To the dismay of some of supporters and to the misplaced enthusiasm of some disillusioned Trump voters, Bernie made some waves again by reiterating his opposition to open borders. It’s no secret around here that support for “open borders” is only a recent phenomenon on the left (especially in socialist and communist circles.) Bernie has made arguments against mass immigration before(interestingly this article no longer appears on the BernieSanders.com website, though that may or may not mean anything and could just be the result of a design change.)
Anyhow, don’t panic everyone, rest assured! Bernie for all practical purposes, supports open borders. At the most recent event, the questioner let him off too easily. Next question should have been, “Okay there are hundreds of thousands of people trying to get into the United States. People are complaining about them being detained. If 100,000 people from Honduras and Ecuador were to arrive at the US border tomorrow, how many would you turn back?” My guess is he would not send very many back at all, because to do so would require levels of brutality his supporters would not be comfortable with. Bernie would not risk the bad publicity that comes with pictures of poor tender tots crying on tv. “Oh no, look at the poor kiddies! We must take them in!”
He says he’s not for “open borders,” he’s for “comprehensive immigration reform.” “Comprehensive immigration reform” is basically just a euphemism for amnesty and allowing mass immigration from the third world, even if technically the border will not be absolutely, 100% “open.” Bernie knows that open borders is an unpopular term, which is why he resists embracing it, even if we all know he’s not going to be rounding up and deporting illegals by the millions, which is what having a genuinely secure non-open border would actually entail, at least until people got the message and stopped coming in droves.
“I’m against open borders, but I wouldn’t detain people or deport families who came here illegally for a better life,” (not an actual quote) is basically Bernie’s position in practice. It amounts to a distinction without a difference.
I wish these politicians would just be honest and say that no one has the balls to restrict immigration in any meaningful way. The demographics have already changed to a degree where significant immigration restriction is no longer possible electorally. The replacement has for the most part, already happened. “America” is nothing but a post-national land mass at this point. We just need to adapt and find creative ways navigate the dystopia until some opportunity for escape or partition presents itself.
“The fruits of neo-imperialism may just be neo-isolationism,” Pat Buchanan once facetiously suggested in a 2003 column titled “Are Bush and Rumsfeld Closet Populists?” The crux of his argument was that the Bush administration’s neoconservative foreign policy and defiant embrace of global military interventionism was so at odds with the rest of the world that it might result in the United States being alienated from the international community altogether and forced to reluctantly adopt the kind of isolationist nationalism Buchanan prefers.
The neocons have been mostly discredited and rejected by the American people since then, yet their ideology and its zealots have wormed their way so deep into the US political and media establishment, that neoconservative influence on US foreign policy remains dominant to this day. What brought Buchanan’s obscure column to mind though is the latest ideological craze, “democratic socialism.” It’s been on the rise for quite a while now, as evident by Bernie Sanders’ near win in the 2016 presidential primary. The ascent has continued with the growing popularity of podcasts like Chapo Trap House, as well as the media’s recent gush fest over political newcomers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and (former Sex and the City actress) Cynthia Nixon. The problem with democratic socialism (in the form it’s currently being presented by enthusiasts,) is that the solutions it purports to offer can’t withstand the weight of their own contradictions. Trying to be too many things to too many people in ways which inherently conflict, may put you on the fast track for electoral success and generate a lot of fawning media coverage, but then what? Where will the people that didn’t read the fine print turn when the built-in failure mechanisms are discovered during the activation process?
How can you have a federal job guarantee *and* support practically unlimited immigration from impoverished countries? And what good does it do to implement strict emission controls if you’re going to import so many people that the result will be a net increase in pollution anyway? In contemplating questions like this, one might begin to wonder (but not really) if these DSA types are “closet neoreactionaries,” in the sense that they advocate for “socialist” policies only within contexts which would guarantee said policies’ ineffectiveness (thus subsequently driving people to reluctantly embrace neo-monarchic, corporate fiefdoms.) “Free health care and college education!” but it’s going to be available to every one of the billions of humans on the planet that can manage to simply show up here in our “borderless,” undefined country that exists in name only. Oh, and we’re not allowed to significantly limit immigration from the third world in any substantial way. No physical borders, border patrol, or substantively sovereign nation states, but presumably there will be a distinguishable collective people whom we’re assured these programs are supposed to viably and sustainably benefit.
Today’s social democracy falls apart on the contradiction between advocating nearly unlimited government largess and nearly unlimited immigration. “Abolish ICE” is a proper rallying cry for hard-core libertarians and Davos globalists, not democratic socialists or social democrats. A federal job guarantee is an intriguing idea — assuming the jobs are for some defined “us” that doesn’t include every immigrant, asylum-seeker or undocumented worker.
Trump gets this, as does the far right in Europe, which is why they attract such powerful working-class support. Want to preserve the welfare state? Build a wall — or, in Europe’s case, reinstate border controls. Want more immigrants and amnesty? Lower the minimum wage and abolish the closed shop.
But please choose. It’s one or the other.
“Socialist” ideologies which aim for the dissolution of borders and the elimination of national sovereignty in actuality weaken the federal government’s ability to administer social programs effectively. If there is no authority to differentiate between who is or isn’t a citizen (of where?) and no tangible separation of territory, just whom or what exactly is the federal government presiding over? Is it simply “residents?” One can already envision the financial insolvency and administrative nightmare of this kind of “international airport socialism,” where going to the hospital is like making a trip to a crowded, third world DMV. Such a system would be impossible to manage efficiently, due to the intrinsic lack of organization and ill-defined parameters, rendering a theoretically empowered federal government hapless and functionally impotent. Very few aspiring employees can take advantage of a $15 minimum wage if you cram so many people into a city that there are not enough jobs to go around, and the accompanying demand for housing becomes so high that skyrocketing real estate prices negate any benefits for those lucky enough to land a “living” minimum wage job. Socialists and social democrats like Bernie Sanders used to be fully aware of all this, but they are so averse to being perceived as xenophobic or anti-immigrant, that their stated positions on these issues include a lot of muddled, self-contradictory language and conflicting statements…ultimately revealing themselves to be the product of doublethink.
In such a scenario, multinational corporations become strengthened, because people will feel they have no other alternative but to sign their lives away to Yelp or Amazon or some other corporate cult, which will present as comparably functional institutions. In exchange for being granted the closest thing to stability available, they’ll be inclined to just accept shitty, high deductible health plans that can change on a whim, conditional company housing, and draconian “code of conduct” rules which dictate what employees can do, wear and say on their own time, etc.
That’s the political choice we’re essentially being presented with: overpopulated, third world international airport socialism vs. multinational corporate feudalism. It is probably already too late for any other alternatives you might have in mind. It certainly seems too late for any kind of populist nationalism or to limit mass immigration in any meaningful way at the national level, though I guess pan secessionism and balkanization are distant possibilities (perhaps even inevitabilities.)
Are “democratic socialists” closet neoreactionaries? No, of course not. Are they the useful idiots of neoreaction? That sounds a bit too harsh. One could just as easily argue that many big companies are so greedy that they are actually helping to facilitate the rise of democratic socialism. The way most multinational corporations shamelessly manipulate and exploit their employees, while simultaneously displaying outright contempt for consumers…they certainly aren’t doing themselves any PR favors. Multinational corporations are portable though, and since they have no allegiance to any particular place or country, they are highly adaptable and can remain as elusive as the Black Fortress in Krull.
Ultimately, I think democratic socialists simply represent one half in the next phase of Americans having to hold their noses and choose between systems that don’t represent their interests and which promise things they can’t deliver.
I had a couple of articles I had about 3/4 finished, but haven’t posted them yet due to events in the news and just generally being busy with other things. I was a guest and co-host on The Stark Truth podcast with Robert Stark for 3 upcoming episodes and will post links to the shows here once they air. They will most likely be up sometime over the next few weeks.
Meanwhile, here are some thoughts on Sanders’ recent statements as well as some overall related observations:
Sanders’ continuous stream of anti-white comments such as those he made at the debate make him unsupportable to any self respecting white person. He appears to have gone all in with the “black lives matter” and the social justice crowd and completely abandoned the white working class demographic. His young ethnomasochist supporters are too naive to realize pandering doesn’t work and that the people their sacrificing their interests for are simply exploiting their altruism to advance their own tribal interests(whether conscious of it or not.)
I support many of Bernie’s economic policies, but any potential benefits are of course cancelled out by his social justice/anti-white commitment. For example, I agree with the $15 minimum wage increase he proposes as a means of countering manipulative corporations and cheap assholes, but you can’t have a $15 minimum wage *and* invite millions of people here from the 3rd world. It’s financially unsustainable. This is the same with free college education. It’s a great idea and works in other countries, but you can’t have government sponsored college *and* take in massive amounts of refugees and other third world migrants. Such noble collective endeavors require a delicate balance to ensure they remain fiscally feasible and everyone is on the same page in terms of their investment in the society. Such programs require high trust, low time preference populations to remain successful. People like Sanders are well intentioned but lack the will to make the difficult choices. They are too afraid of being called racist, heartless, nationalist etc to take the necessary steps to confront politically incorrect obstacles to the success of their own programs.
Of course, I’m not strictly talking about race/immigration. Bernie would no doubt institute environmental reforms in the US, but would he forbid the US from importing goods from countries which have(comparatively) little to no pollution or hazard controls, such as China, India or Mexico? What good is it to tell our companies they can’t pollute, so we can feel good about ourselves here, while at the same time we gladly take in products from countries that don’t care about the environment? It’s hypocritical. Bernie’s positions on trade with China are good, and he seems to understand this. He is also though one of those people that believes the US should be subservient to the “international community,” the will of the United Nations etc. This leads me to believe that as a leader he would be weak in asserting our national interests when faced with opposition from so-called “oppressed” third world nations. If he can’t say no to amnesty for millions of illegal aliens or to the untold number of people around the world who want to flood the US,(even though they will render his domestic programs insolvent and unsustainable) it’s hard to see him putting his foot down on the world stage. Sure, he’s voted against dubious trade deals while in congress and as a senator, but that’s not the same thing as having to face actual foreign leaders and being willing to accept the wrath of cutting them off. Being the bearer of bad news just doesn’t fit with Bernie’s temperament, but I may be wrong on this issue.
The bottom line for me though is that as a white person, Sanders’ “net anti-white” vision for America would permanently transform it in ways I find undesirable.
From Sanders’ campaign website:
Bernie firmly rejects the idea that America’s standard of living must drop in order to see a raise in the standard of living in China.
This illustrates exactly how I feel about concepts like “white privilege.” I’m not willing to allow the country/state/city/neighborhood I live in to be downgraded so that someone else can upgrade from whatever third world shithole they came from. I reject the idea that I have to forfeit or handicap my own prospects to improve someone else’s and that we must give away what our ancestors sacrificed for and bequeathed to us for people who openly express hatred for us. Many of these advantages are likely a result of genetics anyway. I have no guilt and owe these people nothing. As a biological organism, self preservation instincts(for those of us who still embrace them) trump your feels. I imagine this is how corporations feel about minimum wage laws and wealth redistribution, but it seems to me that community and national interest may conflict with personal economic interests from time to time, and the state must intervene occasionally if nation states themselves are to survive as distinct entities. Everyone hates heavy handed HOAs too, but “anything goes” neighborhoods tend to look like shit. I do believe that collectively humans can build a superior functioning society than a strictly individualist / libertarian one, which lacks any cohesive vision or aesthetic consciousness. Yet when someone starts talking about “checking your privilege” or turning the country over to low IQ people with poor future time orientation, I intuitively get the feeling I’m being scammed. Looking at Oakland, Camden, Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. it’s unclear why I should support policies that inevitably lead to more majority nonwhite cities.
We know how that story ends, not with universal humanism but with reduced social capital and increased violence toward whatever whites are too poor, naive or stoic to escape the consequences of some shielded politician’s virtue signaling.
One of the more absurd developments in what’s shaping up to be a legit shitshow of an election, was Anil Dash’s recent insinuation that Bernie Sanders supporters are “MRAs, PUAs and neoreactionaries.”
One can imagine the exasperated look on Nick Land’s face after years of trying to purge so called ethnonationalists and pop fascists from the neoreactionary label for being “too left wing” and populist, only to see the brand associated with a bona fide, real life democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders, complete with all the progressive bells and whistles. Neoreaction is largely a hyper capitalist, techno commercialist thought enclave, not exactly the kind of treefort clubhouse in Never Never land you’d see Bernie Bros conducting their weekly “No Ma’am” meeting in. In Anil’s case, he most likely just fell for some meta-trolling by a few shitlords that decided to commandeer the #BernieBros hashtag for a hot minute.
However, legendary feminist icon and one-time HB8 Gloria Steinem was particularly insulting when she accused young women of supporting Bernie Sanders simply as a way to meet guys.
“When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’ ” Ms. Steinem said.
(source: NY Times)
Most passionate Bernie supporters I know are young women and are quite sincere about it. They’re the pure of heart. Many of these women are intelligent and beautiful, and I would not be surprised if they were actually attracting men to the movement rather than the other way around(I admit I myself have felt the temptation.) Absent any real evidence or data though, let’s just assume everyone is genuine.
The BernieBro slur calling Bernie supporters “misogynists” and MRAs simply for not supporting Hillary is both ludicrous and misinformed. Everyone knows that the people who support Sanders are the most committed feminists and the furthest left on every issue. It’s a stretch for people to say that voting for Bernie is somehow anti-feminist or misogynist. His ideology doesn’t even begin to approach anything in the realm of Roosh V or Mayor of MGTOWN territory. If anything he has even more credibility on these issues. While Hillary It’s like they’re trying to distract from the obvious, that people have plenty of good reasons to not support Hillary:
1. She has consistently supported interventionist foreign policy, from the war in Bosnia to the war in Iraq to more recent incursions in Libya and elsewhere while she was Secretary of State.
2. Hillary served on the board of Walmart from 1986-1992 and has always been active in promoting the interests of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs. She has no credibility on issues related to populism. Anti-globalists and environmentally conscious whites think Walmart is a greedy corporation where fat fucks go to buy cheap junk made by proto-slaves in third world sweatshops. Walmart is a place we rarely go to and feel gross and ashamed about at those times when we do end up there. Hillary likes Walmart.
3. The best Hillary can claim on women’s issues is that she’s pro choice, but so what? So is almost everyone. She remained for all these years an apologist for her husband’s infidelities and misogyny. Worse than that she attacked all of his female accusers and stayed with him even when Bill admitted to some of the transgressions. Perhaps standing by your man isn’t a bad thing, and as a guy I can confirm most of us are pretty sleazy…including me. Yet from the perspective of young feminists today, who are typically inclined to believe any accusation made by a female that involves sexual wrongdoing, Hillary comes off as indifferent at best and hypocritical at worst.
4. When it comes down to it, Hillary is no different than a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. They all have the same donors, from the same system and can only be distinguished by subtle variations in tone and rhetoric. In terms of what an actual presidency would look like, there is very little to differentiate any of them and they are all pretty much interchangeable.
Bernie supporters(both bros and hoes) have chosen him, because his views are more representative of theirs than Hillary’s. Sanders draws support precisely because he authentically holds these views and has a record of fighting for the progressive ideas that Hillary merely pays lip service to. It’s just as simple as that.