From Progressivism to Neoconservatism

In the above video, the beginning discussion about Franklin Delano Roosevelt is quite significant. He didn’t just seek to boost the economy by increasing employment and promoting consumerism. The rise of early progressivism, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt and continuing with FDR, was tied up with corporatism, militarism, imperialism, expansionism, and racism. TR was famously bigoted and xenophobic but so was FDR. Both needed to get the support of Southern racists and working class whites. Progressivism sought to make America a great nation that would compete globally, both in terms of economic success and military power. Progressivism was America first on steroids. And that America was very much a white America.

Some of those early progressives, specifically Jews in support of Israeli Zionism, started the neocon movement and switched to the GOP. They maintained the progressive vision of a powerful free society (at least, free for whites) and combined it with a cold war mentality of theocratic-slanted capitalist realism, which was used to further exacerbate the Anglo-American strain of Manifest Destiny and White Man’s Burden. This is where Ronald Reagan’s sunny optimism came from, as he always admired FDR. And that confident optimism was easily brought in line with nationalist bravado. Like progressivism, neoconservatism wasn’t isolationist but quite the opposite.

The neocons complained about government and welfare, but they pushed for big spending, military buildup, corporate subsidies, and nation building. Reagan raised taxes more than he cut them while expanding the number of federal jobs, all of which was done with a conservative majority in Congress. They wanted a new expression of progressivism by different means. At the same time, Democrats almost entirely gave up on progressivism and, in its place, took up a status quo pseudo-liberalism (often in the form of neoliberalism). This gave the neocons free reign to more fully co-opt the progressive worldview while subverting it to ever more reactionary ideology.

The Roosevelts had a genuine sense of paternalistic noblesse oblige, that is to say with great power comes great responsibility. TR, as a conservative progressive, hated the radical left-wing. Yet TR argued that socialists were right in the problems they brought up and that those problems needed to be taken care of or else the public would vote for socialists. FDR, although a liberal progressive, also wasn’t friendly toward the radical left-wing which is why he became the most union-busting president in US history, before and since. But like the trust-busting TR, neither was FDR fond of monopolistic and oligopolistic corporations.

Corporatism was promoted by FDR giving out corporate subsidies (the origin of big ag). It was intended to bring big biz into alignment with big gov, with the latter calling the shots. The goal was to place labor and business under a common cause of economic and social progress, a strategy that competed with the then popular fascist and ethno-nationalist ideology of an organized society. Fascism was a much more feared threat than communism at the time. Soft corporatism kept in check by social democracy seemed like a decent compromise, considering the alternative as seen in other countries.

The neocons later sought to reverse this progressive formula by creating inverted totalitarianism where big biz gained the upper hand over big gov, through various methods: corporate personhood, big biz media consolidation, propagandistic right-wing think tanks, astroturf front groups and fake movements, lobbyist power, indirect bribery, revolving door politics, regulatory capture, no-bid contracts, privatization, defunding of public education, etc. It was corporatism turned on its head and no longer serving the public good, not even for most whites. This co-opted corporatism bypassed standard fascism and went straight to corporate rule. That is how paternalistic progressivism became full-blown plutocracy. The Reagan neocons were able to sell this using a number of rhetorical tactics and political maneuvers: Starve the Beast and Two Santa Claus theory, Supply Side Voodoo Reaganomics and Trickle Down promises to float all boats.

The Clinton Democrats, building off of Jimmy Carter’s austerity-minded pre-Reaganomics (along with Carter’s anti-welfare and anti-union politics), then played into this confused push toward the right-wing. Bush and Obama helped to further establish the reactionary neoconservatism in the post-9/11 world, always with dashes of neoliberal ‘free’ trade bullshit — the two parties falling ever more into lockstep. As FDR was more union-busting than any other president, Obama was the most immigrant deporting of any president, not even the present president yet outdoing Obama’s anti-immigrant accomplishments. And this dominant paradigm of mutated ideology is what set the stage for yet another demagogue using progressive rhetoric to win the presidency, which brings us to Trump riding a populist backlash into power.

Trump was able to successfully manipulate trends that had been developing for more than a century. And Hillary Clinton had no alternative to offer because she was fully entrenched in the establishment worldview. The brilliance of Trump, by way of Steve Bannon, was to combine early 20th century progressive rhetoric with early 20th century isolationist rhetoric, and that proved to be a potent mix. But this mix was only possible because of the growing bipartisan racism that was able to lock together old school progressivism and isolationism, a strange brew of optimistic promise and fear-mongering, hope and hate.

Here is what changed. Paternalistic technocracy has long been the ideal of the ruling elite of both parties. It goes back to the claims of an enlightened aristocracy from early American politics. The early progressives followed more closely the view of an enlightened aristocracy. That is what the Roosevelt family represented. They didn’t deserve power because they were from a business family but because they promised to use their inherited power and privilege toward the public good.

The neocons, in cahoots with the pseudo-libertarians, came to argue that the optimal technocrat to rule the country should be a businessman (sometimes combined with the utopian night watchman state, a government without need of governance). That capitalist class elitism has finally been fulfilled by Trump, a man who has styled himself as a successful businessman. According to the neocons, only someone like Trump could solve the country’s problems. They finally got what they wanted. But the reality is that Trump is as much a product of inherited wealth as the rest: the Bush family, the Kennedy family, and the Roosevelt family (while other politicians have to suck up to this plutocratic aristocracy to gain access to wealth and power). Trump would be deemed a failed businessman in terms of a functioning free market which of course doesn’t exist, even as he is a symbolic representative of success within present capitalist realism (i.e., actual functioning capitalism), which is to say plutocratic cronyism wielding power through oligarchy. His wealth was not the product of meritocracy, if we assume that meritocracy is based on the concept of genuine earned merit.

The neocons have pushed plutocracy under the guise of deceptive rhetoric. Sure, there was always a dark element going back to the beginnings of progressivism. But the Roosevelts could never have dreamed this is what would become of the progressive tradition. They avoided the extremes of authoritarianism in their own era, but in the process they helped to give birth to a new and even more threatening monster. This neocon neo-imperialism as global superpower, at this point, would likely require a global revolution for it to be dismantled. Paternalistic noblesse oblige has long been thrown aside. In the void left behind, obscene wealth and brute power has become its own justification.

Yet the memory of old school progressivism, faint and distorted as it may be, still holds the public imagination. The progressive label, as polls show, has gained favor among the majority of Americans. Bernie Sanders being the most popular political leader at present demonstrates this. If another strong and inspiring Roosevelt-style candidate comes along, he or she would be able to take the presidency by storm. That is what the plutocracy fears the most.

* * *

National Debt, Starve the Beast, & Wealth Disparity

Old School Progressivism

16 thoughts on “From Progressivism to Neoconservatism

  1. This one has always disturbed me:

    4. We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending. But even if this opposition were overcome — as it may well be under the pressure of the masses — the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders. Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the ‘sack’ would cease to play its role as a ‘disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But ‘discipline in the factories’ and ‘political stability’ are more appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the ‘normal’ capitalist system.

    The rich are not so much after profits as much as they are after making themselves relatively more wealthy than the rest of us.

    In other words, even though they would make more money (ex: a middle class that had a good standard of living would be able to buy more stuff), they don’t want that. It’s the domination over the rest of us that they want.

    By no means is higher worker wages “lost” to business. They will spent it back into the economy. It is not the revenue they want. It is the dominating over us. That’s the problem.

    • Wealth is a symbol of power. And concentrated wealth means concentrated power. Many authoritarian systems, from feudalism to slavery, weren’t as profitable as the alternatives because the costs of maintaining the system were so high and because human potential was so severely suppressed. But these systems were able to last for centuries because they were able to mobilize immense power in defense of the system against both external and internal threats.

      Consider modern inverted totalitarian’s use of the military-prison-industrial complex, where much of the state has become privatized and corrupted for the purpose of maintaining the status quo and enforcing social control. It’s extremely expensive and wasteful. We could rebuild the entire infrastructure of every country in the world several times over for all the wealth and resources that feed this beast.

      What motivates this is complicated. The ruling elite, like most people, lack self-awareness. A high inequality society, in a thousand different ways, makes everyone feel crappier. For all citizens, rich and poor, there are higher rates of numerous problems: stress-related diseases, addiction and alcoholism, mental illness and suicide, violent crime and homicide, etc. It creates a vicious cycle where people feel worse and, in being divided, blame others for their unhappy condition. The sense of class conflict divides not just the rich and the poor but also the super rich and moderately rich, the rich and the middle class, and on down the economic ladder.

      In the The Broken Ladder, Keith Payne describes studies that show that people act less rationally under high inequality. They tend to turn to religion, superstition, magical thinking, and dogmatism. The human mind expresses in strange ways under high levels of stress. The excuses and rationalizations that the rich and powerful give to explain and justify their actions may seem absurd at times, but it must be understood that many of these people do genuinely believe what they say. The human mind simply wasn’t designed to operate under conditions of extreme and continuous stress. In a high inequality society, nearly everyone is suffering some level of mental illness.

      This creates a fearful mindset, to be in a society with such dysfunction and division. And when people are afraid, they seek to gain control and defend themselves, even when the costs are high. Those high costs create further dysfunction and division, which further breeds fear. In a modern society with vast wealth and technological capacity to play power games, this can lead to a destructive cycle that quickly spirals downward. A paranoid worldview takes hold, as can be seen in politics right now. And this is how progressivism morphs into the reactionary.

      “In many ways, it comes at an extreme cost to maintain a Social Darwinian meritocracy—police state and mass incarceration for social control and just enough welfare to keep the masses from revolting. It would be cheaper to have a less oppressive and more egalitarian society, but those in power are willing to pay the costs to have it this way, even when the costs personally harm them, just as long as it harms the undeserving even more. […]

      “Within this worldview, all the social costs are necessary for the social good. It just so happens that most of the social costs fall on those already disadvantaged, but it even comes with costs to those at the top. A surprising number of people apparently find these costs worth paying, as an investment toward the status quo. The costs aren’t a loss or waste. Anytime a politician tells you that government is inevitably a failure, that government is the problem and not the solution, they are lying and they know they are lying. The system is working just fine, even if the purpose and the beneficiaries are being hidden from public view.”

      “This air rage study is revealing, but not just because it illustrates how inequality drives wedges between the haves and the have-nots. What makes it fascinating to me is that incidents of rage take place even when there are no true have-nots on a flight. Since an average economy-class ticket costs several hundred dollars, few genuinely poor people can afford to travel on a modern commercial airplane. Yet even relative differences among the respectable middle-class people flying coach can create conflict and chaos. In fact, the chaos is not limited to coach: First-class flyers in the study were several times more likely to erupt in air rage when they were brought up close and personal with the rabble on front-loading planes. As Ivana Trump’s behavior can attest, when the level of inequality becomes too large to ignore, everyone starts acting strange.”

  2. I wonder if the prevailing conservative ideologues, who push libertarian and neoliberalism are thinking less rationally.

    Certainly the Democratic Establishment has difficulty in finding any form of rational thought right now.

    • With high inequality comes division. And that creates disconnection. Unsurprisingly, many people exist in bubbles and echo chambers. Pushed to the extreme, this forms into self-reinforcing reality tunnels. This can be particularly dangerous when a reality tunnel is supported by the dominant paradigm, as is the case for the comfortable classes. Concentrated wealth and power often corresponds to concentrated delusion. Take for example the research showing the rich have less ability than the poor to read the facial expressions and emotions of others.

      Also, in an economic and political system like this, it is perfectly rational to be a sociopath… maybe the most rational choice of all. Rationality under such constraints is obviously distorted to an extreme, but it makes sense within those conditions. Everything makes sense when you understand the context and causes. But what seems rational within one’s experiential worldview may not be deemed rational from outside of it. We are outside observers to the world of the rich and powerful, which offers perspective. The rich and powerful lack any such perspective. It’s the danger for even otherwise normal people who enter into the ruthless political world, not unlike the corporate world.

      Consider Hillary Clinton. She wasn’t born into wealth. Early on, she developed a close friendship with the radical Saul Alinsky who wrote about how to seize power from the powerful. She seemed serious about radical politics and community organizing at the time. He warned her not to go to law school because it was the belly of the beast. She promised him that it wouldn’t change her. And since then, she has become everything that Alinsky hated and fought against. Now she is just another mad, power-hungry plutocrat. Yet when she was younger, he had seen some genuine potential for her to have turned out differently.

    • Reactionary Republicans will do well in the short term. But they will do badly in the long term. That is not a new insight. Even reactionary Republicans don’t have much hope for success in the future. They are playing a short game, just positioning themselves in defensive mode.

      That is what reactionaries always. do, though. Reactionary politics is incapable of dealing with the long term because otherwise it wouldn’t be reactionary. This willingness to ignore the future makes them masterful at dominating the present, as they are entirely unconcerned about consequences to themselves or to society.

    • I’m not sure about the “short term” part.

      The Southern Strategy has worked well for the GOP for decades now. About 50 years now and while it has been immensely destructive, it has not abated.

      I’d say that in the medium term, barring something truly catastrophic, it is here to stay.

      • As I might put it, maybe we are reaching the short term conclusion of a long term trend. The US has long faced the issue of a minority majority. Some US states have already dealt with this in the past such as in the Deep South. The fear that caused South Carolina to be the starting point of the Civil War was probably related to it having a majority black population.

        Now the US entering the final phase of growing minority populations. A number of states already have returned to a minority majority status. And the youngest generation is presently minority majority. We are in the end game. What has worked the past 50 years won’t work in the next 50 years. That isn’t to say authoritarianism will go away, but it won’t be authoritarianism based on a white majority. Or else whiteness will entirely be redefined to include Latinos and Asians.

        Either way, it will be a new game. If Latinos are fully assimilated into whiteness, that would likely mean a new racial order designed along the Latin American model inherited from the Spanish Empire. It is a racial order built on a gradation, rather than a black and white mentality. It would alter the power dynamics and create a different kind of culture and politics. The whitest of whites would become a ruling minority, rather than a ruling majority. That kind of game is played by different rules.

  3. Depending on place of origin, many Spanish-surnamed are fully assimilated into whiteness because they are caucasian, as are populations in the Middle East. I’m sure you are aware that color consciousness is alive and well in Asia and Africa, too. (So is active enslavement of people of color by people of color.) Whites also have suppressed whites since the beginning of whiteness. The author of The Making of Black America (published in early 1970’s by Johnson Publishing Co which ran segments of the book in its Ebony magazine; I’ve mislaid my copy at the moment or I would be more detailed) noted that every affront imposed upon blacks in North America was first perfected against whites. In Europe and North America, the fertility rate of whites is below the replacement rate (save for a few groups such as Orthodox Jews, Mormons and such) so over time, they should become a minority. At present, the rate in Italy is below recovery and Germany is close. It’s dropping fairly rapidly in the US as well.

    Read a review of a book recently (again, not handy) which made a compelling case for the notion that there would be no democracy without wars. Must get to bed. That’s it for now.

    • “Depending on place of origin, many Spanish-surnamed are fully assimilated into whiteness because they are caucasian, as are populations in the Middle East.”

      In the past, Latinos weren’t perceived as being caucasian. There was a major conflict during the 19th century because of white outrage of white Catholic children being adopted by Latino Catholic families.
      It took a long while for Latinos to come to a point where mainstream whites were more willing to accept them into whiteness. Even now, a large part of American whites see Latinos as foreign, despite the fact that Latinos have been in North America longer.

      It’s the same for other southern Europeans, specifically Italians who sometimes were called ‘niggers’, and eastern Europeans. Even Germans and the Irish weren’t considered to be of the same race as the English during the colonial era. The first race-based colonial project of the emerging British Empire was Ireland. Racial labels are rationalizations after the fact. Scientifically and objectively, races don’t exist. They are just-so stories that we use to try to make sense of a complicated world.

      “I’m sure you are aware that color consciousness is alive and well in Asia and Africa, too. (So is active enslavement of people of color by people of color.)”

      Racial consciousness was alive and well in Germany when the largest wave of immigrants in US history assimilated, although it took many generations. Some German-Americans refused to assimilate since the colonial era. Into the early 20th century, German-Americans used the German language in newspapers, churches, and even public schools in German-American majority cities. This even led to such things as the German Bund, one of the largest ethnic organizations in US history. Yet by the time the US entered WWII, German-Americans were the largest sector of US soldiers fighting the German Nazis.

      As for enslavement and other forms of exploitation, Western economies are dependent on it. This is why neo-imperialism continues with Western militaries protecting access to natural resources, Western ‘intelligence’ agencies using covert operations to overthrow governments and destabilize regions, Western governments use economic sanctions, centralized banking, and pseudo-‘free’ trade agreements to manipulate the global economy. This is also the reason the US regularly attacks and uses state terrorism against non-white countries, including in illegal and unconstitutional wars of aggression that kill millions of innocent people which is more than killed by every terrorist group in the world. Anyone who thinks the West is morally superior is a sociopath or fucking asshole who doesn’t deserve any portion of the public air to breathe.

      “Whites also have suppressed whites since the beginning of whiteness.”

      That is because they didn’t see them as white in how it is used today. In the earlier colonial era, European nations saw each other as separate races. Racial ideas have their origins in the pre-scientific social order of feudalism. Races originally referred to specific groups of people directly related by family relationship, such as tribes and kinship groups. During feudalism, aristocracy and serfs in the same country were considered separate races. There has always been a class component to racism — the two are inseparable. But all of this was only later on filtered through pseudo-scientific thought.

      “The author of The Making of Black America (published in early 1970’s by Johnson Publishing Co which ran segments of the book in its Ebony magazine; I’ve mislaid my copy at the moment or I would be more detailed) noted that every affront imposed upon blacks in North America was first perfected against whites.”

      That could be generalized. Every affront against later oppressed groups are perfected on earlier oppressed groups. The fact of the matter is it wasn’t perfected against whites in a technical sense. In that prior period, there was no large social identity of whiteness. Those earlier oppressed people were perceived as foreign and fundamentally different. Also, the formula goes the other way around. Any way Western ruling elite and authorities treat non-whites in the West and elsewhere will eventually be how they will treat the lower class whites in their own countries. We are seeing that now in that lower class white Americans are suddenly acting shocked that they are getting the same treatment that these lower class white Americans once supported in being done to non-whites. What comes around goes around. Karma is a bitch.

      “In Europe and North America, the fertility rate of whites is below the replacement rate (save for a few groups such as Orthodox Jews, Mormons and such) so over time, they should become a minority. At present, the rate in Italy is below recovery and Germany is close. It’s dropping fairly rapidly in the US as well.”

      That is at least partly explained by precipitously dropping sperm counts in the Western world over the past 40 years. It’s probably caused by being poisoned with industrial pollution, environmental toxins, farming chemicals, food additives, unhealthy diet, etc — but also such things as the social stress of social Darwinian capitalist realism. But this isn’t just effecting whites in the West. As other populations spend more time in this diseased society, their sperm counts will also drop. Maybe that will offer some comfort to white nationalists.

      Such changes might be related to the high rates of mental illnesses in WEIRD societies (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic). This effects all people, white and non-white, in WEIRD societies. And as urbanization increases as it has over this past century, the WEIRD gets weirder. We are an ailing society and it can’t be blamed on anyone else but ourselves. Modern Western society is simply not normal, not even by Western historical standards.

      “Read a review of a book recently (again, not handy) which made a compelling case for the notion that there would be no democracy without wars.”

      I’d have to hear the argument in detail. But from your brief description, it sounds like a nonfalsifiable hypothesis. There are always wars. That is like saying there would be no democracy without livestock. We can correlate a lot of things to democracy. But one might point out that wars and livestock existed for millennia prior to democracy. And we also might note that the most well functioning democracies are among the least militaristic and war-promoting of countries in the world. I could see that democracy might be a response to war, as it was in Europe in the hope of avoiding further world wars. It’s questionable that democracy, usually partial at best so far, prevents wars. Neither is there clear evidence that democracy starts wars. The main thing that has happened is that the weapons used by democracies and non-democracies have become so much more destructive when war does happen.

      Still, as Steven Pinker argues, mortality rates even in wars have gone down. And it could be observed, as others have observed, that mortality rates have gone down precisely as democracy has risen. Pinker correlates this to many things and puts it into context of the Moral Flynn Effect, since IQ increases go hand in hand with violence decreases. Both of these correlate to public health. Countries or areas in countries with the worst healthcare have the worst violence. This has been studied with parasites in particular, with some parasites having been shown to cause aggression and rage (lead toxicity has similar effects). Plus, parasite load is strongly connected to lots of health and social problems. Democracy seems only to function reasonably well when public healthcare has been more fully established which is to say when parasites and toxins are severely limited in the general population, if not entirely eliminated.

    • I hope my response didn’t come off as unfriendly. I do have strong opinions on all of this. These are topics I’ve been reading about and thinking about for years. I’ve tried arguing with race realists and HBDers for a long time. I used to regularly visit that region of the blogosphere. But it became clear to me that some people are so trapped in dogmatic ideology that discussion isn’t possible or else is simply pointless.

      I’ve read thousands of books, articles, and papers about race and related issues. And I’ve written maybe hundreds of blog posts based on my readings. I’m sort at the point where further debate doesn’t seem to serve any purpose. I used to visit blogs of those I disagreed with because I wanted to understand them. The problem is they either didn’t have the desire or capacity to understand my view. I gave up in frustration. When people won’t even look at the data I’m trying to show them, that doesn’t leave too many other options for meaningful and constructive dialogue.

      I have no idea what is your ideological position. I know nothing about you. So it’s not as if I mean to be unfriendly. I just don’t have much patience these days. Either someone agrees with me or they don’t. I’ll lay down what I know and what I think. But I’m far beyond the point of trying to convince anyone of anything. This is simply my blog where I post what I write. I’m glad to have people comment, just not all that interested in debate that usually goes nowhere.

      It’s not that someone couldn’t bring up something I had never come across before. It’s just unlikely at this point. I’ve heard about every argument there is and seen all the main evidence that gets used. I’ve seen it all before. That said, if you wanted to discuss that book in more detail, I’m open to listening. Maybe I’m wrong about the argument it makes, since I don’t as of yet know exactly what that argument is. I do like being challenged when it is worthwhile and interesting.

    • BTW let me be blunt about one thing. You wrote that, “At present, the rate in Italy is below recovery and Germany is close. It’s dropping fairly rapidly in the US as well.” I honestly don’t care. Populations of humans, as with other species, come and go. That has been happening for millennia. Present Europeans represents several waves of migrations that happened after two earlier migrations, the latter having entirely disappeared. So, it’s not the first or even the second time a European population has disappeared.

      Yet life goes on. It’s the same with nations, empires, and entire civilizations. They come and go. And then something else replaces them. Or else populations mix up to form new populations — such as Scandinavians, Angles, Saxons, Scottish, Picts, Celts, French Normans, etc fighting each other for centuries until they interbred and simply became the English, an entirely new ethnicity. Those English further mixed with other populations in the colonies where the became Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc. In the process, some of the European tribes were wiped out while others thrived, but almost none of the ethnic cultures of any of those tribes survived or only survived in traces.

      There is nothing new about any of this. That is the long history of humanity. Populations grow and shrink, mix and die. Nothing stays the same. Anyone who attempts to keep things the same is fighting against the inevitable which is foolish and naive. That isn’t to say that I’m against social identities. I have a strong attachment to being a Midwesterner because it was how I was raised. But I don’t share a common culture with non-Midwesterners, especially not Europeans. I have more in common with a black Midwesterner than I do with a white German who technically shares my ancestry. What defines me is culture and, despite ancestry, German culture is not my culture.

      Anyway, I’m a standard American mutt with a little bit of everything in me. Like any white whose ancestry has been in North America since the colonial era, I probably have some non-European thrown into my genetics. So, I have no particular reason to care about Europeans and their fate than I care about any other people in the world. I’m a proud American mutt born and raised, not an ethno-nationalist European seeking racial purity.

    • I’m an American. It’s just who I am. I have other identities as well, but my American identity is fairly central. I was born and raised here. I’ve never lived nor even traveled outside the US. I’m a working class bloke just trying to get by.

      All of my family lines go at least back to the 19th century and many of them go back to the colonial era. I have ancestry form multiple colonies that I know of: New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. I had family on the frontier during the colonial era, which was illegal by British law, and so that ancestor born on that frontier was an illegal immigrant. My ancestry can be found in different regions of the country. But early on they often pushed to the frontier.

      My centuries of American lineage include all kinds of people. Indian fighters, plantation slave owners, farmers, clam diggers, Shakers, limestone quarry workers, factory workers, distillers/moonshiners, store owners, estate gardeners, ministers, country doctors, accountants, etc. Among my ancestry, there were multiple family lines that fought in the American Revolution, the Indian Wars, both sides of the Civil War, both world wars, the Korean War, and I’m sure many other conflicts as well.

      Besides German, my ancestry includes Austrian, French, Dutch, Scottish, English, and who knows what else. Most whites from the Deep South tend to have some non-white ancestry as well. As I said, I’m an American mutt which is the most American thing to be. To worry about racial purity is to be anti-American. No one is going to tell me how to be an American. And if they try, I’ll tell them to fuck off.

    • You are treading on racist territory. Everyone who isn’t a complete ignoramus knows that there is know such thing as separate human races, i.e, sub-species. Only a racist would argue for race realism and care about racial purity. Racism is disallowed in this blog, as explained in my comments policy.

      As for replacement rates, there is nothing particularly to get excited about. There are more people of European ancestry than at any other point in the existence of the (singular) human species. Like all other geographic populations, they have decreased and increased at various times, but overall most human populations have continued to grow larger across history.

      Anyway, there is not even a single European set of genetics. European genetics have wide overlap with every other geographic population, in particular North Africans, Middle Easterners, Asians, and Native Americans. The artificial boundaries of European countries have little to do with genetics, as those boundaries are recent inventions. Genetics are continuous across vast geographies.

Please read Comment Policy before commenting.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s