wrong to say so.
Carl Von Clausewitz wrote in On War: "wars do not start when one people are attacked by another; wars begin when the attacked fight back."
You end by saying that America has been in an undeclared war for sometime (you could include the West generally) and you're right in so far as ignoring Von Clausewitz's distinction. It's been a one sided engagement thus far, but Hendrix exemplifies the change of now the attacked are fighting back. The result is the war is now beginning. The time is fast approaching when violence becomes less the monopoly of the left (BLM, ANTIFA, Pro-Palestine ) and violence is met with violence.
But lets also consider one thing in America's favor: according the Dr. Metz (the civil war expert) Trump has averted the tensions by acting as a "pressure release valve". If that true then maybe Hendrix's actions will also be a pressure release valve too. Where whites learn to no longer take the bullying passively.
Sadly, I doubt this is the end of cancel culture, it’s likely an evolution of it. Perhaps in the future, the SJW group chats will sit on “damning evidence” videos, tweets etc for longer in order to construct a “cancel narrative,” then ambush someone when they’re vulnerable. The bar for accomplishing a cancellation might be harder and they might have to be pickier with their targets. At the same time, the most common victims of cancel culture were more moderate liberals/progressives who made the mistake of taking SJWs /wokes in good faith, and also not truly understanding the narrative, and thus why their random comment or action triggered massive outrage. Still, I think it’s gonna be less possible to hair trigger murder someone over one bad tweet or whatever. The actual left, even the SJW left knows this does more self harm than good and have put some effort into reforming themselves to be less self destructive.
Tbh, while I agree with your overall post, I think for many, the Shiloh Hendrix incident was less racial and more just fatigue with canceling, and sympathy for a single mom who had insane things done to her over a word. For people like us, n-words aren’t even on the table for discussion in this, the only relevant part of the story was the doxxing, harassment, targeting employment, leaking social security numbers and posting her photos on escort sites. Absolutely NONE of this was justifiable over a word, it just wasn’t. Especially not to an obviously working class single mother. “Fighting racism” is just a false justification for digital sadism that totally absolves the sadist of any personal risk. I would say this if it was happening to a black person too, and I largely agree with you that racial tribalism is irreconcilable.
That statue put up in Times Square was actually an insult to all, and designed to cause trouble. From a white libretarded “artiste”.
I'm in agreement and I think I might've said the same in the past. War is an act of mutual violence, which is also why the real war is yet to come.
I also hope that Hendrix acts as a pressure relief valve, that it reminds the Black community and the Left that Whites and the Right aren't just going to sit there and be punching bags. However, they'll eventually adjust to the new reality and instead of de-escalating, they may take what people like Hendrix did as a challenge and up the ante even more.
When people get used to having power, letting go of it is near impossible. I agree with you that it will ultimately escalate. All it takes is a few violent individuals on both sides to light the kindling.
An argument I've made constantly on this blog is that Whites were the one group that voluntarily let go of their power. It didn't happen overnight, but they did it without putting up much of a fight.
Blacks are now in that position and they're not going to give it up without a fight. Granted, they lack the power of majority, but as a minority, for them to have the power of a majority doesn't make any sense.