The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Grand Old Party Forgets Its Voters
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If for no other reason than bad DR3ing they could’ve included the non-Hispanic white unemployment rate, currently 3.1%, to incidentally show that flavescent POCs are doing better than pallor people are. White supremacy my arse!

But instead we get minority stats that together add up to 70% of the total population. EVERYONE is benefiting, you see. EVERYONE!

And is the awkward phrase “women unemployment” employed (heh) in deference to the contemporary feminist perception that “female” is a degrading term that should not be used on account of merely being a linguistic hop and a skip away from “cunt” or “whore”?

 
• Category: Ideology 
Hide 235 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. What they COULD HAVE done is read shadowstats for a while, seen how unemployment numbers are calculated, and warned us that this tweet contains < 144 characters of pure crap.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Even if there were something to the shadowstats conspiracy theory (and I see no reason to believe so), unemployment calculations have not changed since the Obama presidency, so it would still make perfect sense for Trump to play up his track record on unemployment.
  2. You’re right, A.E., that “women unemployment” is awkward; it’s not even good English. You’d think feminists would be proud to be “female”, but it does contain male in it, some of the time ….

    • Replies: @Paw
    By the great help of the famous Affirmative Action..
    , @Rosie

    You’re right, A.E., that “women unemployment” is awkward; it’s not even good English. You’d think feminists would be proud to be “female”, but it does contain male in it, some of the time ….
     
    I actually agree that "female" is degrading, but so is "male." Jared Taylor has made this point before, that "white male" sounds like a lab rat. He says White men should call themselves "White men." I agree.

    The problem is that there is no other adjective to describe human beings (as opposed to animals) as belonging to either the male sex or the female sex. "Feminine" and "masculine" don't quite work because they generally refer to social expectations or general patterns (i.e. stereotypes, but I don't mean that in a bad way).

    All that said, this is really kind of an offensive post. It almost seems like a deliberate f*** you to the demographic group under discussion here.
  3. Sorry, A.E., I forgot your basic point. Yes, that’s retarded.

  4. @Achmed E. Newman
    You're right, A.E., that "women unemployment" is awkward; it's not even good English. You'd think feminists would be proud to be "female", but it does contain male in it, some of the time ....

    By the great help of the famous Affirmative Action..

  5. Maybe this time instead of getting 1% of blacks we will get 2%!

    Meanwhile my numerous high-school & 2 year graduate white friends with fully racially aware consciousness and their associates see no need to vote (again) despite the importance of the race for immigration/2nd amendment purpose to say the least and our state’s electoral importance.

    Turnout among younger pro-Trump whites dropped considerably here from 2016 to 2018 while those 4 years college whites oppose to Trump turned out more, which was only offset by Non-Whites going slightly more Republican. Something that Trump cannot count on. He loses here its over, moreso my area is a window into how Pennsylvania and upstate New York will vote or at the very minimum turnout against Trump.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Trump moving the Israeli Embassy not a vote winner then?
    , @Twinkie

    Maybe this time instead of getting 1% of blacks we will get 2%!
     
    Didn't Trump actually do slightly better than Romney with blacks, Hispanic, and Asian voters though and did a tiny bit worse with white voters?
  6. @Achmed E. Newman
    What they COULD HAVE done is read shadowstats for a while, seen how unemployment numbers are calculated, and warned us that this tweet contains < 144 characters of pure crap.

    Even if there were something to the shadowstats conspiracy theory (and I see no reason to believe so), unemployment calculations have not changed since the Obama presidency, so it would still make perfect sense for Trump to play up his track record on unemployment.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let's not get into the details. What's important is that they are working. We've decided to go with quantity over quality. Better for everybody!
    , @The Alarmist

    ... unemployment calculations have not changed since the Obama presidency ....
     
    No, but they have changed considerably since the Carter Presidency. The GOP are merely pouring AWESOME-sauce on a sh!t sandwich.
    , @A123
    Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] changed methodology several decades ago. Shadowstats attempts to preserve the raw data and methods so that consistent and more meaningful numbers are available. There is no conspiracy. There actual % unemployment is much higher than BLS reports.

    That being said, I concur that the using the numbers out of BLS works as a comparison showing relative Trump successes versus Obama failure.
    __________

    Trump has substantially improved his standing with minority groups by bettering conditions in their communities. The DNC's "exclude all whites" platform and strategy means that even modest GOP success with non-white voters will lead to victories. Not simply Trump 2020, also for House and Senate seats.

    Remember, Hispanics are not a single uniform group. The two largest Hispanic populations in swing state Florida are from Puerto Rico (U.S. Citizens) and Cuba (Special immigration rules). These populations are very approachable, because they cannot be provoked by DNC open-borders hysteria. In fact, these communities are hurt by Globalist DNC open-borders theology.

    PEACE

    , @Twodees Partain
    Sure, it makes perfect sense if Trump intends to be a lying asshole like Bathhouse Barry is.
    , @Lot
    There are also other measures of unemployment that are broader, such as U6 and employment to population ratio. The Trump economy is good by all measures other than the deficit. Even then, the demand for our debt is so high that rates are extremely low, so the amount we pay in interest on the national debt is lower than in the early 1990s for example.

    His immigration record could definitely be a lot better. However, during the peak of prior booms, immigration usually surges. Grading him on a curve this way, and comparing 2018-2019 to 2005-2006 or 1998-1999 or 1985-1986, his record looks considerably better.

    The evidence is really in the strength of the low end of the labor force that got elbowed out of prior booms by migrant waves. So it is very significant that black unemployment is the lowest in 60 years, and that unskilled wages are rising faster now that in many decades.
  7. I’m always intrigued by whites who don’t seem to care that their interests are not even acknowledged by the people who are supposed to represent them. You could argue I suppose that whites in America are racially classified as “middle class.” But I’m not sure that terminally is keeping up with the times.

    But beyond not being acknowledged, that more whites aren’t bothered on a basic fairness level by the political establishment pandering to a group that is already a privileged class culturally and institutionally is astounding.

    Who has heard anyone mention that minorities who recieve special benefits like gov’t grants and loans, affirmative action, hiring quotas as well as special protections with anti discrimination and hate crime laws, and are represented by a special civil rights division of the justice department, not to mention 100s of ethnic advocacy groups, are about to become the majority in a country who’s culture becomes more belligerent towards whites everyday?

    It is a recipe for genocide.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    If majority of whites does not care much about their group, why should others care?

    https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1115629523863785472

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Diffidence (and the more unconscious, the better) is the surest form of demonstrating privilege. Most whites still think that they're just fine. This explains a lot.
    , @Twinkie

    It is a recipe for genocide.
     
    I was with your argument until this. Genocide? Really?
    , @HallParvey

    I’m always intrigued by whites who don’t seem to care that their interests are not even acknowledged by the people who are supposed to represent them.
     
    You have to understand that the majority of whites are only here for a short time and are simply waiting until they ascend into heaven to help God rule over the Earth. And in order to be permitted to share in heavenly joy, they must be nice to all those other people, regardless of behavior.

    It's just one of the rules for entry into eternal life.
  8. @silviosilver
    Even if there were something to the shadowstats conspiracy theory (and I see no reason to believe so), unemployment calculations have not changed since the Obama presidency, so it would still make perfect sense for Trump to play up his track record on unemployment.

    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let’s not get into the details. What’s important is that they are working. We’ve decided to go with quantity over quality. Better for everybody!

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let’s not get into the details
     
    If you do dig into the details as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you'll find that average hours worked and average hourly pay have not declined over the last ten years, so it's not as if unemployment is only low because people are working fewer hours at shittier jobs.

    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.
     
    I agree with the poster who said this GOP tweet is aimed at political moderates - not just white moderates though. After all, it's not as if no non-whites vote GOP. If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being "literally Hitler," then those votes need to be retained or, better still, increased. Just because the GOP egregiously underrates the importance of white voters doesn't mean we should egregiously overrate it.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.
     
    Get a life.
    , @Richard B
    Quantity over Quality is NEVER better for Everybody. How could it be?

    Quantity over Quality leads to Quantity without Quality.

    And Quantity without Quality becomes a mass with no center.

    In social terms it becomes an undifferentiated mindless mass of chaotic, confused, corrupt people.

    Or, CCCP for short!

    You know, the third world.
  9. Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren’t meant for blacks or latinos or women, they’re meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them.

    I fully expect that this will result in approximately zero additional pee oh cee votes, but as the Democrats become increasingly anti-white, the Republicans will put out this kind of rhetoric to try to peel away white Democrats, and I think it will work and is working, to a degree. Meanwhile, I doubt it’s going to depress turnout from the partisan base, especially now that Muh Russia is dead and SCOTUS finally handed Trump his wall funding. Republicans are gonna vote Republican unless there’s some major war or economic crisis.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Although he is unlike usual pols in many ways, he still wants to be re-elected like any other pol and says different things to appeal to different demographic slices. "Send them back" certainly polls well with his base while "Look how well POCs have done under Trump!" polls well with nice white ladies (of both sexes) in the suburbs.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Or maybe it's because the Republican Party accepts the plan of GloboHomo for a white-less future, and is planning itself on transitioning into a niche role as the libertarian pro-corporate party of the multicultural new America. This is virtue-signaling for the corporate masters.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    bingo.
    , @SFG
    Yeah, the idea is to peel off moderates uncomfortable with Trump's talk. See, we're not racist, we care about POC and women too!

    It may work. A lot of people (even those who voted for him) find him crass, but if the economy's good, a lot will stick with him. Particularly if the alternative is Democrats who want to give healthcare to illegal immigrants before Americans.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The GOP celebrating non-white successes isn't novel. I don't think moderate whites will be scandalized by the inclusion of the white unemployment rate alongside all the other major racial group unemployment rates in celebration of how it's lower for everybody. But a lot of the usual suspects would freak out about it, calling it a white nationalist/supremacist tweet, etc. That is what moderates need to see.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren’t meant for blacks or latinos or women, they’re meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them."

    Good point.
    , @notanon
    suburban soccer moms are a soft segment of GOPe voters who the media try to split off using accusations of racism.

    stuff like this is targeted at the same segment of voters in an attempt to neuter the media's tactic.

    however this particular example is very dumb as it would be perfectly reasonable to include "white unemployment" in a list like this and leaving it out is too glaring.

    also given that under PC you can't say anything about white people unless it's negative just including white unemployment as a neutral element in a list would trigger SJWs to attack - so it's a wasted trolling opportunity as well.
  10. @Futurethirdworlder
    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let's not get into the details. What's important is that they are working. We've decided to go with quantity over quality. Better for everybody!

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let’s not get into the details

    If you do dig into the details as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you’ll find that average hours worked and average hourly pay have not declined over the last ten years, so it’s not as if unemployment is only low because people are working fewer hours at shittier jobs.

    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.

    I agree with the poster who said this GOP tweet is aimed at political moderates – not just white moderates though. After all, it’s not as if no non-whites vote GOP. If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being “literally Hitler,” then those votes need to be retained or, better still, increased. Just because the GOP egregiously underrates the importance of white voters doesn’t mean we should egregiously overrate it.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.

    Get a life.

    • Replies: @eah
    If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being “literally Hitler,”...

    Since you're big on 'digging into the details', name a non-white demographic that voted > 30% for Trump in 2016 -- of course, there isn't one -- so the GOP could increase its share of the non-white vote by a whopping 50% (which will NEVER happen of course), and still not have even close to a majority.

    In fact, non-whites typically vote >> 2:1 for Democrats: 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, etc, depending on the demographic.

    Trump won in 2016 because he received a sufficient preponderance of white votes -- given the ongoing demographic replacement of Whites, how much longer will that be possible? -- 2020 may very well be the last time -- today, election results in CA show very, very clearly what happens when there are no longer enough white votes on offer: the GOP is for all practical purposes finished in CA -- do you think the GOP has not been trying for decades to woo non-white voters in CA?

    Get a life.

    Get a clue.

    The GOP is headed for the dustbin nationally too, and people like you are the reason -- good riddance to both you and them.

    The US desperately needs an AfA = Alternative for America party to replace the GOP.

    https://i.postimg.cc/nzyz8zqt/2016-election-by-race-2.jpg
    , @Futurethirdworlder
    "I agree with the poster who said this GOP tweet is aimed at political moderates– not just white moderates though."

    So the grand GOP plan is to woo white voters who are really impressed with what they are doing for the brown people. And continue pandering to the same people who have rejected them for 60 years.

    Anything to avoid appealing to its base.

    "Get a life."

    I get it you like your liberalism in a red hate.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    There's no conspiracy to it, Silvio, as the method used to calculate the U-3's etc, is out there for everyone to see. As Alarmist stated, it has been calculated this way (based on unemployment claims) for a long time now.

    I agree that Trump should use the same numbers. A comparison may or not mean anything though, as people giving up looking for work will go completely off the unemployment rolls and make the numbers look better. As raw numbers, they are pure garbage. 1 - (# employed men / # of employable men - not disabled, between whatever appropriated ages) is the true number. For women, you'd really need to know the # not seeking any work outside home. Yes, it's not as easy to get at as having unemployment offices send data to you.
    , @anonymous
    Could you please address the question posed (#12) by commenter The Alarmist?

    "BTW, if the Trump economy is so great, why do we need rate cuts on top of historically low interest rates? It’s a sham economy."
  11. White Nationalism is a left-wing ideology, and is outright rejected by mainstream whites.

    WN is also a left-wing ideology.

    What is not widely understood is why these Nationalist-Leftists vote GOP. The reason is that in a two party system, this is the only place they can land when they hate black people slightly more than they hate white libertarians.

    Hence, WN leftists find themselves in the GOP, even though Trump is not a WN wigger.

    • Troll: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    I find myself losing IQ points whenever I read your twaddle.  My best neurons commit suicide from the pain.

    Not going to do that any more.  You're going with Corvinus.  >plonk!<

    , @Audacious Epigone
    What is this in response to?
  12. The cities are failing. Nobody in the political establishment wants that, so they combine against the cities’ source of revenue — productive Americans (European descended) and the US overseas dependents (in practice, the nations that use the US Dollar — which is almost all of them). But the combination is ineffective. The Democratic debates of the last few days (as of 2019/08/02) show have been empty of any content beyond a statement that European descended Americans will continue to be squeezed to support the cities, and (as an afterthought) the foreigners too.

    But the cities are failing because they _don’t have any economic purpose_ and haven’t since AD 1960 or so. The cities could not be sustained by tax money after about 1970 at the latest, when the USA and the West was flush with money. The cities can’t be sustained now that the USA and the West are not flush with money.

    When the cities fail [1], the people who have been drained of their families and children by the cities will ensure that the cities’ political power is destroyed for the next three generations, at which point some cities may be re-established, perhaps as a theme park.

    As always, the re-organization will be messy. I hate re-organizations, but sometime’s it’s that or lose everything.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] The form of the cities’ failure has finally been outlined. Trump’s comments about Baltimore and the utter failure of the responsibility by office holders for their constituents will result in attempts to maintain public health in the cities. These attempts will fail. The people imported to mantain city population were selected by their inability to leave the hellish cities, their utter unemployability except as members of a voting farm. They will not execute public health measures of their own initiative, and neither the money nor the force required to enforce these measures absent this initiative is available to the cities.

    The key thought here is that cities have been compensating for lost economic productivity by a series of short term solutions that has failed now that we are in the long term. City power is not (as it has historically been) backed by economic power, and city life is something that nobody wants or will imitate. City political power has been somewhat decreased by POTUS Trump’s comments about Baltimore, and a large public health failure will completely de-legitimize the cities political structure.

  13. But instead we get minority stats that together add up to 70% of the total population. EVERYONE is benefiting, you see. EVERYONE!

    It’s like we’re living in Lake Wobegon©, where all the children are above average.

    Given that 96 million working-age Americans are considered to not be in the labour force, the official U3 stat of 3.6% is something of a joke. Even the U6 stat of 7.2% is dubious.

    BTW, if the Trump economy is so great, why do we need rate cuts on top of historically low interest rates? It’s a sham economy.

    • Replies: @snorlax

    Given that 96 million working-age Americans are considered to not be in the labour force
     
    That includes homemakers, elderly retirees, prisoners, invalids, welfare queens, teenagers and illegals+others who are employed "off the books."
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Agree. He is now celebrating the end of "quantitative tightening", ha! I understand the political reasons to ride the economic tiger has long as he can, but campaign Trump gave indications that he saw the sham economy for what it was. Now he owns it, though.
  14. @silviosilver
    Even if there were something to the shadowstats conspiracy theory (and I see no reason to believe so), unemployment calculations have not changed since the Obama presidency, so it would still make perfect sense for Trump to play up his track record on unemployment.

    … unemployment calculations have not changed since the Obama presidency ….

    No, but they have changed considerably since the Carter Presidency. The GOP are merely pouring AWESOME-sauce on a sh!t sandwich.

  15. @silviosilver

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let’s not get into the details
     
    If you do dig into the details as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you'll find that average hours worked and average hourly pay have not declined over the last ten years, so it's not as if unemployment is only low because people are working fewer hours at shittier jobs.

    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.
     
    I agree with the poster who said this GOP tweet is aimed at political moderates - not just white moderates though. After all, it's not as if no non-whites vote GOP. If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being "literally Hitler," then those votes need to be retained or, better still, increased. Just because the GOP egregiously underrates the importance of white voters doesn't mean we should egregiously overrate it.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.
     
    Get a life.

    If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being “literally Hitler,”…

    Since you’re big on ‘digging into the details’, name a non-white demographic that voted > 30% for Trump in 2016 — of course, there isn’t one — so the GOP could increase its share of the non-white vote by a whopping 50% (which will NEVER happen of course), and still not have even close to a majority.

    In fact, non-whites typically vote >> 2:1 for Democrats: 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, etc, depending on the demographic.

    Trump won in 2016 because he received a sufficient preponderance of white votes — given the ongoing demographic replacement of Whites, how much longer will that be possible? — 2020 may very well be the last time — today, election results in CA show very, very clearly what happens when there are no longer enough white votes on offer: the GOP is for all practical purposes finished in CA — do you think the GOP has not been trying for decades to woo non-white voters in CA?

    Get a life.

    Get a clue.

    The GOP is headed for the dustbin nationally too, and people like you are the reason — good riddance to both you and them.

    The US desperately needs an AfA = Alternative for America party to replace the GOP.

    • Replies: @eah
    the GOP is for all practical purposes finished in CA

    The CA state legislature is bicameral: it consists of the CA State Senate and the CA State Assembly -- current makeup is: State Senate 29 Democrats, 11 Republicans -- State Assembly 61 Democrats, 18 Republicans, 1 vacant seat.

    The only possible way for Republicans to exert any state-wide political influence in CA is via ballot propositions.
    , @silviosilver
    Lol, calm down. I wasn't recommending that Republicans devote any serious effort to winning non-white votes. I was just pointing out that, since some 35-40% of the non-black, non-white reliably goes to the GOP, it's unsurprising that some Republicans place some emphasis on it. Otherwise, I agree completely that Republicans would be far better served concentrating on upping their share of the white vote than chasing minority votes.
  16. @silviosilver

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let’s not get into the details
     
    If you do dig into the details as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you'll find that average hours worked and average hourly pay have not declined over the last ten years, so it's not as if unemployment is only low because people are working fewer hours at shittier jobs.

    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.
     
    I agree with the poster who said this GOP tweet is aimed at political moderates - not just white moderates though. After all, it's not as if no non-whites vote GOP. If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being "literally Hitler," then those votes need to be retained or, better still, increased. Just because the GOP egregiously underrates the importance of white voters doesn't mean we should egregiously overrate it.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.
     
    Get a life.

    “I agree with the poster who said this GOP tweet is aimed at political moderates– not just white moderates though.”

    So the grand GOP plan is to woo white voters who are really impressed with what they are doing for the brown people. And continue pandering to the same people who have rejected them for 60 years.

    Anything to avoid appealing to its base.

    “Get a life.”

    I get it you like your liberalism in a red hate.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    So the grand GOP plan is to woo white voters who are really impressed with what they are doing for the brown people.
     
    Some white voters really can be appealed to on that basis. I wouldn't describe it in terms of "what they are doing for brown people." Rather, I would frame it as "Hey, Democrats claim that the GOP is 'racist' and bad for non-whites. But look at this:......." This allows more liberal-leaning whites to vote for the GOP with a 'clean conscience.' Why simply surrender these voters to the Dems?

    Other white voters, of course, couldn't care less about issues like that. Such voters can be appealed to on the basis of white group interest.

    As for attracting non-white voters, I like Steve Sailer's suggestion of framing the Democrats as the "Black party." Not all non-whites are anti-white. Many of them are far more anti-black than anti-white. That's a political cleavage worth exploiting.

  17. @eah
    If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being “literally Hitler,”...

    Since you're big on 'digging into the details', name a non-white demographic that voted > 30% for Trump in 2016 -- of course, there isn't one -- so the GOP could increase its share of the non-white vote by a whopping 50% (which will NEVER happen of course), and still not have even close to a majority.

    In fact, non-whites typically vote >> 2:1 for Democrats: 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, etc, depending on the demographic.

    Trump won in 2016 because he received a sufficient preponderance of white votes -- given the ongoing demographic replacement of Whites, how much longer will that be possible? -- 2020 may very well be the last time -- today, election results in CA show very, very clearly what happens when there are no longer enough white votes on offer: the GOP is for all practical purposes finished in CA -- do you think the GOP has not been trying for decades to woo non-white voters in CA?

    Get a life.

    Get a clue.

    The GOP is headed for the dustbin nationally too, and people like you are the reason -- good riddance to both you and them.

    The US desperately needs an AfA = Alternative for America party to replace the GOP.

    https://i.postimg.cc/nzyz8zqt/2016-election-by-race-2.jpg

    the GOP is for all practical purposes finished in CA

    The CA state legislature is bicameral: it consists of the CA State Senate and the CA State Assembly — current makeup is: State Senate 29 Democrats, 11 Republicans — State Assembly 61 Democrats, 18 Republicans, 1 vacant seat.

    The only possible way for Republicans to exert any state-wide political influence in CA is via ballot propositions.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    I'm not optimistic about California long term prospects (ignoring non-white birth demographics or college whites) the GOP gets annihilated in student mock elections there since 2000 and even to communist parties in 2006, meanwhile in 2016 among new party registration republicans pulled only 11%

    http://magaimg.net/img/8d52.jpg

    http://magaimg.net/img/7rh2.png

    http://magaimg.net/img/86to.jpg (Hispanics in California used to be more Democrat)

    The best California strategy is a continuous white conservative exodus
    , @Horhey Dubya Boosh
    Hey there buddy! Just think, "natcheral conservatives."

    What we need ta do is include the other in The Big Tent. Outreach to the under-represented in the GOP. If we would just go easy on the immigration talk, have a limited amnesty with compassionate enforcement, enterprise zones for Hispanics, right-to-life, lower taxes and less government and more eddycashun - then, finally, all those natcheral Republicans from south of the border and from Africa and from the Middle East (don't try ta tell me Saudis ain't conservative!) will vote GOP.

    Them Chinamen are also natcheral conservatives too. An' we can import them by the tens of millions and the PRC won't miss them one bit outta the billion and a half people they got. President Xi might like us fer takin' them Hong Kong rioter-democracy people off his hands. They kin git plenty o' democracy here.

    I know that'll work cause my baby brother Jeb and mah buddy Karl and mah other buddy Mitt told me it would work!

    Regards, Dubya
  18. @eah
    the GOP is for all practical purposes finished in CA

    The CA state legislature is bicameral: it consists of the CA State Senate and the CA State Assembly -- current makeup is: State Senate 29 Democrats, 11 Republicans -- State Assembly 61 Democrats, 18 Republicans, 1 vacant seat.

    The only possible way for Republicans to exert any state-wide political influence in CA is via ballot propositions.

    I’m not optimistic about California long term prospects (ignoring non-white birth demographics or college whites) the GOP gets annihilated in student mock elections there since 2000 and even to communist parties in 2006, meanwhile in 2016 among new party registration republicans pulled only 11%

    (Hispanics in California used to be more Democrat)

    The best California strategy is a continuous white conservative exodus

  19. @Oblivionrecurs
    Maybe this time instead of getting 1% of blacks we will get 2%!

    Meanwhile my numerous high-school & 2 year graduate white friends with fully racially aware consciousness and their associates see no need to vote (again) despite the importance of the race for immigration/2nd amendment purpose to say the least and our state's electoral importance.

    Turnout among younger pro-Trump whites dropped considerably here from 2016 to 2018 while those 4 years college whites oppose to Trump turned out more, which was only offset by Non-Whites going slightly more Republican. Something that Trump cannot count on. He loses here its over, moreso my area is a window into how Pennsylvania and upstate New York will vote or at the very minimum turnout against Trump.

    Trump moving the Israeli Embassy not a vote winner then?

  20. @Oblivionrecurs
    Maybe this time instead of getting 1% of blacks we will get 2%!

    Meanwhile my numerous high-school & 2 year graduate white friends with fully racially aware consciousness and their associates see no need to vote (again) despite the importance of the race for immigration/2nd amendment purpose to say the least and our state's electoral importance.

    Turnout among younger pro-Trump whites dropped considerably here from 2016 to 2018 while those 4 years college whites oppose to Trump turned out more, which was only offset by Non-Whites going slightly more Republican. Something that Trump cannot count on. He loses here its over, moreso my area is a window into how Pennsylvania and upstate New York will vote or at the very minimum turnout against Trump.

    Maybe this time instead of getting 1% of blacks we will get 2%!

    Didn’t Trump actually do slightly better than Romney with blacks, Hispanic, and Asian voters though and did a tiny bit worse with white voters?

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Its very possible that a lot of those blacks are actually white in administrative data, true census blacks voted 99% for Obama in 2012 and have him at a 99% approval in 2017 (1% unsure)

    And I'd be interested if the Hispanics/Asians Trump did better with happened to be white/fair skin or not
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Yes.

    The only significant demographic shift between Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016 is Trump lost a chunk of college-educated whites and gained a chunk of no college whites.
  21. @Michael S
    Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren't meant for blacks or latinos or women, they're meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them.

    I fully expect that this will result in approximately zero additional pee oh cee votes, but as the Democrats become increasingly anti-white, the Republicans will put out this kind of rhetoric to try to peel away white Democrats, and I think it will work and is working, to a degree. Meanwhile, I doubt it's going to depress turnout from the partisan base, especially now that Muh Russia is dead and SCOTUS finally handed Trump his wall funding. Republicans are gonna vote Republican unless there's some major war or economic crisis.

    Although he is unlike usual pols in many ways, he still wants to be re-elected like any other pol and says different things to appeal to different demographic slices. “Send them back” certainly polls well with his base while “Look how well POCs have done under Trump!” polls well with nice white ladies (of both sexes) in the suburbs.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke, snorlax
    • Replies: @L Woods

    nice white ladies (of both sexes) in the suburbs.
     
    Ha.
  22. @silviosilver

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let’s not get into the details
     
    If you do dig into the details as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you'll find that average hours worked and average hourly pay have not declined over the last ten years, so it's not as if unemployment is only low because people are working fewer hours at shittier jobs.

    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.
     
    I agree with the poster who said this GOP tweet is aimed at political moderates - not just white moderates though. After all, it's not as if no non-whites vote GOP. If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being "literally Hitler," then those votes need to be retained or, better still, increased. Just because the GOP egregiously underrates the importance of white voters doesn't mean we should egregiously overrate it.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.
     
    Get a life.

    There’s no conspiracy to it, Silvio, as the method used to calculate the U-3’s etc, is out there for everyone to see. As Alarmist stated, it has been calculated this way (based on unemployment claims) for a long time now.

    I agree that Trump should use the same numbers. A comparison may or not mean anything though, as people giving up looking for work will go completely off the unemployment rolls and make the numbers look better. As raw numbers, they are pure garbage. 1 – (# employed men / # of employable men – not disabled, between whatever appropriated ages) is the true number. For women, you’d really need to know the # not seeking any work outside home. Yes, it’s not as easy to get at as having unemployment offices send data to you.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    A _much_ better (though still flawed) measure of what "really matters" (economic health of "average" citizens) is federal income tax revenues (year to year for example).

    Minor moves in "unemployment" numbers are meaningless by comparison.

    (I am newly retired this year so that means I am not "unemployed" but I will have less income than the previous year when I filed my income tax. That means I have less money to spend on "consumer stuff" that is the largest portion of the economy--so I am a net minus for the economy compared to last year--and of course Trump and the Republicans have nothing to do with it either way.)

    Economic statistics are harmless when ignored, dangerous when used for determining policy, and evil when used for propaganda.
  23. @silviosilver

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let’s not get into the details
     
    If you do dig into the details as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you'll find that average hours worked and average hourly pay have not declined over the last ten years, so it's not as if unemployment is only low because people are working fewer hours at shittier jobs.

    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.
     
    I agree with the poster who said this GOP tweet is aimed at political moderates - not just white moderates though. After all, it's not as if no non-whites vote GOP. If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being "literally Hitler," then those votes need to be retained or, better still, increased. Just because the GOP egregiously underrates the importance of white voters doesn't mean we should egregiously overrate it.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.
     
    Get a life.

    Could you please address the question posed (#12) by commenter The Alarmist?

    “BTW, if the Trump economy is so great, why do we need rate cuts on top of historically low interest rates? It’s a sham economy.”

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    An interest rate cut would be consistent with the inflation-targeting approach to interest rate policy. The decision to raise or lower interest rates can never be a perfect science; there's an always an element of guesswork involved. That doesn't mean that such decisions render the economy a "sham" however.
  24. @Futurethirdworlder
    I'm always intrigued by whites who don't seem to care that their interests are not even acknowledged by the people who are supposed to represent them. You could argue I suppose that whites in America are racially classified as "middle class." But I'm not sure that terminally is keeping up with the times.

    But beyond not being acknowledged, that more whites aren't bothered on a basic fairness level by the political establishment pandering to a group that is already a privileged class culturally and institutionally is astounding.

    Who has heard anyone mention that minorities who recieve special benefits like gov't grants and loans, affirmative action, hiring quotas as well as special protections with anti discrimination and hate crime laws, and are represented by a special civil rights division of the justice department, not to mention 100s of ethnic advocacy groups, are about to become the majority in a country who's culture becomes more belligerent towards whites everyday?

    It is a recipe for genocide.

    If majority of whites does not care much about their group, why should others care?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    “Race or ethnicity” are a bit different in context for whites and blacks on one hand and Hispanics and Asians on another. American whites and blacks are heavily admixed, so identify racially, but more recent arrivals and their immediate descendants tend to identify with national origin, e,g. “Filipino” or “Guatemalan,” etc. that have different inter- and intra-group dynamic.
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    The only times I've seen racial salience go up for whites in studies is when exposed to information they'll be a minority before 2050, though the most successful long term and that eliminates minimum 3 years of college liberal effect (nationally) is increasing the local black population and therefore crime exposure between the races. The southern model is far more efficient at that

    Besides that, 68% of whites don't have racial salience verses the 60%+ of non-whites who have it daily, probably because a German and Italian are much more genetically separated than all of West Africa is.

    http://magaimg.net/img/8a4y.jpg

    Nor will it improve thanks to social media's politicalsphere being dominated by activist blacks - http://magaimg.net/img/8mdp.jpg and http://magaimg.net/img/8mdq.jpg

    White liberals are incredibly out-group focused because of it: http://magaimg.net/img/8mdn.jpg

    White liberals who use the Internet for news increasingly believe discrimination explains black-white differences & give liberal answers on racial resentment questions, whereas offline white liberals have not changed their views much over time: - http://magaimg.net/img/8mdl.jpg

    Although it does appear consumption of local media has a beneficial effect for white moderates - http://magaimg.net/img/8mds.png
    , @L Woods
    White Americans have to be just about the saddest gaggle of simps on Earth.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed. In a political landscape increasingly defined by 'identity politics', the biggest losers will be those who refuse to assert their identities.
    , @Futurethirdworlder
    It is considered taboo to explicitly defend white interests in the US. Doing so can get you fired from a job expelled from school or at least have you labeled an ungood racist/white supremacist. (The worst thing anyone can be)

    And whites are propagandized to believe that they are evil and their ancestors are really evil for mistreating nonwhites.

    Hitler is satan in our biblical tale because he was a white supremacist. And you must never forget about the KKK.

    All this is to say that I know whites don't see themselves as a racial collective. It's criminal
  25. I for one would love to see the line “Cunt unemployment at 3.6%—lowest in almost 50 years!” or “Whore unemployment at 3.6%—lowest in almost 50 years!”

  26. Grand Old Party Forgets Its Voters

    The Republican Party Goes Explicit White Or It Goes Dodo

    Trump has made the decision to massively increase legal immigration and Trump has decided to do nothing about the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    At this point it is clear that patriotic White Core Americans must targetize and destroy the current Republican Party.

    Marine Le Pen changed the name of her political party from the National Front to the National Rally.

    Patriotic members of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA must remove the current anti-White controllers of the Republican Party from power and they must immediately change the name of the Republican Party to White Core America Rising or White CAP for short or White America Rising or WAR for short.

    Another suggestion would be to call the new Republican Party the Washington Jacksons or the Wash-Jacks or the Washington Jackson Whites.

    The disgusting coward whore rats in the GOP will not defend the historic American nation nor will they defend George Washington or Andrew Jackson or Confederate American Patriots. Make the anti-White Democrat Party globalizer rats attack George Washington and Andrew Jackson and make it clear to White voters that the gutless cowards in the GOP will not defend Washington nor Jackson and the GOP will not defend the future of White Core Americans nor the future children and grandchildren of White Core America.

    Tweet from 2014:

    Tweet from 2015:

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Do you have any new tweets? It's funny that you have tweets from four and five years ago always at the ready, though!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Another suggestion would be to call the new Republican Party the Washington Jacksons or the Wash-Jacks or the Washington Jackson Whites.
     
    Andrew Jackson, who removed the Cherokees to make room for more Negroes?


    No thanks!
  27. Immigration destroyed Jebby Bush’s GOP presidential primary campaign in April of 2015, and immigration will kill the Republican Party.

    The GOP donors and GOP politician whores know this and they don’t care. It’s like they’re Jim Morrison screeching about “breaking on through to the other side” or something when they push mass legal immigration or mass illegal immigration. What’s on the other side? Civil War II and secessionary movements and mass debt repudiations and the dissolution of the United States of America and the implosion of the American Empire.

    New York Times in April of 2015:

    Mr. Bush also discussed his views on immigration reform, which are at odds with his party’s most conservative members, and which earned him a rebuke from a man in the crowd.

    “You’re gonna have a tough sell,” the man, Charles Pewitt of Concord, told Mr. Bush.

    “Well that’s my job,” Mr. Bush said. “My job is not to back down.” He went on to say that he respected Mr. Pewitt’s view, “but I don’t have to agree to it.”

    Tweet from 2015:

  28. The Republican politicians have openly declared multiple times that they oppose white identity politics. They pander as much as Democrats to non whites, the fact non whites prefer Democrats does not redeem the Republican party.

    I say good riddance to bad rubbish, may every state turn blue as these morons continue to assert that they are about the constitution and don’t care about the browning of the population.

    • Replies: @Realist

    The Republican politicians have openly declared multiple times that they oppose white identity politics. They pander as much as Democrats to non whites, the fact non whites prefer Democrats does not redeem the Republican party.
     
    I agree. Sadly all whites will suffer from the action of anti-white, whites. When the correction comes, the anti-white, whites must be the first dealt with.
  29. @Thomm
    White Nationalism is a left-wing ideology, and is outright rejected by mainstream whites.

    WN is also a left-wing ideology.

    What is not widely understood is why these Nationalist-Leftists vote GOP. The reason is that in a two party system, this is the only place they can land when they hate black people slightly more than they hate white libertarians.

    Hence, WN leftists find themselves in the GOP, even though Trump is not a WN wigger.

    I find myself losing IQ points whenever I read your twaddle.  My best neurons commit suicide from the pain.

    Not going to do that any more.  You’re going with Corvinus.  >plonk!<

    • Replies: @Thomm
    That is because your IQ is just 70, as is usually the case with WN wiggers.

    The fact remains - White Nationalism is a left-wing ideology, since it has left-wing economic views. The typical White Nationalist just wants intra-white socialism.

    The typical White Nationalist also, ignorantly, believes that immigration 'depresses wages', when the real picture is far more complicated than that.
    , @prime noticer
    "My best neurons commit suicide from the pain."

    hahahahaha.

    now there's a good line. haven't heard that one before.
  30. @Futurethirdworlder
    I'm always intrigued by whites who don't seem to care that their interests are not even acknowledged by the people who are supposed to represent them. You could argue I suppose that whites in America are racially classified as "middle class." But I'm not sure that terminally is keeping up with the times.

    But beyond not being acknowledged, that more whites aren't bothered on a basic fairness level by the political establishment pandering to a group that is already a privileged class culturally and institutionally is astounding.

    Who has heard anyone mention that minorities who recieve special benefits like gov't grants and loans, affirmative action, hiring quotas as well as special protections with anti discrimination and hate crime laws, and are represented by a special civil rights division of the justice department, not to mention 100s of ethnic advocacy groups, are about to become the majority in a country who's culture becomes more belligerent towards whites everyday?

    It is a recipe for genocide.

    Diffidence (and the more unconscious, the better) is the surest form of demonstrating privilege. Most whites still think that they’re just fine. This explains a lot.

    • Agree: Futurethirdworlder
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Do they? Or is it just a cope?

    Most white women are totally blind. I think some white men are waking up but what can they do? They feel isolated and powerless.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    Based on some family and friends of mine (who happen to be lawyers of all things) your statement couldn't be more accurate.
  31. @Mitleser
    If majority of whites does not care much about their group, why should others care?

    https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1115629523863785472

    “Race or ethnicity” are a bit different in context for whites and blacks on one hand and Hispanics and Asians on another. American whites and blacks are heavily admixed, so identify racially, but more recent arrivals and their immediate descendants tend to identify with national origin, e,g. “Filipino” or “Guatemalan,” etc. that have different inter- and intra-group dynamic.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Though things are shifting away from identifying white (at least with Latinos)

    http://magaimg.net/img/7rlj.jpg

    http://magaimg.net/img/78wu.jpg

    http://magaimg.net/img/88f6.jpg
    , @Feryl
    Most whites feel terrible these days. As AE often says, they're joining feather Indians in terms of years long struggles with self worth. Remember, whites ran America as it rose up; as it falls down, we have the heaviest psychological price to pay for failing to keep it up. Blacks never ran things, and people who've come here over the last 50 years obviously have no sense of investment in, or kinship with, the "rising" period of American history. In fact, to these people the civic and economic decay of America is quite "normal". They don't have grandparents talking about the days when Ford plant workers were middle class; they don't have grandparents or great grandparents who fought in WW2.

    American Indians still haven't fully bounced back from the loss of "their" country. Will whites do the same?

  32. @Futurethirdworlder
    I'm always intrigued by whites who don't seem to care that their interests are not even acknowledged by the people who are supposed to represent them. You could argue I suppose that whites in America are racially classified as "middle class." But I'm not sure that terminally is keeping up with the times.

    But beyond not being acknowledged, that more whites aren't bothered on a basic fairness level by the political establishment pandering to a group that is already a privileged class culturally and institutionally is astounding.

    Who has heard anyone mention that minorities who recieve special benefits like gov't grants and loans, affirmative action, hiring quotas as well as special protections with anti discrimination and hate crime laws, and are represented by a special civil rights division of the justice department, not to mention 100s of ethnic advocacy groups, are about to become the majority in a country who's culture becomes more belligerent towards whites everyday?

    It is a recipe for genocide.

    It is a recipe for genocide.

    I was with your argument until this. Genocide? Really?

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
    Yes, really, genocide is already happening.

    What do you think people are talking about when they gloat about whites becoming a minority? And when they say none of this matters because in 100 years we will all be a beautiful mocha color? They are talking about genocide. Celebrating genocide. And any white who takes issue with it is classified as a hater.

    They will talk about whites becoming a minority in 20 years but they never extrapolate further. What will be the white percentage in 50 years? 100 years? White disposition will only accelerate as they lose more power and the new nonwhite majority enables more policies that harm whites and further increase nonwhite immigration. We are already declining not only as a percentage of the population but in real numbers.
  33. @Michael S
    Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren't meant for blacks or latinos or women, they're meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them.

    I fully expect that this will result in approximately zero additional pee oh cee votes, but as the Democrats become increasingly anti-white, the Republicans will put out this kind of rhetoric to try to peel away white Democrats, and I think it will work and is working, to a degree. Meanwhile, I doubt it's going to depress turnout from the partisan base, especially now that Muh Russia is dead and SCOTUS finally handed Trump his wall funding. Republicans are gonna vote Republican unless there's some major war or economic crisis.

    Or maybe it’s because the Republican Party accepts the plan of GloboHomo for a white-less future, and is planning itself on transitioning into a niche role as the libertarian pro-corporate party of the multicultural new America. This is virtue-signaling for the corporate masters.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Or maybe it’s because the Republican Party accepts the plan of GloboHomo for a white-less future, and is planning itself on transitioning into a niche role as the libertarian pro-corporate party of the multicultural new America. This is virtue-signaling for the corporate masters.
     
    Well, The GOP never had much backbone to oppose the racial changes of the 60's, or the feminist revolution of the 70's. Once they became the dominant party in the 80's, affirmative action was never seriously challenge, and divorce on demand laws passed in the early 70's never were really challenged either in subsequent decades. Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 never were vocal opponents of high over-all immigration levels; Reagan did sign onto legislation that was supposed to rectify the growing problem of illegal immigrants in the mid-80's, but the authorities never enforced the employer sanctions that were tacked on to the bill, something which the pro "small business" GOP of the 1980's never really complained about, in any event. The Bush's were a no elaboration is necessary disaster on immigration, in some ways actually worse than even Bill Clinton was on immigration.

    The "libertarian" turn of the 1970's knee-capped the GOP from being the real "traditional" party. Unless you want to retro-actively apply modern "conservative" values to the past, for which the modern GOP is quite guilty. I mean, back in FDR's era traditionalism meant stopping the entry of most aliens, stigmatizing literal and figurative gambling, accepting a "truce" between labor and capital to insure fairness, not encouraging ghetto retards to own pitbulls, and frequently committing dangerous people to mental hospitals. These things were not just accepted by the GOP back then, but even the Dems were on board. Hell, FDR got elected a billion times precisely because the Dems led the charge to be pro-social, as we ran far away from Social Darwinist nihilism.

    Oh, and lest we forget the GOP decided to reward the Reaganite turn of the West and South by amply pushing up funding for the military base and military manufacturing belt of America, which......is largely in the West and South. Great, it's so "conservative" to bankrupt America, and launch sustained and costly wars, because the military-industrial complex hitched it's wagon to the GOP in the 80's.

    Folks, let's face it: having the Dems in charge would've, depending on the issue, resulted in a combination of the following things happening:
    1)Some bad changes would've been slowed down
    2)Some bad changes would've been sped up
    3)Some bad changes would've happened at the same rate

    In other words: electing as many GOP'ers as we did since the 70's (and as many neo-lib or hawkish Dems as we did) really made no long-term positive difference to America, unless you are a "single issue" abortion or gun rights conservative; on those two fronts voting GOP did make a difference; but good lawd, the pathetic modern GOP only came to play on a measly two wholesome issues? Two issues? Really?
  34. @neutral
    The Republican politicians have openly declared multiple times that they oppose white identity politics. They pander as much as Democrats to non whites, the fact non whites prefer Democrats does not redeem the Republican party.

    I say good riddance to bad rubbish, may every state turn blue as these morons continue to assert that they are about the constitution and don't care about the browning of the population.

    The Republican politicians have openly declared multiple times that they oppose white identity politics. They pander as much as Democrats to non whites, the fact non whites prefer Democrats does not redeem the Republican party.

    I agree. Sadly all whites will suffer from the action of anti-white, whites. When the correction comes, the anti-white, whites must be the first dealt with.

  35. @silviosilver
    Even if there were something to the shadowstats conspiracy theory (and I see no reason to believe so), unemployment calculations have not changed since the Obama presidency, so it would still make perfect sense for Trump to play up his track record on unemployment.

    Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] changed methodology several decades ago. Shadowstats attempts to preserve the raw data and methods so that consistent and more meaningful numbers are available. There is no conspiracy. There actual % unemployment is much higher than BLS reports.

    That being said, I concur that the using the numbers out of BLS works as a comparison showing relative Trump successes versus Obama failure.
    __________

    Trump has substantially improved his standing with minority groups by bettering conditions in their communities. The DNC’s “exclude all whites” platform and strategy means that even modest GOP success with non-white voters will lead to victories. Not simply Trump 2020, also for House and Senate seats.

    Remember, Hispanics are not a single uniform group. The two largest Hispanic populations in swing state Florida are from Puerto Rico (U.S. Citizens) and Cuba (Special immigration rules). These populations are very approachable, because they cannot be provoked by DNC open-borders hysteria. In fact, these communities are hurt by Globalist DNC open-borders theology.

    PEACE

  36. @The Alarmist

    But instead we get minority stats that together add up to 70% of the total population. EVERYONE is benefiting, you see. EVERYONE!
     
    It's like we're living in Lake Wobegon©, where all the children are above average.

    Given that 96 million working-age Americans are considered to not be in the labour force, the official U3 stat of 3.6% is something of a joke. Even the U6 stat of 7.2% is dubious.

    BTW, if the Trump economy is so great, why do we need rate cuts on top of historically low interest rates? It's a sham economy.

    Given that 96 million working-age Americans are considered to not be in the labour force

    That includes homemakers, elderly retirees, prisoners, invalids, welfare queens, teenagers and illegals+others who are employed “off the books.”

  37. @Achmed E. Newman
    There's no conspiracy to it, Silvio, as the method used to calculate the U-3's etc, is out there for everyone to see. As Alarmist stated, it has been calculated this way (based on unemployment claims) for a long time now.

    I agree that Trump should use the same numbers. A comparison may or not mean anything though, as people giving up looking for work will go completely off the unemployment rolls and make the numbers look better. As raw numbers, they are pure garbage. 1 - (# employed men / # of employable men - not disabled, between whatever appropriated ages) is the true number. For women, you'd really need to know the # not seeking any work outside home. Yes, it's not as easy to get at as having unemployment offices send data to you.

    A _much_ better (though still flawed) measure of what “really matters” (economic health of “average” citizens) is federal income tax revenues (year to year for example).

    Minor moves in “unemployment” numbers are meaningless by comparison.

    (I am newly retired this year so that means I am not “unemployed” but I will have less income than the previous year when I filed my income tax. That means I have less money to spend on “consumer stuff” that is the largest portion of the economy–so I am a net minus for the economy compared to last year–and of course Trump and the Republicans have nothing to do with it either way.)

    Economic statistics are harmless when ignored, dangerous when used for determining policy, and evil when used for propaganda.

    • Replies: @Hopscotch
    One of the most relevant indicators of overall economic and cultural national health is the "Prime age (24 - 54) male labor force participation rate." This strips out excuses of more people in college, retirees etc.

    http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromMay2014/rackstrawfig1.png

    The gist is that it has steadily dropped by 10% from the 1940's to 2018. Neither party is eager to discuss it, since it testifies that the ideas of both Republicans and Democrats have failed, for nearly 80 years and counting.
  38. @Twinkie

    It is a recipe for genocide.
     
    I was with your argument until this. Genocide? Really?

    Yes, really, genocide is already happening.

    What do you think people are talking about when they gloat about whites becoming a minority? And when they say none of this matters because in 100 years we will all be a beautiful mocha color? They are talking about genocide. Celebrating genocide. And any white who takes issue with it is classified as a hater.

    They will talk about whites becoming a minority in 20 years but they never extrapolate further. What will be the white percentage in 50 years? 100 years? White disposition will only accelerate as they lose more power and the new nonwhite majority enables more policies that harm whites and further increase nonwhite immigration. We are already declining not only as a percentage of the population but in real numbers.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no "genocide". They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.
  39. @Mr. Rational
    I find myself losing IQ points whenever I read your twaddle.  My best neurons commit suicide from the pain.

    Not going to do that any more.  You're going with Corvinus.  >plonk!<

    That is because your IQ is just 70, as is usually the case with WN wiggers.

    The fact remains – White Nationalism is a left-wing ideology, since it has left-wing economic views. The typical White Nationalist just wants intra-white socialism.

    The typical White Nationalist also, ignorantly, believes that immigration ‘depresses wages’, when the real picture is far more complicated than that.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them. Some white libertarians are aware that the Democrat party is turning into the anti-white international socialist party. If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side. If this happens, white libertarians and white national socialists can continue to argue about the appropriate size of the welfare state while at the same time fighting the common anti-white enemy as embodied in the Democrat party. You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70. Almost no one who posts here has an IQ as low as 70 or even 80. If you have ever worked in a government office, as I have, and have seen the emails of 80 IQ black affirmative action hires then you know what the writing of someone with a low IQ really looks like. It doesn't look like what is posted by white nationalists on this site.
  40. @Twinkie

    Maybe this time instead of getting 1% of blacks we will get 2%!
     
    Didn't Trump actually do slightly better than Romney with blacks, Hispanic, and Asian voters though and did a tiny bit worse with white voters?

    Its very possible that a lot of those blacks are actually white in administrative data, true census blacks voted 99% for Obama in 2012 and have him at a 99% approval in 2017 (1% unsure)

    And I’d be interested if the Hispanics/Asians Trump did better with happened to be white/fair skin or not

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Well, quite a few light-complected "minorities" often have a thorny history with racial issues. Why? They often resent white people for being more at-ease around them, while whites are more visibly (or vocally) avoidant of darker skinned people. This neurosis can manifest itself with a lot of "over-acting" by light-skinned/softer featured minorities, to prove that they are "keeping it real". Sometimes this includes being quite hostile to whites (perhaps Obama would be less resentful of whites if he grew up in a violent ghetto full of "authentic" blacks?).
  41. @Twinkie
    “Race or ethnicity” are a bit different in context for whites and blacks on one hand and Hispanics and Asians on another. American whites and blacks are heavily admixed, so identify racially, but more recent arrivals and their immediate descendants tend to identify with national origin, e,g. “Filipino” or “Guatemalan,” etc. that have different inter- and intra-group dynamic.

    Though things are shifting away from identifying white (at least with Latinos)

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The GSS shows the same thing, thanks. Funny that given all the putative privilege being white brings, everybody is falling all over themselves to be identified as anything other than white.
  42. @Mitleser
    If majority of whites does not care much about their group, why should others care?

    https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1115629523863785472

    The only times I’ve seen racial salience go up for whites in studies is when exposed to information they’ll be a minority before 2050, though the most successful long term and that eliminates minimum 3 years of college liberal effect (nationally) is increasing the local black population and therefore crime exposure between the races. The southern model is far more efficient at that

    Besides that, 68% of whites don’t have racial salience verses the 60%+ of non-whites who have it daily, probably because a German and Italian are much more genetically separated than all of West Africa is.

    Nor will it improve thanks to social media’s politicalsphere being dominated by activist blacks –and

    White liberals are incredibly out-group focused because of it:

    White liberals who use the Internet for news increasingly believe discrimination explains black-white differences & give liberal answers on racial resentment questions, whereas offline white liberals have not changed their views much over time: –

    Although it does appear consumption of local media has a beneficial effect for white moderates –

    • Replies: @Mitleser

    The only times I’ve seen racial salience go up for whites in studies is when exposed to information they’ll be a minority before 2050, though the most successful long term and that eliminates minimum 3 years of college liberal effect (nationally) is increasing the local black population and therefore crime exposure between the races. The southern model is far more efficient at that
     
    Reminds me of what Ron Unz wrote years ago about white racial consciousness in American elections.

    These alternate hypotheses about the underlying sources of white political behavior may be explored empirically by examining the electoral data across the 50 states. Like it or not, today’s Republican Party does indeed constitute the “white party,” drawing almost all of its national votes from whites, while the Democratic Party serves as the “mixed party,” with roughly comparable support from whites and non-whites. Therefore, white support for Republicans, particularly at the national level, may serve as a reasonable proxy for a state’s apparent degree of “white racial consciousness,” whether implicit or explicit.

    Under the “Sailer Hypothesis,” white alignment with the Republicans should be heavily influenced by the white share of the population, with the residents of lily-white states exhibiting little racial consciousness, while those living in states in which whites have slender or non-existent majorities would tilt much more heavily Republican. A second possibility to consider might be called the “Hispanic Hypothesis,” in which the heavy influx of Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, pushes whites toward the harder-line Republicans; since the vast majority of today’s Hispanics come from a relatively recent immigrant background, a state’s overall Hispanic population can be used as a good approximation for this independent variable. Finally, there is the “Black Hypothesis,” in which the long history of black/white racial conflict is assumed to be the primary factor, and the percentage of blacks in the local population is what generally influences white political behavior.

    For the sake of simplicity and to minimize the confounding impact of local political issues and personalities, the easiest output variable to examine would be the percentage of the white vote that supported the Republican presidential ticket over the last 20 years. On a population-weighted basis, the correlation results for elections from 1992 through 2008 across the 50 states are as shown in the chart below.
     
    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WhiteAmerica-chart1.gif

    The results seem conclusive. The correlations between the Hispanic percentage of each state and white voter preferences are approximately zero for all presidential elections, implying that the presence of large Hispanic populations appears to have virtually no impact upon white political alignment, either one way or the other.

    By contrast, the evidence for apparent black/white racial conflict being the driving force that prompts whites to vote Republican seems very strong: the correlations between the size of the black population and the degree of white GOP support range from 0.43 to 0.70, with a mean of 0.55, being both quite substantial and very consistent over time.

    The data regarding the “Sailer Hypothesis” is bit more interesting, with the correlations between a state’s overall non-white percentage and white Republican alignment being small but noticeable, ranging between 0.14 and 0.31, with a mean of 0.20. However, we must remember that a considerable fraction of America’s non-whites are blacks, with the ratio declining from around half in 1992 to about one-third by 2008, and obviously the strong black correlations impact the non-white result. In fact, the Sailer Hypothesis curve closely tracks the weighted average of the Hispanic and Black Hypothesis curves, the difference being mostly due to America’s small but growing Asian population. Thus, any “Sailer Effect” in white voting patterns appears almost entirely due to the black portion of the non-white population and is therefore merely a statistical artifact.
     
    http://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/
  43. @Justvisiting
    A _much_ better (though still flawed) measure of what "really matters" (economic health of "average" citizens) is federal income tax revenues (year to year for example).

    Minor moves in "unemployment" numbers are meaningless by comparison.

    (I am newly retired this year so that means I am not "unemployed" but I will have less income than the previous year when I filed my income tax. That means I have less money to spend on "consumer stuff" that is the largest portion of the economy--so I am a net minus for the economy compared to last year--and of course Trump and the Republicans have nothing to do with it either way.)

    Economic statistics are harmless when ignored, dangerous when used for determining policy, and evil when used for propaganda.

    One of the most relevant indicators of overall economic and cultural national health is the “Prime age (24 – 54) male labor force participation rate.” This strips out excuses of more people in college, retirees etc.

    The gist is that it has steadily dropped by 10% from the 1940’s to 2018. Neither party is eager to discuss it, since it testifies that the ideas of both Republicans and Democrats have failed, for nearly 80 years and counting.

  44. @Thomm
    That is because your IQ is just 70, as is usually the case with WN wiggers.

    The fact remains - White Nationalism is a left-wing ideology, since it has left-wing economic views. The typical White Nationalist just wants intra-white socialism.

    The typical White Nationalist also, ignorantly, believes that immigration 'depresses wages', when the real picture is far more complicated than that.

    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them. Some white libertarians are aware that the Democrat party is turning into the anti-white international socialist party. If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side. If this happens, white libertarians and white national socialists can continue to argue about the appropriate size of the welfare state while at the same time fighting the common anti-white enemy as embodied in the Democrat party. You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70. Almost no one who posts here has an IQ as low as 70 or even 80. If you have ever worked in a government office, as I have, and have seen the emails of 80 IQ black affirmative action hires then you know what the writing of someone with a low IQ really looks like. It doesn’t look like what is posted by white nationalists on this site.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them.
     
    About 70% of them are. Hence, I agree that 30% are not.

    If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side.
     
    As a white quasi-Libertarian, I am in 'None of the Above' mode.

    For example, here are some mugshots of prominent White Trashionalist Kevin Crawford Kraft. He is one of the premier WNs in NorCal. Nonetheless, he gets arrested every 30-60 days for some lame crime (except when he is incarcerated outright, which is when there are two-year gaps between arrests).

    http://mugshotssantacruz.com/search/?last_name=KRAFT&first_name=KEVIN&#prof

    But the reason he is a leading light of WN is that at least he a) is out there doing things, and b) is not homosexual.

    You seem troubled by the fact that WNs have low IQ. You should be even more troubled by the huge subculture of bisexuality within in. 40% of White Nationalists openly say that they would rather have sex with a white man than a black woman, since race loyalty trumps sexual preference, and producing no baby is vastly better than producing a mulatto baby.
    , @snorlax
    There are a few posters on this site (comprising much of my ignore list) whose incoherent comments are suggestive of an IQ in the 80s. On a more extreme and less intellectual site like Stormfront or Gab there are more than a few. But anyone capable of posting a coherent thought without typos is almost certainly IQ 100 and probably higher.

    An IQ of 70 is mentally retarded. My cousin (by marriage) has an IQ of 70 and can read, but struggles to understand, books written for second graders. There is no way she could read and understand this site and its comments, nor would she have the technological literacy to figure out how to post a comment, or even use a web browser.
    , @Justvisiting
    I have lurked and posted on a bunch of political web sites/blogs/discussion groups since the early days of dial-up modems.

    I think the median intelligence here is the highest of any groups I have seen.

    (Yeah, there are trolls and idiots here but they are a small percentage.)
    , @Mr. Rational

    You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70.
     
    Did he actually write that?  Too funny.  Thanks for taking the brain-cell hit for the rest of us.

    About 2% of the White population has an IQ under 70 (-2 SD) and they are very obviously impaired; I suspect that the minimum IQ of the White nationalists/separatists/whatevers posting here is closer to 120.  But for blacks, about 15% have a sub-70 IQ (mean of 85) and they look relatively normal; blacks probably have no idea that a sub-70 IQ is almost in freak territory in the pale races.  The funniest part is that a Black posting here would be such a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
  45. @Mark G.
    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them. Some white libertarians are aware that the Democrat party is turning into the anti-white international socialist party. If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side. If this happens, white libertarians and white national socialists can continue to argue about the appropriate size of the welfare state while at the same time fighting the common anti-white enemy as embodied in the Democrat party. You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70. Almost no one who posts here has an IQ as low as 70 or even 80. If you have ever worked in a government office, as I have, and have seen the emails of 80 IQ black affirmative action hires then you know what the writing of someone with a low IQ really looks like. It doesn't look like what is posted by white nationalists on this site.

    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them.

    About 70% of them are. Hence, I agree that 30% are not.

    If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side.

    As a white quasi-Libertarian, I am in ‘None of the Above’ mode.

    For example, here are some mugshots of prominent White Trashionalist Kevin Crawford Kraft. He is one of the premier WNs in NorCal. Nonetheless, he gets arrested every 30-60 days for some lame crime (except when he is incarcerated outright, which is when there are two-year gaps between arrests).

    http://mugshotssantacruz.com/search/?last_name=KRAFT&first_name=KEVIN&#prof

    But the reason he is a leading light of WN is that at least he a) is out there doing things, and b) is not homosexual.

    You seem troubled by the fact that WNs have low IQ. You should be even more troubled by the huge subculture of bisexuality within in. 40% of White Nationalists openly say that they would rather have sex with a white man than a black woman, since race loyalty trumps sexual preference, and producing no baby is vastly better than producing a mulatto baby.

    • Replies: @iffen
    As a white quasi-Libertarian, I am in ‘None of the Above’ mode.

    You are white in the sense that South Asians are white. You have revealed this by claiming to be from "Middle America" and from the ignorance of the fact that American birth certificates are issued by city, county and state.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Where’s your poll of white nationalists to that effect? Waiting.

    I have never once heard any male white nationalist write or say, even intimate or joke, that he’d rather have sex with a white guy than a black woman. We are never, in fact, in need of making that “fallacy of the false alternative” choice. So we choose, sensibly, never to have sex with men or with African women. Pretty simple.

    You should try giving up those two kinds of sexual encounters yourself.
  46. @Mark G.
    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them. Some white libertarians are aware that the Democrat party is turning into the anti-white international socialist party. If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side. If this happens, white libertarians and white national socialists can continue to argue about the appropriate size of the welfare state while at the same time fighting the common anti-white enemy as embodied in the Democrat party. You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70. Almost no one who posts here has an IQ as low as 70 or even 80. If you have ever worked in a government office, as I have, and have seen the emails of 80 IQ black affirmative action hires then you know what the writing of someone with a low IQ really looks like. It doesn't look like what is posted by white nationalists on this site.

    There are a few posters on this site (comprising much of my ignore list) whose incoherent comments are suggestive of an IQ in the 80s. On a more extreme and less intellectual site like Stormfront or Gab there are more than a few. But anyone capable of posting a coherent thought without typos is almost certainly IQ 100 and probably higher.

    An IQ of 70 is mentally retarded. My cousin (by marriage) has an IQ of 70 and can read, but struggles to understand, books written for second graders. There is no way she could read and understand this site and its comments, nor would she have the technological literacy to figure out how to post a comment, or even use a web browser.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    There are different kinds of intelligence, though. I once read that Americans who hunt have, on average, an IQ that is like 10 points lower than the average non-hunter (adjusted for race, BTW). But most guys with an IQ of say, 92, probably find the prospect of shooting at deer to be more exciting than researching the GSS. It's safe to say that a certain sort of intelligence is necessary to operate a fire arm and successfully kill a wild animal, but this sort of activity requires a different set of mental abilities than reading War & Peace does. Visual-Spatial intelligence seems to be quite high in most men, even ones who don't necessarily score very high on "intelligence" tests (recall that Australian aborigines, reputed to frequently score in the 60's on IQ tests, have also been known to have an excellent sense of direction).

    In general, below average IQ men seem to gravitate towards material activity (wrenching on cars, hunting, beer league soft-ball etc.) over cerebral activity.

    I personally have good verbal IQ, mediocre at best "kinetic" intelligence (e.g. I can't dance), and visual spatial wise I'm a mixed bag (I've always done pretty well with fast paced 2D games, but I often get a bit disoriented in 3D games; I can't stand 1st person shooter games where keeping a frame of reference about geography seems to be very difficult compared to other games). And I kinda suck at math.

    I think that a lot of lower IQ men are capable of doing more reading, writing, analyzing, etc., but just don't get enough out of it to make these activities worth pursuing. They'd rather be outside doing stuff, or watching the Walking Dead.
  47. @Mark G.
    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them. Some white libertarians are aware that the Democrat party is turning into the anti-white international socialist party. If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side. If this happens, white libertarians and white national socialists can continue to argue about the appropriate size of the welfare state while at the same time fighting the common anti-white enemy as embodied in the Democrat party. You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70. Almost no one who posts here has an IQ as low as 70 or even 80. If you have ever worked in a government office, as I have, and have seen the emails of 80 IQ black affirmative action hires then you know what the writing of someone with a low IQ really looks like. It doesn't look like what is posted by white nationalists on this site.

    I have lurked and posted on a bunch of political web sites/blogs/discussion groups since the early days of dial-up modems.

    I think the median intelligence here is the highest of any groups I have seen.

    (Yeah, there are trolls and idiots here but they are a small percentage.)

    • Replies: @Feryl
    A lot of this is probably an age effect. If you end up with a lot of 12 year old girls in your corner of the internet, they aren't going to have a lot interesting things to say. Most internet forums that cater to a culture well outside the mainstream aren't going to attract that many young viewers.
  48. @Thomm

    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them.
     
    About 70% of them are. Hence, I agree that 30% are not.

    If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side.
     
    As a white quasi-Libertarian, I am in 'None of the Above' mode.

    For example, here are some mugshots of prominent White Trashionalist Kevin Crawford Kraft. He is one of the premier WNs in NorCal. Nonetheless, he gets arrested every 30-60 days for some lame crime (except when he is incarcerated outright, which is when there are two-year gaps between arrests).

    http://mugshotssantacruz.com/search/?last_name=KRAFT&first_name=KEVIN&#prof

    But the reason he is a leading light of WN is that at least he a) is out there doing things, and b) is not homosexual.

    You seem troubled by the fact that WNs have low IQ. You should be even more troubled by the huge subculture of bisexuality within in. 40% of White Nationalists openly say that they would rather have sex with a white man than a black woman, since race loyalty trumps sexual preference, and producing no baby is vastly better than producing a mulatto baby.

    As a white quasi-Libertarian, I am in ‘None of the Above’ mode.

    You are white in the sense that South Asians are white. You have revealed this by claiming to be from “Middle America” and from the ignorance of the fact that American birth certificates are issued by city, county and state.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    False. I said nothing of the sort (or else you would have provided a link).

    No one with an IQ above 70 thinks I am an Asian. South Asians are not white, and I am not South Asian.

    Last week, you said I was Jewish. Make up your mind.
  49. @Michael S
    Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren't meant for blacks or latinos or women, they're meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them.

    I fully expect that this will result in approximately zero additional pee oh cee votes, but as the Democrats become increasingly anti-white, the Republicans will put out this kind of rhetoric to try to peel away white Democrats, and I think it will work and is working, to a degree. Meanwhile, I doubt it's going to depress turnout from the partisan base, especially now that Muh Russia is dead and SCOTUS finally handed Trump his wall funding. Republicans are gonna vote Republican unless there's some major war or economic crisis.

    bingo.

  50. @Mark G.
    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them. Some white libertarians are aware that the Democrat party is turning into the anti-white international socialist party. If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side. If this happens, white libertarians and white national socialists can continue to argue about the appropriate size of the welfare state while at the same time fighting the common anti-white enemy as embodied in the Democrat party. You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70. Almost no one who posts here has an IQ as low as 70 or even 80. If you have ever worked in a government office, as I have, and have seen the emails of 80 IQ black affirmative action hires then you know what the writing of someone with a low IQ really looks like. It doesn't look like what is posted by white nationalists on this site.

    You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70.

    Did he actually write that?  Too funny.  Thanks for taking the brain-cell hit for the rest of us.

    About 2% of the White population has an IQ under 70 (-2 SD) and they are very obviously impaired; I suspect that the minimum IQ of the White nationalists/separatists/whatevers posting here is closer to 120.  But for blacks, about 15% have a sub-70 IQ (mean of 85) and they look relatively normal; blacks probably have no idea that a sub-70 IQ is almost in freak territory in the pale races.  The funniest part is that a Black posting here would be such a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    IQ of 125 checking in.
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    Fun fact: Look up La Griffe Du Lion's research on Baltimore. He calculated the average Black IQ there as 76 and the average White IQ there as 86.
    , @Feryl
    Ya know "weaponized autism"? A lot of people posting on these underground forums are basically misfits to some degree. Granted, really dumb misfits are more likely to be doing meth or getting arrested than putting effort into composing internet posts. But I suspect that it doesn't take all that much intelligence to be a non-conformist who becomes devoted to an unusual or daring ideology.

    There's also plenty of smart people who either don't care about politics, or don't find it worth their while to spend lots of time actually writing in detail about politics.

    BTW, I seem to remember Richard Lynn saying that an average IQ of about 91 was the floor for "developed" and consistently well-functioning countries. So the idea that you have to be well above that in order to to "keep up" with the debate on a website like Unz seems to be a stretch. This isn't quantum physics or anything.
    , @Twodees Partain
    Your last sentence is obviously true. The whites pretending to be black who post here don't seem to realize that they are giving themselves away with every comment they post.
  51. @Intelligent Dasein
    Diffidence (and the more unconscious, the better) is the surest form of demonstrating privilege. Most whites still think that they're just fine. This explains a lot.

    Do they? Or is it just a cope?

    Most white women are totally blind. I think some white men are waking up but what can they do? They feel isolated and powerless.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Most white women are totally blind. I think some white men are waking up but what can they do? They feel isolated and powerless.
     
    I don't think they're blind at all. Try broaching the subject of demographics with a White mother sometime. You can tell from their nonverbals that they are very uncomfortable about it. Their eyes glaze over and they quickly change the subject. I think it's a kind of self-defensive crimestoppers thing they have going on. It allows them to fully enjoy their lives with their children. I envy them sometimes.

    https://youtu.be/Z7BuQFUhsRM
  52. @Mr. Rational

    You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70.
     
    Did he actually write that?  Too funny.  Thanks for taking the brain-cell hit for the rest of us.

    About 2% of the White population has an IQ under 70 (-2 SD) and they are very obviously impaired; I suspect that the minimum IQ of the White nationalists/separatists/whatevers posting here is closer to 120.  But for blacks, about 15% have a sub-70 IQ (mean of 85) and they look relatively normal; blacks probably have no idea that a sub-70 IQ is almost in freak territory in the pale races.  The funniest part is that a Black posting here would be such a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    IQ of 125 checking in.

  53. @Mitleser
    If majority of whites does not care much about their group, why should others care?

    https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1115629523863785472

    White Americans have to be just about the saddest gaggle of simps on Earth.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    As compared to the Europeans?
    , @silviosilver
    Australia's racial surrender - which I've observed up close - is just as pathetic. Maybe even more pathetic, since its onset has been so much more rapid. Only a decade ago, a popular football commentator was able to keep his job after stating on live TV that the nickname of a certain football club whose jersey featured a red diagonal stripe on black background was "the bloodstained nwords" (but he didn't say "nword," he actually said the real thing, which I won't write here, since AE doesn't like that language). This was on a "panel"-type sports discussion in front of an audience, and as I recall, nobody on the panel made any huge moral fuss about it and I'm fairly sure much of the audience laughed. Good luck trying that today.
  54. @L Woods
    White Americans have to be just about the saddest gaggle of simps on Earth.

    As compared to the Europeans?

    • Replies: @L Woods
    I suppose you’ve got me there. In addition to the race cuckery though, white American “men” put up with a nearly unrivaled amount of shit from women.
  55. @Mr. Rational
    I find myself losing IQ points whenever I read your twaddle.  My best neurons commit suicide from the pain.

    Not going to do that any more.  You're going with Corvinus.  >plonk!<

    “My best neurons commit suicide from the pain.”

    hahahahaha.

    now there’s a good line. haven’t heard that one before.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Given free to the world.  Steal and spread, no credit required.
  56. @Mr. Rational

    You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70.
     
    Did he actually write that?  Too funny.  Thanks for taking the brain-cell hit for the rest of us.

    About 2% of the White population has an IQ under 70 (-2 SD) and they are very obviously impaired; I suspect that the minimum IQ of the White nationalists/separatists/whatevers posting here is closer to 120.  But for blacks, about 15% have a sub-70 IQ (mean of 85) and they look relatively normal; blacks probably have no idea that a sub-70 IQ is almost in freak territory in the pale races.  The funniest part is that a Black posting here would be such a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Fun fact: Look up La Griffe Du Lion’s research on Baltimore. He calculated the average Black IQ there as 76 and the average White IQ there as 86.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    I do love La Griffe, but had forgotten that he'd written specifically on Baltimore.
  57. @Twinkie
    Although he is unlike usual pols in many ways, he still wants to be re-elected like any other pol and says different things to appeal to different demographic slices. "Send them back" certainly polls well with his base while "Look how well POCs have done under Trump!" polls well with nice white ladies (of both sexes) in the suburbs.

    nice white ladies (of both sexes) in the suburbs.

    Ha.

  58. @Oblivionrecurs
    As compared to the Europeans?

    I suppose you’ve got me there. In addition to the race cuckery though, white American “men” put up with a nearly unrivaled amount of shit from women.

  59. @snorlax
    There are a few posters on this site (comprising much of my ignore list) whose incoherent comments are suggestive of an IQ in the 80s. On a more extreme and less intellectual site like Stormfront or Gab there are more than a few. But anyone capable of posting a coherent thought without typos is almost certainly IQ 100 and probably higher.

    An IQ of 70 is mentally retarded. My cousin (by marriage) has an IQ of 70 and can read, but struggles to understand, books written for second graders. There is no way she could read and understand this site and its comments, nor would she have the technological literacy to figure out how to post a comment, or even use a web browser.

    There are different kinds of intelligence, though. I once read that Americans who hunt have, on average, an IQ that is like 10 points lower than the average non-hunter (adjusted for race, BTW). But most guys with an IQ of say, 92, probably find the prospect of shooting at deer to be more exciting than researching the GSS. It’s safe to say that a certain sort of intelligence is necessary to operate a fire arm and successfully kill a wild animal, but this sort of activity requires a different set of mental abilities than reading War & Peace does. Visual-Spatial intelligence seems to be quite high in most men, even ones who don’t necessarily score very high on “intelligence” tests (recall that Australian aborigines, reputed to frequently score in the 60’s on IQ tests, have also been known to have an excellent sense of direction).

    In general, below average IQ men seem to gravitate towards material activity (wrenching on cars, hunting, beer league soft-ball etc.) over cerebral activity.

    I personally have good verbal IQ, mediocre at best “kinetic” intelligence (e.g. I can’t dance), and visual spatial wise I’m a mixed bag (I’ve always done pretty well with fast paced 2D games, but I often get a bit disoriented in 3D games; I can’t stand 1st person shooter games where keeping a frame of reference about geography seems to be very difficult compared to other games). And I kinda suck at math.

    I think that a lot of lower IQ men are capable of doing more reading, writing, analyzing, etc., but just don’t get enough out of it to make these activities worth pursuing. They’d rather be outside doing stuff, or watching the Walking Dead.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I know that if IQ tests were recalibrated to emphasize visual-spatial IQ, much of the "parity" between male and female IQ would disappear. Women are slightly better in verbal IQ (though this advantage decreases with age), while men are definitely better on visual-spatial tasks. And moreover, the gap on this skill doesn't shrink with age; one could argue that men are mentally superior in the sense that men get a lot better at certain things in their 20's and 30's (verbal skills primarily), while women intellectually peak in their early 20's and never get much better (aside from a slight boost in verbal skills, that isn't the same level of improvement that men get.

    Everyone also knows that 20 year old men are much smarter than 13 year old men, while 30 year old men tend to have better speaking skills, and social skills*, than 20 year old men do. Whereas the "improvements" seen in females are much less noticeable (females seem to arrive at their life-long character by the time they finish college, with men it happens 8-10 years later)

    So trying to intellectually equate men and women seems to be pretty questionable (basically, you'll get different results depending on the age of test subjects, and depending on which areas of ability are emphasized).

    *Jordan Peterson says that male violence and criminality begin to decline at the age of 27; so we can deduce that 27 is probably the earliest possible age at which many men could be said to be fully "developed".
    , @snorlax
    You can find plenty of people who have IQs in the 90s (thoughts coherent but banal, limited vocabulary, average of one to three significant spelling or grammar errors per paragraph) in the Breitbart and Daily Mail comment sections.

    Anyway, my point was the idea that any commenter here has an IQ as low as 70 is preposterous.
  60. @Mr. Rational

    You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70.
     
    Did he actually write that?  Too funny.  Thanks for taking the brain-cell hit for the rest of us.

    About 2% of the White population has an IQ under 70 (-2 SD) and they are very obviously impaired; I suspect that the minimum IQ of the White nationalists/separatists/whatevers posting here is closer to 120.  But for blacks, about 15% have a sub-70 IQ (mean of 85) and they look relatively normal; blacks probably have no idea that a sub-70 IQ is almost in freak territory in the pale races.  The funniest part is that a Black posting here would be such a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Ya know “weaponized autism”? A lot of people posting on these underground forums are basically misfits to some degree. Granted, really dumb misfits are more likely to be doing meth or getting arrested than putting effort into composing internet posts. But I suspect that it doesn’t take all that much intelligence to be a non-conformist who becomes devoted to an unusual or daring ideology.

    There’s also plenty of smart people who either don’t care about politics, or don’t find it worth their while to spend lots of time actually writing in detail about politics.

    BTW, I seem to remember Richard Lynn saying that an average IQ of about 91 was the floor for “developed” and consistently well-functioning countries. So the idea that you have to be well above that in order to to “keep up” with the debate on a website like Unz seems to be a stretch. This isn’t quantum physics or anything.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Ya know “weaponized autism”? A lot of people posting on these underground forums are basically misfits to some degree.
     
    Given the way "racists" (race realists) are persecuted in modern society, being one makes you a misfit by definition.  They aren't herd animals.  They tend to have many facts at their fingertips.  This requires a certain amount of intelligence.

    So the idea that you have to be well above that in order to to “keep up” with the debate on a website like Unz seems to be a stretch. This isn’t quantum physics or anything.
     
    I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em based on the quality of responses.  So far, I'm batting 1.000.
  61. @Justvisiting
    I have lurked and posted on a bunch of political web sites/blogs/discussion groups since the early days of dial-up modems.

    I think the median intelligence here is the highest of any groups I have seen.

    (Yeah, there are trolls and idiots here but they are a small percentage.)

    A lot of this is probably an age effect. If you end up with a lot of 12 year old girls in your corner of the internet, they aren’t going to have a lot interesting things to say. Most internet forums that cater to a culture well outside the mainstream aren’t going to attract that many young viewers.

  62. @prime noticer
    "My best neurons commit suicide from the pain."

    hahahahaha.

    now there's a good line. haven't heard that one before.

    Given free to the world.  Steal and spread, no credit required.

  63. @Oblivionrecurs
    Fun fact: Look up La Griffe Du Lion's research on Baltimore. He calculated the average Black IQ there as 76 and the average White IQ there as 86.

    I do love La Griffe, but had forgotten that he’d written specifically on Baltimore.

  64. @Oblivionrecurs
    Its very possible that a lot of those blacks are actually white in administrative data, true census blacks voted 99% for Obama in 2012 and have him at a 99% approval in 2017 (1% unsure)

    And I'd be interested if the Hispanics/Asians Trump did better with happened to be white/fair skin or not

    Well, quite a few light-complected “minorities” often have a thorny history with racial issues. Why? They often resent white people for being more at-ease around them, while whites are more visibly (or vocally) avoidant of darker skinned people. This neurosis can manifest itself with a lot of “over-acting” by light-skinned/softer featured minorities, to prove that they are “keeping it real”. Sometimes this includes being quite hostile to whites (perhaps Obama would be less resentful of whites if he grew up in a violent ghetto full of “authentic” blacks?).

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Sometimes this includes being quite hostile to whites (perhaps Obama would be less resentful of whites if he grew up in a violent ghetto full of “authentic” blacks?)."

    It's also possible that he wouldn't have lived long enough to have entered college, let alone politics.
  65. @Feryl
    Ya know "weaponized autism"? A lot of people posting on these underground forums are basically misfits to some degree. Granted, really dumb misfits are more likely to be doing meth or getting arrested than putting effort into composing internet posts. But I suspect that it doesn't take all that much intelligence to be a non-conformist who becomes devoted to an unusual or daring ideology.

    There's also plenty of smart people who either don't care about politics, or don't find it worth their while to spend lots of time actually writing in detail about politics.

    BTW, I seem to remember Richard Lynn saying that an average IQ of about 91 was the floor for "developed" and consistently well-functioning countries. So the idea that you have to be well above that in order to to "keep up" with the debate on a website like Unz seems to be a stretch. This isn't quantum physics or anything.

    Ya know “weaponized autism”? A lot of people posting on these underground forums are basically misfits to some degree.

    Given the way “racists” (race realists) are persecuted in modern society, being one makes you a misfit by definition.  They aren’t herd animals.  They tend to have many facts at their fingertips.  This requires a certain amount of intelligence.

    So the idea that you have to be well above that in order to to “keep up” with the debate on a website like Unz seems to be a stretch. This isn’t quantum physics or anything.

    I’m just calling ’em as I see ’em based on the quality of responses.  So far, I’m batting 1.000.

  66. @Feryl
    There are different kinds of intelligence, though. I once read that Americans who hunt have, on average, an IQ that is like 10 points lower than the average non-hunter (adjusted for race, BTW). But most guys with an IQ of say, 92, probably find the prospect of shooting at deer to be more exciting than researching the GSS. It's safe to say that a certain sort of intelligence is necessary to operate a fire arm and successfully kill a wild animal, but this sort of activity requires a different set of mental abilities than reading War & Peace does. Visual-Spatial intelligence seems to be quite high in most men, even ones who don't necessarily score very high on "intelligence" tests (recall that Australian aborigines, reputed to frequently score in the 60's on IQ tests, have also been known to have an excellent sense of direction).

    In general, below average IQ men seem to gravitate towards material activity (wrenching on cars, hunting, beer league soft-ball etc.) over cerebral activity.

    I personally have good verbal IQ, mediocre at best "kinetic" intelligence (e.g. I can't dance), and visual spatial wise I'm a mixed bag (I've always done pretty well with fast paced 2D games, but I often get a bit disoriented in 3D games; I can't stand 1st person shooter games where keeping a frame of reference about geography seems to be very difficult compared to other games). And I kinda suck at math.

    I think that a lot of lower IQ men are capable of doing more reading, writing, analyzing, etc., but just don't get enough out of it to make these activities worth pursuing. They'd rather be outside doing stuff, or watching the Walking Dead.

    I know that if IQ tests were recalibrated to emphasize visual-spatial IQ, much of the “parity” between male and female IQ would disappear. Women are slightly better in verbal IQ (though this advantage decreases with age), while men are definitely better on visual-spatial tasks. And moreover, the gap on this skill doesn’t shrink with age; one could argue that men are mentally superior in the sense that men get a lot better at certain things in their 20’s and 30’s (verbal skills primarily), while women intellectually peak in their early 20’s and never get much better (aside from a slight boost in verbal skills, that isn’t the same level of improvement that men get.

    Everyone also knows that 20 year old men are much smarter than 13 year old men, while 30 year old men tend to have better speaking skills, and social skills*, than 20 year old men do. Whereas the “improvements” seen in females are much less noticeable (females seem to arrive at their life-long character by the time they finish college, with men it happens 8-10 years later)

    So trying to intellectually equate men and women seems to be pretty questionable (basically, you’ll get different results depending on the age of test subjects, and depending on which areas of ability are emphasized).

    *Jordan Peterson says that male violence and criminality begin to decline at the age of 27; so we can deduce that 27 is probably the earliest possible age at which many men could be said to be fully “developed”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How much of this is survivorship bias?

    A lot of the "gains" men and black people make as they age are just due to the low IQ, high testosterone ones dying or ending up in prison.

    People make similar arguments about black people all the time. They say "young blacks do quite poorly in intellect and life choices in their teens and 20's, but 65 year old black people behave almost as well as 65 year old whites". Well of course they do! The dumbest and most aggressive blacks are either dead or serving a life sentence by age 40!

    Same with boys and men. When kids are young, there are fewer differences between boys and girls. But the average adult man has higher testosterone than the average adult woman. Low IQ + low testosterone = dumb person who is able to keep a stable blue collar job and obey the law. Low IQ + high testosterone = Darwin awards. Of course the average man you see in society is a little bit smarter than the average woman by age 30, and this gap increases with age! The dumbest and most aggressive men are dead or in prison!

    Are women and whites really "mediocre" or is it just that almost all women, whites, and especially white women stay in open society for the entirety of their lives? The dumbest white women isn't aggressive enough to mass murder people, join a crack gang, engage in a high speed car chase, or whatever it is that white men and blacks, with their high average testosterone levels, enjoy doing. White women of all IQ levels just want to live their daily lives the same way they have always lived them, and not cause trouble or do anything drastic.
  67. @Achmed E. Newman
    You're right, A.E., that "women unemployment" is awkward; it's not even good English. You'd think feminists would be proud to be "female", but it does contain male in it, some of the time ....

    You’re right, A.E., that “women unemployment” is awkward; it’s not even good English. You’d think feminists would be proud to be “female”, but it does contain male in it, some of the time ….

    I actually agree that “female” is degrading, but so is “male.” Jared Taylor has made this point before, that “white male” sounds like a lab rat. He says White men should call themselves “White men.” I agree.

    The problem is that there is no other adjective to describe human beings (as opposed to animals) as belonging to either the male sex or the female sex. “Feminine” and “masculine” don’t quite work because they generally refer to social expectations or general patterns (i.e. stereotypes, but I don’t mean that in a bad way).

    All that said, this is really kind of an offensive post. It almost seems like a deliberate f*** you to the demographic group under discussion here.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I actually agree that “female” is degrading, but so is “male.”
     
    Do you mean as NOUNS, Rosie? For that case I would agree. It sounds like the way cops talk about "perps", and it makes people sound like just another type of animal, which is the way many cops DO think. "There are 2 males behind the shed, and we've got a female on the run behind the fence ...."

    As far as adjectives, "male" and "female" seem OK to me. My joke at the end there may have been missed by all, in which case, is it even a joke at all?

    , @Reg Cæsar
    Male and female work fine as adjectives. It's as nouns that they're degrading.

    I think people have picked this up from watching too many cop shows..
  68. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Or maybe it's because the Republican Party accepts the plan of GloboHomo for a white-less future, and is planning itself on transitioning into a niche role as the libertarian pro-corporate party of the multicultural new America. This is virtue-signaling for the corporate masters.

    Or maybe it’s because the Republican Party accepts the plan of GloboHomo for a white-less future, and is planning itself on transitioning into a niche role as the libertarian pro-corporate party of the multicultural new America. This is virtue-signaling for the corporate masters.

    Well, The GOP never had much backbone to oppose the racial changes of the 60’s, or the feminist revolution of the 70’s. Once they became the dominant party in the 80’s, affirmative action was never seriously challenge, and divorce on demand laws passed in the early 70’s never were really challenged either in subsequent decades. Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 never were vocal opponents of high over-all immigration levels; Reagan did sign onto legislation that was supposed to rectify the growing problem of illegal immigrants in the mid-80’s, but the authorities never enforced the employer sanctions that were tacked on to the bill, something which the pro “small business” GOP of the 1980’s never really complained about, in any event. The Bush’s were a no elaboration is necessary disaster on immigration, in some ways actually worse than even Bill Clinton was on immigration.

    The “libertarian” turn of the 1970’s knee-capped the GOP from being the real “traditional” party. Unless you want to retro-actively apply modern “conservative” values to the past, for which the modern GOP is quite guilty. I mean, back in FDR’s era traditionalism meant stopping the entry of most aliens, stigmatizing literal and figurative gambling, accepting a “truce” between labor and capital to insure fairness, not encouraging ghetto retards to own pitbulls, and frequently committing dangerous people to mental hospitals. These things were not just accepted by the GOP back then, but even the Dems were on board. Hell, FDR got elected a billion times precisely because the Dems led the charge to be pro-social, as we ran far away from Social Darwinist nihilism.

    Oh, and lest we forget the GOP decided to reward the Reaganite turn of the West and South by amply pushing up funding for the military base and military manufacturing belt of America, which……is largely in the West and South. Great, it’s so “conservative” to bankrupt America, and launch sustained and costly wars, because the military-industrial complex hitched it’s wagon to the GOP in the 80’s.

    Folks, let’s face it: having the Dems in charge would’ve, depending on the issue, resulted in a combination of the following things happening:
    1)Some bad changes would’ve been slowed down
    2)Some bad changes would’ve been sped up
    3)Some bad changes would’ve happened at the same rate

    In other words: electing as many GOP’ers as we did since the 70’s (and as many neo-lib or hawkish Dems as we did) really made no long-term positive difference to America, unless you are a “single issue” abortion or gun rights conservative; on those two fronts voting GOP did make a difference; but good lawd, the pathetic modern GOP only came to play on a measly two wholesome issues? Two issues? Really?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't usually agree with you on American political history, Feryl (cause I was THERE), but this is a good comment. About the only disagreement is about the South and West and the Reagan GOP vote. No, it wasn't all about military spending. These regions are , make that "were" significantly more conservative and, results not withstanding, Ronnie WAS a conservative and came across as one very well too.

    Even regarding the Cold War Reagan defense build-up, the South has more military bases, but that's not where most of the money of the defense buildup went - southern California got a whole hell of a lot for defense "procurement", meaning building of satellites, electronic systems, some fighters (Northrup), air tankers, etc.

    Do you remember the sagebrush rebellion, Feryl? Lots of the big, sparsly-populated Western States wanted the US Gov't to leave them the hell alone. That includes Area 51's and such, except, of course, for the employees. These States aren't the same now, after both Californication and other immigration, Nevada being Exhibit A on that.

    Anyway, that was just a quibble. I want to reply on one last point, but I'll write another comment.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Again, good comment, and those last 2 issues were in my mind right before I read that last paragraph in which you discussed them. On that gun-rights issue: yes, the GOP, especially at the State level, has done a bang-up job rolling back a lot of the damage to Amendment II that started in '68 (arguably).

    This is just ONE issue out of many, including the existential immigration issue that the GOP indeed screwed us on, and is still screwing us on (it's not incompetency, BTW) However, the way things may go, this 2nd Amendment issue may still turn out to be very important. I'm not saying that in the way of a threat to the ctrl-left. It's just that, the way things are going, it would have been not more than 5 years from now that these people would have been going all Pol-Pot on our asses, had it not been for American's support of Amendment II and the exercising thereof.

    Here's the cool Right-to-Carry changes .gif that I included before (I think under and A.E. post):

    https://www.peakstupidity.com/images/Concealed_Carry_Changes.gif

    That's supposed to be animated, changing from '86 to just a coupla years ago. If it doesn't work, my apologies - it worked before. (Still in the 5-min. EDIT phase right now)
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Ahaaa! Found the problem - that last one wasn't the animated one at all (just one layer, I guess):

    Here:

    https://www.peakstupidity.com/images/CCC.gif
  69. @iffen
    As a white quasi-Libertarian, I am in ‘None of the Above’ mode.

    You are white in the sense that South Asians are white. You have revealed this by claiming to be from "Middle America" and from the ignorance of the fact that American birth certificates are issued by city, county and state.

    False. I said nothing of the sort (or else you would have provided a link).

    No one with an IQ above 70 thinks I am an Asian. South Asians are not white, and I am not South Asian.

    Last week, you said I was Jewish. Make up your mind.

  70. @Twinkie
    “Race or ethnicity” are a bit different in context for whites and blacks on one hand and Hispanics and Asians on another. American whites and blacks are heavily admixed, so identify racially, but more recent arrivals and their immediate descendants tend to identify with national origin, e,g. “Filipino” or “Guatemalan,” etc. that have different inter- and intra-group dynamic.

    Most whites feel terrible these days. As AE often says, they’re joining feather Indians in terms of years long struggles with self worth. Remember, whites ran America as it rose up; as it falls down, we have the heaviest psychological price to pay for failing to keep it up. Blacks never ran things, and people who’ve come here over the last 50 years obviously have no sense of investment in, or kinship with, the “rising” period of American history. In fact, to these people the civic and economic decay of America is quite “normal”. They don’t have grandparents talking about the days when Ford plant workers were middle class; they don’t have grandparents or great grandparents who fought in WW2.

    American Indians still haven’t fully bounced back from the loss of “their” country. Will whites do the same?

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Most whites feel terrible these days
     
    I suspect that most upper-class or upper middle-class whites feel better than ever before.
  71. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Do they? Or is it just a cope?

    Most white women are totally blind. I think some white men are waking up but what can they do? They feel isolated and powerless.

    Most white women are totally blind. I think some white men are waking up but what can they do? They feel isolated and powerless.

    I don’t think they’re blind at all. Try broaching the subject of demographics with a White mother sometime. You can tell from their nonverbals that they are very uncomfortable about it. Their eyes glaze over and they quickly change the subject. I think it’s a kind of self-defensive crimestoppers thing they have going on. It allows them to fully enjoy their lives with their children. I envy them sometimes.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    It's possible. I remember hearing a 30 year old white woman in Toronto complaining about "bussing" for her kid. More about the effed up school boundary districts that ensured there was plenty of "diversity" to go around.

    Anyways she was clearly quite uneasy about this. She seemed deeply ashamed though, and tried her hardest to not sound racist. She even said, "I can see where they're coming from..."

    It was quite sad. You could tell that she was clearly afraid of being called "Becky" and "racist". But to me it sounds like it's also a husband problem. If she had a strong, racially conscious husband, perhaps she would be taking a stronger stand.

    Anyways, whitey will keep losing until he becomes unapologetically tribal.
  72. @Feryl
    Most whites feel terrible these days. As AE often says, they're joining feather Indians in terms of years long struggles with self worth. Remember, whites ran America as it rose up; as it falls down, we have the heaviest psychological price to pay for failing to keep it up. Blacks never ran things, and people who've come here over the last 50 years obviously have no sense of investment in, or kinship with, the "rising" period of American history. In fact, to these people the civic and economic decay of America is quite "normal". They don't have grandparents talking about the days when Ford plant workers were middle class; they don't have grandparents or great grandparents who fought in WW2.

    American Indians still haven't fully bounced back from the loss of "their" country. Will whites do the same?

    Most whites feel terrible these days

    I suspect that most upper-class or upper middle-class whites feel better than ever before.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Nope, not a chance. 1950's elites consciously "down-shifted", not feeling much pressure to accumulate the trappings of "success". People were comfortable in their own skin.

    Now that Gilded Age norms are punishing to 2/3 of the population but much more reward to the top 1/3 or so, we've incentivized striving to make it to the top. Inevitably, not only are many of the losers bitter and frustrated, but even many of the ostensible winners feel very protective of what they have, and can't stand the the thought of losing it. Because their self-concept in this corrupt era is heavily based on status.

    Peter Turchin says that overly competitive behavior by elites (and wannabe elites) has been actively diminishing our overall sense of well being since the mid-70's.

    We are far, far away from the mostly agreeable nature of the mid-20th century.

    If elites were happy, then our cultural commenters would be calm and pleasant. They are certainly not, at the moment (loud and angry commentary began to get more popular in the 80's, and has only become more popular in each subsequent decade).

    Also, if elites felt secure, then we wouldn't have 5 million people trying to be president right now. In times of goodwill among man, we have a handful of candidates who are trusted by all others to do a decent job in the White House. Beginning with the GOP field of 2016, though, there's been a massive shift towards elites distrusting each other, as is indicated by the now crowded field of candidates in 2016 and 2020.

    And the 2010's have seen a massive breakdown of civility among political candidates; you'd have to go back to the late 19th century original Gilded Age to find so much ad hominem abuse and bad faith arguments being hurled by the candidates themselves; imagine if GHW Bush on the campaign trail sounded like Lee Atwater at the water cooler, rather than publicly being agreeable while Atwater devised some dirty tricks in the backroom.
  73. @Feryl
    There are different kinds of intelligence, though. I once read that Americans who hunt have, on average, an IQ that is like 10 points lower than the average non-hunter (adjusted for race, BTW). But most guys with an IQ of say, 92, probably find the prospect of shooting at deer to be more exciting than researching the GSS. It's safe to say that a certain sort of intelligence is necessary to operate a fire arm and successfully kill a wild animal, but this sort of activity requires a different set of mental abilities than reading War & Peace does. Visual-Spatial intelligence seems to be quite high in most men, even ones who don't necessarily score very high on "intelligence" tests (recall that Australian aborigines, reputed to frequently score in the 60's on IQ tests, have also been known to have an excellent sense of direction).

    In general, below average IQ men seem to gravitate towards material activity (wrenching on cars, hunting, beer league soft-ball etc.) over cerebral activity.

    I personally have good verbal IQ, mediocre at best "kinetic" intelligence (e.g. I can't dance), and visual spatial wise I'm a mixed bag (I've always done pretty well with fast paced 2D games, but I often get a bit disoriented in 3D games; I can't stand 1st person shooter games where keeping a frame of reference about geography seems to be very difficult compared to other games). And I kinda suck at math.

    I think that a lot of lower IQ men are capable of doing more reading, writing, analyzing, etc., but just don't get enough out of it to make these activities worth pursuing. They'd rather be outside doing stuff, or watching the Walking Dead.

    You can find plenty of people who have IQs in the 90s (thoughts coherent but banal, limited vocabulary, average of one to three significant spelling or grammar errors per paragraph) in the Breitbart and Daily Mail comment sections.

    Anyway, my point was the idea that any commenter here has an IQ as low as 70 is preposterous.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    "Bigger" is not better, in terms of a comments section. Also, a lot of smart people have memorized cuck/establishment talking points, and don't mind regurgitating them. You might be surprised at just how many "smart" people sound like MSNBC or Fox talking heads, when it comes to politics, as they succumb to partisan non-sense that everything would be just fine if only everyone voted for the GOP or the Dems.

    It takes a willingness to go against the grain, and some effort, to do lots of "research" that spells out the often complicated reality of life and many of it's "issues". It's far easier to be a partisan propagandist.
  74. @eah
    If a substantial number voted for Trump despite his being “literally Hitler,”...

    Since you're big on 'digging into the details', name a non-white demographic that voted > 30% for Trump in 2016 -- of course, there isn't one -- so the GOP could increase its share of the non-white vote by a whopping 50% (which will NEVER happen of course), and still not have even close to a majority.

    In fact, non-whites typically vote >> 2:1 for Democrats: 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, etc, depending on the demographic.

    Trump won in 2016 because he received a sufficient preponderance of white votes -- given the ongoing demographic replacement of Whites, how much longer will that be possible? -- 2020 may very well be the last time -- today, election results in CA show very, very clearly what happens when there are no longer enough white votes on offer: the GOP is for all practical purposes finished in CA -- do you think the GOP has not been trying for decades to woo non-white voters in CA?

    Get a life.

    Get a clue.

    The GOP is headed for the dustbin nationally too, and people like you are the reason -- good riddance to both you and them.

    The US desperately needs an AfA = Alternative for America party to replace the GOP.

    https://i.postimg.cc/nzyz8zqt/2016-election-by-race-2.jpg

    Lol, calm down. I wasn’t recommending that Republicans devote any serious effort to winning non-white votes. I was just pointing out that, since some 35-40% of the non-black, non-white reliably goes to the GOP, it’s unsurprising that some Republicans place some emphasis on it. Otherwise, I agree completely that Republicans would be far better served concentrating on upping their share of the white vote than chasing minority votes.

  75. @Futurethirdworlder
    "I agree with the poster who said this GOP tweet is aimed at political moderates– not just white moderates though."

    So the grand GOP plan is to woo white voters who are really impressed with what they are doing for the brown people. And continue pandering to the same people who have rejected them for 60 years.

    Anything to avoid appealing to its base.

    "Get a life."

    I get it you like your liberalism in a red hate.

    So the grand GOP plan is to woo white voters who are really impressed with what they are doing for the brown people.

    Some white voters really can be appealed to on that basis. I wouldn’t describe it in terms of “what they are doing for brown people.” Rather, I would frame it as “Hey, Democrats claim that the GOP is ‘racist’ and bad for non-whites. But look at this:…….” This allows more liberal-leaning whites to vote for the GOP with a ‘clean conscience.’ Why simply surrender these voters to the Dems?

    Other white voters, of course, couldn’t care less about issues like that. Such voters can be appealed to on the basis of white group interest.

    As for attracting non-white voters, I like Steve Sailer’s suggestion of framing the Democrats as the “Black party.” Not all non-whites are anti-white. Many of them are far more anti-black than anti-white. That’s a political cleavage worth exploiting.

    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
    Any whites who are concerned about the blacks aren't basing anything on objective reality (like employment numbers) they do it for the social signaling points. They aren't going to go against the modern zeitgeist and support the "orange man" because he has improved black unemployment or intervened on behalf of a criminal rapper in Sweden.

    How many whites will Trump lose by pandering to nonwhites combined with his his failure on immigration?

    Also

    Silvio silver and gold
    Won't buy back the beat of a heart grown cold
    Silvio I gotta go
    Find out somethin only dead men know.
  76. @L Woods
    White Americans have to be just about the saddest gaggle of simps on Earth.

    Australia’s racial surrender – which I’ve observed up close – is just as pathetic. Maybe even more pathetic, since its onset has been so much more rapid. Only a decade ago, a popular football commentator was able to keep his job after stating on live TV that the nickname of a certain football club whose jersey featured a red diagonal stripe on black background was “the bloodstained nwords” (but he didn’t say “nword,” he actually said the real thing, which I won’t write here, since AE doesn’t like that language). This was on a “panel”-type sports discussion in front of an audience, and as I recall, nobody on the panel made any huge moral fuss about it and I’m fairly sure much of the audience laughed. Good luck trying that today.

  77. @Oblivionrecurs
    The only times I've seen racial salience go up for whites in studies is when exposed to information they'll be a minority before 2050, though the most successful long term and that eliminates minimum 3 years of college liberal effect (nationally) is increasing the local black population and therefore crime exposure between the races. The southern model is far more efficient at that

    Besides that, 68% of whites don't have racial salience verses the 60%+ of non-whites who have it daily, probably because a German and Italian are much more genetically separated than all of West Africa is.

    http://magaimg.net/img/8a4y.jpg

    Nor will it improve thanks to social media's politicalsphere being dominated by activist blacks - http://magaimg.net/img/8mdp.jpg and http://magaimg.net/img/8mdq.jpg

    White liberals are incredibly out-group focused because of it: http://magaimg.net/img/8mdn.jpg

    White liberals who use the Internet for news increasingly believe discrimination explains black-white differences & give liberal answers on racial resentment questions, whereas offline white liberals have not changed their views much over time: - http://magaimg.net/img/8mdl.jpg

    Although it does appear consumption of local media has a beneficial effect for white moderates - http://magaimg.net/img/8mds.png

    The only times I’ve seen racial salience go up for whites in studies is when exposed to information they’ll be a minority before 2050, though the most successful long term and that eliminates minimum 3 years of college liberal effect (nationally) is increasing the local black population and therefore crime exposure between the races. The southern model is far more efficient at that

    Reminds me of what Ron Unz wrote years ago about white racial consciousness in American elections.

    These alternate hypotheses about the underlying sources of white political behavior may be explored empirically by examining the electoral data across the 50 states. Like it or not, today’s Republican Party does indeed constitute the “white party,” drawing almost all of its national votes from whites, while the Democratic Party serves as the “mixed party,” with roughly comparable support from whites and non-whites. Therefore, white support for Republicans, particularly at the national level, may serve as a reasonable proxy for a state’s apparent degree of “white racial consciousness,” whether implicit or explicit.

    Under the “Sailer Hypothesis,” white alignment with the Republicans should be heavily influenced by the white share of the population, with the residents of lily-white states exhibiting little racial consciousness, while those living in states in which whites have slender or non-existent majorities would tilt much more heavily Republican. A second possibility to consider might be called the “Hispanic Hypothesis,” in which the heavy influx of Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, pushes whites toward the harder-line Republicans; since the vast majority of today’s Hispanics come from a relatively recent immigrant background, a state’s overall Hispanic population can be used as a good approximation for this independent variable. Finally, there is the “Black Hypothesis,” in which the long history of black/white racial conflict is assumed to be the primary factor, and the percentage of blacks in the local population is what generally influences white political behavior.

    For the sake of simplicity and to minimize the confounding impact of local political issues and personalities, the easiest output variable to examine would be the percentage of the white vote that supported the Republican presidential ticket over the last 20 years. On a population-weighted basis, the correlation results for elections from 1992 through 2008 across the 50 states are as shown in the chart below.

    The results seem conclusive. The correlations between the Hispanic percentage of each state and white voter preferences are approximately zero for all presidential elections, implying that the presence of large Hispanic populations appears to have virtually no impact upon white political alignment, either one way or the other.

    By contrast, the evidence for apparent black/white racial conflict being the driving force that prompts whites to vote Republican seems very strong: the correlations between the size of the black population and the degree of white GOP support range from 0.43 to 0.70, with a mean of 0.55, being both quite substantial and very consistent over time.

    The data regarding the “Sailer Hypothesis” is bit more interesting, with the correlations between a state’s overall non-white percentage and white Republican alignment being small but noticeable, ranging between 0.14 and 0.31, with a mean of 0.20. However, we must remember that a considerable fraction of America’s non-whites are blacks, with the ratio declining from around half in 1992 to about one-third by 2008, and obviously the strong black correlations impact the non-white result. In fact, the Sailer Hypothesis curve closely tracks the weighted average of the Hispanic and Black Hypothesis curves, the difference being mostly due to America’s small but growing Asian population. Thus, any “Sailer Effect” in white voting patterns appears almost entirely due to the black portion of the non-white population and is therefore merely a statistical artifact.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Regarding framing the GOP as the party of white interests: far, far too many whites are "interested" in things like universalism, healing the world, and uplifting the downtrodden races. To that extent, the Sailer Strategy has been nothing but a poison pill.
  78. @Michael S
    Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren't meant for blacks or latinos or women, they're meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them.

    I fully expect that this will result in approximately zero additional pee oh cee votes, but as the Democrats become increasingly anti-white, the Republicans will put out this kind of rhetoric to try to peel away white Democrats, and I think it will work and is working, to a degree. Meanwhile, I doubt it's going to depress turnout from the partisan base, especially now that Muh Russia is dead and SCOTUS finally handed Trump his wall funding. Republicans are gonna vote Republican unless there's some major war or economic crisis.

    Yeah, the idea is to peel off moderates uncomfortable with Trump’s talk. See, we’re not racist, we care about POC and women too!

    It may work. A lot of people (even those who voted for him) find him crass, but if the economy’s good, a lot will stick with him. Particularly if the alternative is Democrats who want to give healthcare to illegal immigrants before Americans.

  79. @Feryl

    Or maybe it’s because the Republican Party accepts the plan of GloboHomo for a white-less future, and is planning itself on transitioning into a niche role as the libertarian pro-corporate party of the multicultural new America. This is virtue-signaling for the corporate masters.
     
    Well, The GOP never had much backbone to oppose the racial changes of the 60's, or the feminist revolution of the 70's. Once they became the dominant party in the 80's, affirmative action was never seriously challenge, and divorce on demand laws passed in the early 70's never were really challenged either in subsequent decades. Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 never were vocal opponents of high over-all immigration levels; Reagan did sign onto legislation that was supposed to rectify the growing problem of illegal immigrants in the mid-80's, but the authorities never enforced the employer sanctions that were tacked on to the bill, something which the pro "small business" GOP of the 1980's never really complained about, in any event. The Bush's were a no elaboration is necessary disaster on immigration, in some ways actually worse than even Bill Clinton was on immigration.

    The "libertarian" turn of the 1970's knee-capped the GOP from being the real "traditional" party. Unless you want to retro-actively apply modern "conservative" values to the past, for which the modern GOP is quite guilty. I mean, back in FDR's era traditionalism meant stopping the entry of most aliens, stigmatizing literal and figurative gambling, accepting a "truce" between labor and capital to insure fairness, not encouraging ghetto retards to own pitbulls, and frequently committing dangerous people to mental hospitals. These things were not just accepted by the GOP back then, but even the Dems were on board. Hell, FDR got elected a billion times precisely because the Dems led the charge to be pro-social, as we ran far away from Social Darwinist nihilism.

    Oh, and lest we forget the GOP decided to reward the Reaganite turn of the West and South by amply pushing up funding for the military base and military manufacturing belt of America, which......is largely in the West and South. Great, it's so "conservative" to bankrupt America, and launch sustained and costly wars, because the military-industrial complex hitched it's wagon to the GOP in the 80's.

    Folks, let's face it: having the Dems in charge would've, depending on the issue, resulted in a combination of the following things happening:
    1)Some bad changes would've been slowed down
    2)Some bad changes would've been sped up
    3)Some bad changes would've happened at the same rate

    In other words: electing as many GOP'ers as we did since the 70's (and as many neo-lib or hawkish Dems as we did) really made no long-term positive difference to America, unless you are a "single issue" abortion or gun rights conservative; on those two fronts voting GOP did make a difference; but good lawd, the pathetic modern GOP only came to play on a measly two wholesome issues? Two issues? Really?

    I don’t usually agree with you on American political history, Feryl (cause I was THERE), but this is a good comment. About the only disagreement is about the South and West and the Reagan GOP vote. No, it wasn’t all about military spending. These regions are , make that “were” significantly more conservative and, results not withstanding, Ronnie WAS a conservative and came across as one very well too.

    Even regarding the Cold War Reagan defense build-up, the South has more military bases, but that’s not where most of the money of the defense buildup went – southern California got a whole hell of a lot for defense “procurement”, meaning building of satellites, electronic systems, some fighters (Northrup), air tankers, etc.

    Do you remember the sagebrush rebellion, Feryl? Lots of the big, sparsly-populated Western States wanted the US Gov’t to leave them the hell alone. That includes Area 51’s and such, except, of course, for the employees. These States aren’t the same now, after both Californication and other immigration, Nevada being Exhibit A on that.

    Anyway, that was just a quibble. I want to reply on one last point, but I’ll write another comment.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Lots of the big, sparsly-populated Western States wanted the US Gov’t to leave them the hell alone.
     
    My response to much of the Plains and Interior West is: who cares? Back in the New Deal era, we emotionally and financially invested in regions in a way that took population into account. So the Eastern seaboard came first. Then came the interior East. Then came the West Coast. Last in line was the interior West.

    By the 1960's, Republicans like Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan clearly resented the dominance of the Eastern US. As you point out, by the 1980's Reagan was able to take advantage of growing public dissatisfaction with the East, as well as Cold War sentiment, in order to give lots of pork to the Western US (the South was also on board, however the South did just fine in the New Deal era until the 1964 Civil Rights act was passed, which caused many Southerners to sour on the Democrats by 1980).

    Agnostic did a great post during 2016 about the tendency of "frontier" candidates to come to the fore during eras of Social Darwinism and chaos. So the mid-late 19th century had presidents from the then-frontier of Tennessee, Illinois, and so forth. In the early-mid 20th century, we shifted to candidates from New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the oldest parts of the South (Virginia primarily). But during the shift that began in the mid-1960's (and was complete by 1980), we went from JFK (MA) to LBJ (Texas). Then with Nixon we shifted even further to the West (California). We did a bit of an about-face with Carter (Georgia), but then we went back to a Californian (albeit one who was raised in Illinois) with Reagan. Then Reagan and Bush* (Texas) routed Midwesterner Mondale and Masshole Dukakis. This prompted the Dems to run Clinton, who was from the furthest reaches of the South (Arkansas) and was able to win two elections. It's astonishing that from 1964-2008, we did not have a single president whose identity was derived from the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, or even the oldest parts of the South; in fact, once could argue that Hawaiian Obama wasn't really a Midwesterner, in which case that would mean that we waited until 2017 to get a more Eastern president.

    *Bush was a New England Yankee who nevertheless felt it expedient to masquerade as a Texan to boost his political and social fortune.

    , @Feryl

    No, it wasn’t all about military spending. These regions are , make that “were” significantly more conservative and, results not withstanding, Ronnie WAS a conservative and came across as one very well too.
     
    Only if one defines “conservative” as “leave me alone”, which of course, the modern GOP is mostly not really interested in, either (if they were, they would’ve repealed affirmative action laws and fired campus officials for violating people’s first amendment rights).

    In terms of actual behavioral values, the South and especially the Western US have always been more volatile and nihilistic than the Northeast and most of the Midwest. The Western US has always been the softest on gambling, drugs, prostitution, drunken revelry*, and the like. Telling the school marms to “fuck off” is part and parcel of the region’s culture. The interlopers of which you speak aren’t doing much to change that culture per se, but rather, they don’t buy into reflexive hatred of big government the way that older generations of Western residents did**.

    *California had the first no-fault divorce laws passed

    **Gen X and Millennial, the white ones, in the Western US have a much less libertarian identity WRT government size than Silents and Boomers did. So immigrants can’t be blamed for everything, in much the same way that our culture would be changing due to generational differences regardless of the races involved. Immigrants didn’t create “free love” or the drug culture of the 1960’s and 70’s, did they?
    , @Feryl
    BTW, I'm not specifically picking on Reagan as much as I'm picking on the young and middle aged people of the 1980's-present who affect to be "conservative" while obviously failing to set a good example, to lead, by adhering to and promoting behavioral conservatism, in addition to their embarrassing failure to rein in pork and stop a police state from developing.

    Since Reagan's own generation was in it's 70's and 80's by 1990, I don't see how they can be held responsible for what has happened. They, for the most part, were not calling the shots during corporate board meetings and city council meetings by the late 80's. In fact, a full gerontocracy would not exist in America until the 2000's....And who created it? Silents and Boomers, of course. Furthermore, GIs in the 1960's-1980's often acted in response to what Silents and Boomers wanted. Silent and Boomers wanted the political and behavioral norms of the 1970's and 80's. On the other hand, Silents and Boomers in recent decades have often been openly contemptuous of what X-ers and Millennials want. There is a lot of hostility between these generations, dating back to teen X-ers of the 80's being called MTV addict zombies, that's been gradually rising since then. Because we are tired of two generations who failed as political and cultural leaders but are still acting like they are better than other generations. Are we supposed to continue treating now 50 year old Gen X-ers like a child that wasn't supposed to happen, the one with "defects" kept hidden away in the family home?
  80. I think what I appreciate about the internet is the reality of our tests that we live in a color blind society. And we repeatedly fail and fail miserably at demonstrating that there is any depth to the refrain. Most of simply cannot help ourselves. Despite the platform of forums and chat rooms and various other social media exchanges — the color play remains in top form. Now in person its hard because it’s part of the nonverbal communication.

    But the inability to distance ourselves on the internet is as palpable as table spoon of peanut butter and just as messy to swallow.
    ——————

    No everyone is not benefiting from the economy, which of not super. And which is manipulated more today than in any time in history. The margin of error is several hundred thousand. There is no distinction between full time and part time. The import export deficit remains. How much of that economy is tax dollars should be subtracted because that is recirculated money not created money.Since we count what’s on the shelf as profit instead of overhead, it’s a guessing games manipulated by misappropriating categories.

    And using those numbers are a dodge to avoid the issue of immigration. Because a sound economy is not a case for undercutting the supposed benefit that should be accrued by more US citizens. In other words, more the “everybodies” should only be citizens and more citizens would benefit by curbing immigration.
    ————————————-

    “The typical White Nationalist also, ignorantly, believes that immigration ‘depresses wages’, when the real picture is far more complicated than that.”

    This not political. It process. It is not complicated. And what creates larger issues is the minimum wage guarantees. 23 million people willing to work for half or three quarters the US citizens, no workman’s comp, no ssc, none of the required state and federal taxes that support the system, including the minimum wage which is backed by tax dollars. And small businesses which make up the bulk of the US employment trying to compete with each other and larger corporations will feel the pressure to hire that cheap labor just to compete. Considering the basics of what those taxes support — it’s a loss.

    Basic accounting, basic math only need be applied. Add on to that how much of that income from both legal and illegal immigration is ferreted out of the country —-

    It’s a loss and a drain. And that loss is the case regardless of skin color. If your system is operating in that manner — that’s just the dynamic.

  81. @Feryl

    Or maybe it’s because the Republican Party accepts the plan of GloboHomo for a white-less future, and is planning itself on transitioning into a niche role as the libertarian pro-corporate party of the multicultural new America. This is virtue-signaling for the corporate masters.
     
    Well, The GOP never had much backbone to oppose the racial changes of the 60's, or the feminist revolution of the 70's. Once they became the dominant party in the 80's, affirmative action was never seriously challenge, and divorce on demand laws passed in the early 70's never were really challenged either in subsequent decades. Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 never were vocal opponents of high over-all immigration levels; Reagan did sign onto legislation that was supposed to rectify the growing problem of illegal immigrants in the mid-80's, but the authorities never enforced the employer sanctions that were tacked on to the bill, something which the pro "small business" GOP of the 1980's never really complained about, in any event. The Bush's were a no elaboration is necessary disaster on immigration, in some ways actually worse than even Bill Clinton was on immigration.

    The "libertarian" turn of the 1970's knee-capped the GOP from being the real "traditional" party. Unless you want to retro-actively apply modern "conservative" values to the past, for which the modern GOP is quite guilty. I mean, back in FDR's era traditionalism meant stopping the entry of most aliens, stigmatizing literal and figurative gambling, accepting a "truce" between labor and capital to insure fairness, not encouraging ghetto retards to own pitbulls, and frequently committing dangerous people to mental hospitals. These things were not just accepted by the GOP back then, but even the Dems were on board. Hell, FDR got elected a billion times precisely because the Dems led the charge to be pro-social, as we ran far away from Social Darwinist nihilism.

    Oh, and lest we forget the GOP decided to reward the Reaganite turn of the West and South by amply pushing up funding for the military base and military manufacturing belt of America, which......is largely in the West and South. Great, it's so "conservative" to bankrupt America, and launch sustained and costly wars, because the military-industrial complex hitched it's wagon to the GOP in the 80's.

    Folks, let's face it: having the Dems in charge would've, depending on the issue, resulted in a combination of the following things happening:
    1)Some bad changes would've been slowed down
    2)Some bad changes would've been sped up
    3)Some bad changes would've happened at the same rate

    In other words: electing as many GOP'ers as we did since the 70's (and as many neo-lib or hawkish Dems as we did) really made no long-term positive difference to America, unless you are a "single issue" abortion or gun rights conservative; on those two fronts voting GOP did make a difference; but good lawd, the pathetic modern GOP only came to play on a measly two wholesome issues? Two issues? Really?

    Again, good comment, and those last 2 issues were in my mind right before I read that last paragraph in which you discussed them. On that gun-rights issue: yes, the GOP, especially at the State level, has done a bang-up job rolling back a lot of the damage to Amendment II that started in ’68 (arguably).

    This is just ONE issue out of many, including the existential immigration issue that the GOP indeed screwed us on, and is still screwing us on (it’s not incompetency, BTW) However, the way things may go, this 2nd Amendment issue may still turn out to be very important. I’m not saying that in the way of a threat to the ctrl-left. It’s just that, the way things are going, it would have been not more than 5 years from now that these people would have been going all Pol-Pot on our asses, had it not been for American’s support of Amendment II and the exercising thereof.

    Here’s the cool Right-to-Carry changes .gif that I included before (I think under and A.E. post):

    That’s supposed to be animated, changing from ’86 to just a coupla years ago. If it doesn’t work, my apologies – it worked before. (Still in the 5-min. EDIT phase right now)

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Guns are a major reason why the "uniparty" theory is bogus. Different kinds of people inhabit the mainstream of each party's establishment in a given era. And even if their goals are similar, the methods will still vary.

    For example, the turn toward police-statism that began in the 1980's was handled differently by the Left and Right. The Right was perfectly comfortable with mass gun ownership as long as we kept the populace off drugs and incarcerated tons of criminals. The Left, on the other hand, was comfortable with low incarceration rates and drugs but did not want such an obviously dangerous situation being inflamed by guns. Essentially, the mainstream of each party in the 80's and 90's was comfortable with creeping authoritarianism, it's just that each side wanted a different flavor. How does this square with the "libertarian" turn of the 70's? Well, society since the 70's has been less and less interested in promoting traditional values and regulating the markets. In that sense, we did get libertarianism. However, PC/speech codes, gun grabbing, mass incarceration, etc. are not libertarian, but rather, institutions becoming increasingly authoritarian. So it's fair to say that American culture has collapsed due to a bizarre combination of hedonist libertarianism and police statism, a state of affairs produced by neo-liberalism that as far as I know has few or no precedents in human history.

    Modern America is neither "Left" nor "Right" in any traditional understanding of these terms. The modern Left has never earnestly attempted to restore taxes on the wealthy that were the norm before the 80's. The modern Left has abandoned industrial labor. The modern Right is substantially less devoted to most traditional norms than it once was (WRT gays, the role of women, and the importance of the Church in our affairs). The modern Right has also been an overwhelming failure at reducing the size of the government, or making the government more competent (indeed, it was, yep, Jimmy Carter who oversaw revamped civil servant tests intended to weed out the dummies, but the tests were never used after they were found to benefit white applicants). What's more, the idea that America is so inherently awesome that it needs to be shared with more foreign countries and immigrants is a notion that now has more widespread acceptance among affluent US conservatives than it ever had in any previous era (the forefathers of American and Brit conservatism, often cited to this day by modern cucks, would've been horrified at the neo-con infilitration of the GOP, and the rising influence of the globalist Bush clan).

    WRT feminism, the 1980's Right had no problem with women in the workforce provided they not soak the government for "support". The Left, on the other hand, has, since the feminist revolution of the 70's, been promulgating the idea that the government ought to step in to assist female careerism.
  82. @Feryl

    Or maybe it’s because the Republican Party accepts the plan of GloboHomo for a white-less future, and is planning itself on transitioning into a niche role as the libertarian pro-corporate party of the multicultural new America. This is virtue-signaling for the corporate masters.
     
    Well, The GOP never had much backbone to oppose the racial changes of the 60's, or the feminist revolution of the 70's. Once they became the dominant party in the 80's, affirmative action was never seriously challenge, and divorce on demand laws passed in the early 70's never were really challenged either in subsequent decades. Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 never were vocal opponents of high over-all immigration levels; Reagan did sign onto legislation that was supposed to rectify the growing problem of illegal immigrants in the mid-80's, but the authorities never enforced the employer sanctions that were tacked on to the bill, something which the pro "small business" GOP of the 1980's never really complained about, in any event. The Bush's were a no elaboration is necessary disaster on immigration, in some ways actually worse than even Bill Clinton was on immigration.

    The "libertarian" turn of the 1970's knee-capped the GOP from being the real "traditional" party. Unless you want to retro-actively apply modern "conservative" values to the past, for which the modern GOP is quite guilty. I mean, back in FDR's era traditionalism meant stopping the entry of most aliens, stigmatizing literal and figurative gambling, accepting a "truce" between labor and capital to insure fairness, not encouraging ghetto retards to own pitbulls, and frequently committing dangerous people to mental hospitals. These things were not just accepted by the GOP back then, but even the Dems were on board. Hell, FDR got elected a billion times precisely because the Dems led the charge to be pro-social, as we ran far away from Social Darwinist nihilism.

    Oh, and lest we forget the GOP decided to reward the Reaganite turn of the West and South by amply pushing up funding for the military base and military manufacturing belt of America, which......is largely in the West and South. Great, it's so "conservative" to bankrupt America, and launch sustained and costly wars, because the military-industrial complex hitched it's wagon to the GOP in the 80's.

    Folks, let's face it: having the Dems in charge would've, depending on the issue, resulted in a combination of the following things happening:
    1)Some bad changes would've been slowed down
    2)Some bad changes would've been sped up
    3)Some bad changes would've happened at the same rate

    In other words: electing as many GOP'ers as we did since the 70's (and as many neo-lib or hawkish Dems as we did) really made no long-term positive difference to America, unless you are a "single issue" abortion or gun rights conservative; on those two fronts voting GOP did make a difference; but good lawd, the pathetic modern GOP only came to play on a measly two wholesome issues? Two issues? Really?

    Ahaaa! Found the problem – that last one wasn’t the animated one at all (just one layer, I guess):

    Here:

  83. @Rosie

    Most white women are totally blind. I think some white men are waking up but what can they do? They feel isolated and powerless.
     
    I don't think they're blind at all. Try broaching the subject of demographics with a White mother sometime. You can tell from their nonverbals that they are very uncomfortable about it. Their eyes glaze over and they quickly change the subject. I think it's a kind of self-defensive crimestoppers thing they have going on. It allows them to fully enjoy their lives with their children. I envy them sometimes.

    https://youtu.be/Z7BuQFUhsRM

    It’s possible. I remember hearing a 30 year old white woman in Toronto complaining about “bussing” for her kid. More about the effed up school boundary districts that ensured there was plenty of “diversity” to go around.

    Anyways she was clearly quite uneasy about this. She seemed deeply ashamed though, and tried her hardest to not sound racist. She even said, “I can see where they’re coming from…”

    It was quite sad. You could tell that she was clearly afraid of being called “Becky” and “racist”. But to me it sounds like it’s also a husband problem. If she had a strong, racially conscious husband, perhaps she would be taking a stronger stand.

    Anyways, whitey will keep losing until he becomes unapologetically tribal.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Anyways she was clearly quite uneasy about this. She seemed deeply ashamed though, and tried her hardest to not sound racist. She even said, “I can see where they’re coming from…”
     
    Yes, the shame is very deep. I'm not even a very typical woman, but I experienced very intense shame about entertaining the idea of racial differences in intelligence. The JQ was still worse.
  84. @Rosie

    You’re right, A.E., that “women unemployment” is awkward; it’s not even good English. You’d think feminists would be proud to be “female”, but it does contain male in it, some of the time ….
     
    I actually agree that "female" is degrading, but so is "male." Jared Taylor has made this point before, that "white male" sounds like a lab rat. He says White men should call themselves "White men." I agree.

    The problem is that there is no other adjective to describe human beings (as opposed to animals) as belonging to either the male sex or the female sex. "Feminine" and "masculine" don't quite work because they generally refer to social expectations or general patterns (i.e. stereotypes, but I don't mean that in a bad way).

    All that said, this is really kind of an offensive post. It almost seems like a deliberate f*** you to the demographic group under discussion here.

    I actually agree that “female” is degrading, but so is “male.”

    Do you mean as NOUNS, Rosie? For that case I would agree. It sounds like the way cops talk about “perps”, and it makes people sound like just another type of animal, which is the way many cops DO think. “There are 2 males behind the shed, and we’ve got a female on the run behind the fence ….”

    As far as adjectives, “male” and “female” seem OK to me. My joke at the end there may have been missed by all, in which case, is it even a joke at all?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    As far as adjectives, “male” and “female” seem OK to me.
     
    Yes, I agree. They're acceptable, but only because, as I said, there is no better alternative.
    , @JudgeSmails

    As far as adjectives, “male” and “female” seem OK to me. My joke at the end there may have been missed by all, in which case, is it even a joke at all?
     
    I caught your joke, Achmed. It's quite subtle. In today's panoply of all things sexual (57 so-called "genders"), this-sexual and that-sexual, in your face public displays of deviancy of all stripes, I fear that your cute, simple wordplay didn't register on very many Richter scales.
  85. @Mitleser

    The only times I’ve seen racial salience go up for whites in studies is when exposed to information they’ll be a minority before 2050, though the most successful long term and that eliminates minimum 3 years of college liberal effect (nationally) is increasing the local black population and therefore crime exposure between the races. The southern model is far more efficient at that
     
    Reminds me of what Ron Unz wrote years ago about white racial consciousness in American elections.

    These alternate hypotheses about the underlying sources of white political behavior may be explored empirically by examining the electoral data across the 50 states. Like it or not, today’s Republican Party does indeed constitute the “white party,” drawing almost all of its national votes from whites, while the Democratic Party serves as the “mixed party,” with roughly comparable support from whites and non-whites. Therefore, white support for Republicans, particularly at the national level, may serve as a reasonable proxy for a state’s apparent degree of “white racial consciousness,” whether implicit or explicit.

    Under the “Sailer Hypothesis,” white alignment with the Republicans should be heavily influenced by the white share of the population, with the residents of lily-white states exhibiting little racial consciousness, while those living in states in which whites have slender or non-existent majorities would tilt much more heavily Republican. A second possibility to consider might be called the “Hispanic Hypothesis,” in which the heavy influx of Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, pushes whites toward the harder-line Republicans; since the vast majority of today’s Hispanics come from a relatively recent immigrant background, a state’s overall Hispanic population can be used as a good approximation for this independent variable. Finally, there is the “Black Hypothesis,” in which the long history of black/white racial conflict is assumed to be the primary factor, and the percentage of blacks in the local population is what generally influences white political behavior.

    For the sake of simplicity and to minimize the confounding impact of local political issues and personalities, the easiest output variable to examine would be the percentage of the white vote that supported the Republican presidential ticket over the last 20 years. On a population-weighted basis, the correlation results for elections from 1992 through 2008 across the 50 states are as shown in the chart below.
     
    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WhiteAmerica-chart1.gif

    The results seem conclusive. The correlations between the Hispanic percentage of each state and white voter preferences are approximately zero for all presidential elections, implying that the presence of large Hispanic populations appears to have virtually no impact upon white political alignment, either one way or the other.

    By contrast, the evidence for apparent black/white racial conflict being the driving force that prompts whites to vote Republican seems very strong: the correlations between the size of the black population and the degree of white GOP support range from 0.43 to 0.70, with a mean of 0.55, being both quite substantial and very consistent over time.

    The data regarding the “Sailer Hypothesis” is bit more interesting, with the correlations between a state’s overall non-white percentage and white Republican alignment being small but noticeable, ranging between 0.14 and 0.31, with a mean of 0.20. However, we must remember that a considerable fraction of America’s non-whites are blacks, with the ratio declining from around half in 1992 to about one-third by 2008, and obviously the strong black correlations impact the non-white result. In fact, the Sailer Hypothesis curve closely tracks the weighted average of the Hispanic and Black Hypothesis curves, the difference being mostly due to America’s small but growing Asian population. Thus, any “Sailer Effect” in white voting patterns appears almost entirely due to the black portion of the non-white population and is therefore merely a statistical artifact.
     
    http://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/

    Regarding framing the GOP as the party of white interests: far, far too many whites are “interested” in things like universalism, healing the world, and uplifting the downtrodden races. To that extent, the Sailer Strategy has been nothing but a poison pill.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    To that extent, the Sailer Strategy has been nothing but a poison pill.
     
    Well, what do you expect? Steve is a 100 IQ blogger catering to an 80 IQ audience.
  86. @Michael S
    Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren't meant for blacks or latinos or women, they're meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them.

    I fully expect that this will result in approximately zero additional pee oh cee votes, but as the Democrats become increasingly anti-white, the Republicans will put out this kind of rhetoric to try to peel away white Democrats, and I think it will work and is working, to a degree. Meanwhile, I doubt it's going to depress turnout from the partisan base, especially now that Muh Russia is dead and SCOTUS finally handed Trump his wall funding. Republicans are gonna vote Republican unless there's some major war or economic crisis.

    The GOP celebrating non-white successes isn’t novel. I don’t think moderate whites will be scandalized by the inclusion of the white unemployment rate alongside all the other major racial group unemployment rates in celebration of how it’s lower for everybody. But a lot of the usual suspects would freak out about it, calling it a white nationalist/supremacist tweet, etc. That is what moderates need to see.

  87. @Thomm
    White Nationalism is a left-wing ideology, and is outright rejected by mainstream whites.

    WN is also a left-wing ideology.

    What is not widely understood is why these Nationalist-Leftists vote GOP. The reason is that in a two party system, this is the only place they can land when they hate black people slightly more than they hate white libertarians.

    Hence, WN leftists find themselves in the GOP, even though Trump is not a WN wigger.

    What is this in response to?

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    AE, it's probably in response to the voices in his head. He argues with them, you know.
    , @Thomm

    What is this in response to?
     
    The fact that WNs are not a good fit for the GOP due to their left-wing views.

    More broadly, a two-party system does not work outside of the most homogeneous societies (and I don't just mean racial homogeny) since both parties devolve into coalitions of groups that have nothing in common other than hatred of the other party and/or a desire to harvest from productive people in the other party.

    As I said, WNs are currently in the Republican party only because they hate blacks and Jews slightly more than they hate libertarians. Outside of that, WN wiggers are entirely left-wing and un-American.
  88. @The Alarmist

    But instead we get minority stats that together add up to 70% of the total population. EVERYONE is benefiting, you see. EVERYONE!
     
    It's like we're living in Lake Wobegon©, where all the children are above average.

    Given that 96 million working-age Americans are considered to not be in the labour force, the official U3 stat of 3.6% is something of a joke. Even the U6 stat of 7.2% is dubious.

    BTW, if the Trump economy is so great, why do we need rate cuts on top of historically low interest rates? It's a sham economy.

    Agree. He is now celebrating the end of “quantitative tightening”, ha! I understand the political reasons to ride the economic tiger has long as he can, but campaign Trump gave indications that he saw the sham economy for what it was. Now he owns it, though.

  89. @Twinkie

    Maybe this time instead of getting 1% of blacks we will get 2%!
     
    Didn't Trump actually do slightly better than Romney with blacks, Hispanic, and Asian voters though and did a tiny bit worse with white voters?

    Yes.

    The only significant demographic shift between Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016 is Trump lost a chunk of college-educated whites and gained a chunk of no college whites.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The POC vote was down.
  90. @Mitleser
    If majority of whites does not care much about their group, why should others care?

    https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1115629523863785472

    Indeed. In a political landscape increasingly defined by ‘identity politics’, the biggest losers will be those who refuse to assert their identities.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Those whites that assert their identities here are labelled white nationalists (HITLER!!). If a blog community can't get on board with IOKTBW, then a country sure isn't gonna.
  91. @Charles Pewitt

    Grand Old Party Forgets Its Voters

     

    The Republican Party Goes Explicit White Or It Goes Dodo

    Trump has made the decision to massively increase legal immigration and Trump has decided to do nothing about the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    At this point it is clear that patriotic White Core Americans must targetize and destroy the current Republican Party.

    Marine Le Pen changed the name of her political party from the National Front to the National Rally.

    Patriotic members of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA must remove the current anti-White controllers of the Republican Party from power and they must immediately change the name of the Republican Party to White Core America Rising or White CAP for short or White America Rising or WAR for short.

    Another suggestion would be to call the new Republican Party the Washington Jacksons or the Wash-Jacks or the Washington Jackson Whites.

    The disgusting coward whore rats in the GOP will not defend the historic American nation nor will they defend George Washington or Andrew Jackson or Confederate American Patriots. Make the anti-White Democrat Party globalizer rats attack George Washington and Andrew Jackson and make it clear to White voters that the gutless cowards in the GOP will not defend Washington nor Jackson and the GOP will not defend the future of White Core Americans nor the future children and grandchildren of White Core America.

    Tweet from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/533045744551198720

    Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/607994021621940225

    Do you have any new tweets? It’s funny that you have tweets from four and five years ago always at the ready, though!

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    Do you have any new tweets? It’s funny that you have tweets from four and five years ago always at the ready, though!

     

    I might have to break with my radical stubborn ways and start Tweeting again.

    I had the most fun, and learned the most, from UKIP Twitter #UKIP.

    Farage was smart enough to use the immigration issue to convince English voters to break with the EU and reclaim English sovereignty in order to regain control of English borders and institute an immigration policy that advances the interests of England and the English people.

    2014 and 2015 were interesting years to be on Twitter. Trump took advantage of the political and cultural atmosphere of that time to win in 2016.

    Tulsi Gabbard is a nice lady I met at a presidential primary town hall event. I was happy to see Gabbard rhetorically pop that Kamala Harris a good one in the debates!

    The GOP goes explicit White or the GOP goes DODO!

    Since the GOP donors won't go explicit White, that means the current GOP is deader than a doornail.

    Republican Party voters must remove the Republican Party donors and Republican Party ruling class from power and re-name the Republican Party.

    White Core America Now is a suggestion.

    Got to have WHITE in the name!
  92. @Futurethirdworlder
    Yes, really, genocide is already happening.

    What do you think people are talking about when they gloat about whites becoming a minority? And when they say none of this matters because in 100 years we will all be a beautiful mocha color? They are talking about genocide. Celebrating genocide. And any white who takes issue with it is classified as a hater.

    They will talk about whites becoming a minority in 20 years but they never extrapolate further. What will be the white percentage in 50 years? 100 years? White disposition will only accelerate as they lose more power and the new nonwhite majority enables more policies that harm whites and further increase nonwhite immigration. We are already declining not only as a percentage of the population but in real numbers.

    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no “genocide”. They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Blaming others and finger pointing is one of the engines of decline. I mean its not a side issue - its at the very heart of decline.

    One positive aspect of Judaism is that in the Bible, whenever Jews get influenced by their environment and start worshipping idols, we are never let off the hook - God always considers us responsible, whatever the environment.

    Finger pointing comes from pride and ego - you are not willing to accept that you have made a mistake.

    For white nationalists, they are too proud to admit European culture made a mistake. But all success comes from being absolutely ruthless and unsentimental with oneself about ones mistakes. You don't make an idol of yourself.

    Great engineers, great scientists, great generals all have no pride and no ego - they have mastered their pride, which is after all the source of evil, as all religions acknowledge.

    But for people who don't believe in God, they have no choice but to make an idol of themselves - and then how can their idol be subjected to criticism? They themselves are God.
    , @Futurethirdworlder
    My biggest problem is the victim blaming.

    The '65 antiwhite immigration act was passed during the baby boom. Whites weren't declining in numbers they were"booming."

    Even if whites were reproducing at replacement levels they would still be on course to become a minority with this level of nonwhite immigration. Which is one of the factors lowering birth rates.

    The Japanese aren't reproducing at replacement levels but no one believes they are being genocided.

    The issue isn't not having enough children. Which can be corrected by a generation of whites having more children and this could be incentivised to varying degrees by gov't policy.
    , @Charles Pewitt

    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no “genocide”. They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

     

    Finger pointing is all of politics and war. Andrew Jackson gave the finger called the middle to Nicholas Biddle and his Boston/New York/Philadelphia money-grubber pals and foreign money-grubber pals. I wonder how much loot the English were clam raking out of Biddle's central bank schemes and scams?

    In war your leaders point the finger and you attack or attack in another direction -- also called retreat.

    White Genocide is real and it is happening in most European Christian nations. Economic conditions and cultural conditions have been engineered and orchestrated by the evil ruling classes of the various European Christian nations to bring about White Genocide.

    Monetary policy and immigration policy have been weaponized in a way to hinder and harm AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for young White Core Americans.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. "

    Trickery never works. In fact, no one has ever been tricked ever, in the world. Trickery is a myth!
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I agree on this point. Yes, immigration is ultimately genocide and we need to stop it. But that doesn't excuse the low white birthrate. USA and canada fertility fell below replacement in the 70s and never recovered. Whites are reproducing as if there are no outside threats.

    However, when I walk down my street and see 25 Indians for every white man and 60 Indians for every white man under 30, you know there's a birth rate problem too. Face it. There's nothing stopping you from having more babies.

    If you're married and wealthy: don't stop at 2. This is a severe problem right now.2 CHILDREN IS BELOW REPLACEMENT LEVELS!
    If you're lower income, why aren't you on welfare?
    If you're wealthy and single, man up and find a wife.

    If you're poor and single, stop acting like a w*gger #1, man up and act and dress decent. There is a severe shortage of lower class white men who are decent enough to partner with lower class white women. Marry your McDonalds colleague and then get on welfare and start fucking.

    , @notanon

    No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it.
     
    integrated schools
    , @t
    If you go by completed cohort fertility us white are at if not above fertility in the GSS between 2014-2018 women age 40-44 averaged 2.20 children, for technical reasons TFR can under estimate actual fertility.

    Outside of Israel almost no population in any rich country has a TFR above replacement even most of Latin America and the Middle East are now below replacement
    .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with some of your repliers here, A.E., especially F3W and UFO. It's not that whites just don't want to have kids anymore, though there is something to that. Whites are being cut out of good jobs by immigration, both due to cheap illegal and legal (work-visa) labor and in some place by the language or hiring barrier. At the same time taxes and healthcare costs are going up due to these newcomers (whether illegal Central American or old Chinese legal immigrant under-the-table restaurant owners) abusing the welfare system and clogging up the emergency rooms, respectively.

    People are getting squeezed to where they can't afford to have kids, even with the suboptimal arrangement of both parents working long hours and using the cheapest day-care available. It's the family formation thing that Mr. Sailer brings up a lot. If you want to abuse the system, family formation is high. If you want to play by the rules and "be a man", you're getting screwed out of having a family. Oh, and the feminism and divorce racket that makes a marriage a big gamble for a man doesn't help.

    But, but, muh Socialism!
  93. @Oblivionrecurs
    Though things are shifting away from identifying white (at least with Latinos)

    http://magaimg.net/img/7rlj.jpg

    http://magaimg.net/img/78wu.jpg

    http://magaimg.net/img/88f6.jpg

    The GSS shows the same thing, thanks. Funny that given all the putative privilege being white brings, everybody is falling all over themselves to be identified as anything other than white.

  94. @silviosilver

    So the grand GOP plan is to woo white voters who are really impressed with what they are doing for the brown people.
     
    Some white voters really can be appealed to on that basis. I wouldn't describe it in terms of "what they are doing for brown people." Rather, I would frame it as "Hey, Democrats claim that the GOP is 'racist' and bad for non-whites. But look at this:......." This allows more liberal-leaning whites to vote for the GOP with a 'clean conscience.' Why simply surrender these voters to the Dems?

    Other white voters, of course, couldn't care less about issues like that. Such voters can be appealed to on the basis of white group interest.

    As for attracting non-white voters, I like Steve Sailer's suggestion of framing the Democrats as the "Black party." Not all non-whites are anti-white. Many of them are far more anti-black than anti-white. That's a political cleavage worth exploiting.

    Any whites who are concerned about the blacks aren’t basing anything on objective reality (like employment numbers) they do it for the social signaling points. They aren’t going to go against the modern zeitgeist and support the “orange man” because he has improved black unemployment or intervened on behalf of a criminal rapper in Sweden.

    How many whites will Trump lose by pandering to nonwhites combined with his his failure on immigration?

    Also

    Silvio silver and gold
    Won’t buy back the beat of a heart grown cold
    Silvio I gotta go
    Find out somethin only dead men know.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    His tweet about getting that guy off the hook in Switzerland (or wherever it was) exploded, though:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1157345692517634049

    Looks like it might hit a million likes which is virtually unheard of for a tweet. I don't know exactly what that means, but it is probably good for Trump.
  95. @Audacious Epigone
    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no "genocide". They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    Blaming others and finger pointing is one of the engines of decline. I mean its not a side issue – its at the very heart of decline.

    One positive aspect of Judaism is that in the Bible, whenever Jews get influenced by their environment and start worshipping idols, we are never let off the hook – God always considers us responsible, whatever the environment.

    Finger pointing comes from pride and ego – you are not willing to accept that you have made a mistake.

    For white nationalists, they are too proud to admit European culture made a mistake. But all success comes from being absolutely ruthless and unsentimental with oneself about ones mistakes. You don’t make an idol of yourself.

    Great engineers, great scientists, great generals all have no pride and no ego – they have mastered their pride, which is after all the source of evil, as all religions acknowledge.

    But for people who don’t believe in God, they have no choice but to make an idol of themselves – and then how can their idol be subjected to criticism? They themselves are God.

    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
    Jews are the unqualified masters of finger pointing. The holocaust, the 2000 years of persecution the horrible mistreatment by whites of minorities. The accusations of racist white supremacy by any white who defends white interests. And most of them claim to be atheists. What they have is a strong racial identity.
    , @SFG
    I'd actually disagree and say that secular left-wing Jews (and if you're not all three of those this isn't directed you) do an awful lot of finger pointing, mostly at whites. My opinion is they've bought into this 'cultural cringe' stuff but still have 'white privilege', a few nasty emails and the occasional disaster like in Pittsburgh notwithstanding. So they have to prove they're 'cool' by exhorting 'fellow white people' not to be 'racist'.
  96. @Mitleser
    If majority of whites does not care much about their group, why should others care?

    https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1115629523863785472

    It is considered taboo to explicitly defend white interests in the US. Doing so can get you fired from a job expelled from school or at least have you labeled an ungood racist/white supremacist. (The worst thing anyone can be)

    And whites are propagandized to believe that they are evil and their ancestors are really evil for mistreating nonwhites.

    Hitler is satan in our biblical tale because he was a white supremacist. And you must never forget about the KKK.

    All this is to say that I know whites don’t see themselves as a racial collective. It’s criminal

  97. @Achmed E. Newman
    Again, good comment, and those last 2 issues were in my mind right before I read that last paragraph in which you discussed them. On that gun-rights issue: yes, the GOP, especially at the State level, has done a bang-up job rolling back a lot of the damage to Amendment II that started in '68 (arguably).

    This is just ONE issue out of many, including the existential immigration issue that the GOP indeed screwed us on, and is still screwing us on (it's not incompetency, BTW) However, the way things may go, this 2nd Amendment issue may still turn out to be very important. I'm not saying that in the way of a threat to the ctrl-left. It's just that, the way things are going, it would have been not more than 5 years from now that these people would have been going all Pol-Pot on our asses, had it not been for American's support of Amendment II and the exercising thereof.

    Here's the cool Right-to-Carry changes .gif that I included before (I think under and A.E. post):

    https://www.peakstupidity.com/images/Concealed_Carry_Changes.gif

    That's supposed to be animated, changing from '86 to just a coupla years ago. If it doesn't work, my apologies - it worked before. (Still in the 5-min. EDIT phase right now)

    Guns are a major reason why the “uniparty” theory is bogus. Different kinds of people inhabit the mainstream of each party’s establishment in a given era. And even if their goals are similar, the methods will still vary.

    For example, the turn toward police-statism that began in the 1980’s was handled differently by the Left and Right. The Right was perfectly comfortable with mass gun ownership as long as we kept the populace off drugs and incarcerated tons of criminals. The Left, on the other hand, was comfortable with low incarceration rates and drugs but did not want such an obviously dangerous situation being inflamed by guns. Essentially, the mainstream of each party in the 80’s and 90’s was comfortable with creeping authoritarianism, it’s just that each side wanted a different flavor. How does this square with the “libertarian” turn of the 70’s? Well, society since the 70’s has been less and less interested in promoting traditional values and regulating the markets. In that sense, we did get libertarianism. However, PC/speech codes, gun grabbing, mass incarceration, etc. are not libertarian, but rather, institutions becoming increasingly authoritarian. So it’s fair to say that American culture has collapsed due to a bizarre combination of hedonist libertarianism and police statism, a state of affairs produced by neo-liberalism that as far as I know has few or no precedents in human history.

    Modern America is neither “Left” nor “Right” in any traditional understanding of these terms. The modern Left has never earnestly attempted to restore taxes on the wealthy that were the norm before the 80’s. The modern Left has abandoned industrial labor. The modern Right is substantially less devoted to most traditional norms than it once was (WRT gays, the role of women, and the importance of the Church in our affairs). The modern Right has also been an overwhelming failure at reducing the size of the government, or making the government more competent (indeed, it was, yep, Jimmy Carter who oversaw revamped civil servant tests intended to weed out the dummies, but the tests were never used after they were found to benefit white applicants). What’s more, the idea that America is so inherently awesome that it needs to be shared with more foreign countries and immigrants is a notion that now has more widespread acceptance among affluent US conservatives than it ever had in any previous era (the forefathers of American and Brit conservatism, often cited to this day by modern cucks, would’ve been horrified at the neo-con infilitration of the GOP, and the rising influence of the globalist Bush clan).

    WRT feminism, the 1980’s Right had no problem with women in the workforce provided they not soak the government for “support”. The Left, on the other hand, has, since the feminist revolution of the 70’s, been promulgating the idea that the government ought to step in to assist female careerism.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Excellent comment, sir.

    I wonder only which church you mean by “the role of the church in our affairs.”
    When someone capitalizes Church or The Church, they usually mean the Roman Catholic Church.

    If you are proposing that we keep following (or, in our family’s case, return to) the RCC, that would not seem to encourage normal male-female relations and the propagation of intact, stable, loving families by any means. It would also empower an active enemy of white European people and our traditional western culture here in the USA and elsewhere, because that is what “The Church” has been for some time now.

    Rather, it would continue enriching a very dishonest and corrupt group of homosexuals, known as the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, and some (permanent) deacons (some deacons are married men with children and thoroughly normal, admirable, relatable, and credible for parishioners).

    The RCC and its agencies (Catholic Charities, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, etc) are also active advocates and apologists for any nonwhite immigrant who wants to come to our country, including those who come in violation of our laws and wishes, and certainly including those who have no serious desire or effort to learn our language and live by our mores. When we still attend RC Mass, we were repeatedly offended by the church (more than one parish) setting up tables in the parking lot to help “immigrants, including our undocumented brothers and sisters”, to get anything and everything they could get from American taxpayers “for free” and to press a claim for asylum or the like.

    To Hell with “The Church”, because if there is such a place or state of being, that is where many of its leaders and clergy are headed.

    Okay, I feel better now, LOL. Thank you and good night ;)

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Late reply here, Feryl, but the last couple of times this happened, I got 2 days behind and figured the thread was a goner. Here's where we disagree (as I've meant to write you at least twice before): That word "Libertarianism" - I don't think it means what you think it means.

    You have said multiple times that this country has been de-regulated in some fashion. I understand what you mean about big finance and the repeal of Glass-Siegle, etc. Those big finance guys might pretend to be, or even be actual libertarians in principle, but what they have been up to is just big-money crony-capitalism, using Big Gov to get the rules made for them. The big bailout of '08 is I guess the example you would bring up to, I assume.

    Some libertarians might tell you they agree with the finance guys there, but that's not in general what it's about. If you think this country is less regulated than 30 or especially 50 years back, you don't know what you're talking about. Have you been in business for yourself, Feryl? There are a myriad of local, State, and Federal agencies that can tax you, regulate you, and shut you down, and the rules could change overnight. You brought up Jimmy Carter on the civil-service exams, but he's also the one who regulated another big part of the economy (at the Federal level, that is), which is education. Are things better now, in education than 50 years ago? Hell, no. Health Care, 1/6 of the economy from what I've read is the latest piece of our lives to be regulated, though that's been on-going for many decades. The business end of healthcare sucks ass nowadays due to this extreme, bureaucratic crap out of Washington, FS.

    Most of these people on "the Right" and "the Left" that you write about never were libertarians in any sense. Do you want examples in politics? Two are Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater. Yes, the Establishment (both wings) wanted nothing to do with them. Reagan was a more mild example. I was there, Feryl, and I remember that the media and GOPe of the time were dead set against the guy from the get-go, and I guess the Deep State too.

    DEREGULATE AMERICA!
  98. @Audacious Epigone
    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no "genocide". They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    My biggest problem is the victim blaming.

    The ’65 antiwhite immigration act was passed during the baby boom. Whites weren’t declining in numbers they were”booming.”

    Even if whites were reproducing at replacement levels they would still be on course to become a minority with this level of nonwhite immigration. Which is one of the factors lowering birth rates.

    The Japanese aren’t reproducing at replacement levels but no one believes they are being genocided.

    The issue isn’t not having enough children. Which can be corrected by a generation of whites having more children and this could be incentivised to varying degrees by gov’t policy.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I clicked agree, overall, but please allow me to add a note about white folks not having children. Even if there were very little legal or illegal immigration, as we would both presumably prefer, white People still would not survive and thrive without having children above replacement rate.

    Without children, people typically lack the sense of purpose, fulfillment, and driving concern for the future and what will be left behind when they die. They also cannot possibly fully understand and relate to the feelings, priorities, and mission of parents, though many admirably try to do so.

    Moreover, any fear, hesitation, anxiety, that I might have defending myself or fellow countrymen, will have no force if it is my children whom I am defending. I am not a military guy and don’t claim to be especially brave or tough, but I would suffer anything for my children, anything.

    Ultimately, a people that does not have enough children to sustain its numbers and strength, will not have the confidence, pride, vigor, hope for the future, cohesiveness, willingness to sacrifice, and willingness to fight, that a healthy, growing, proud, heterosexual-normed society will have.

  99. @AaronB
    Blaming others and finger pointing is one of the engines of decline. I mean its not a side issue - its at the very heart of decline.

    One positive aspect of Judaism is that in the Bible, whenever Jews get influenced by their environment and start worshipping idols, we are never let off the hook - God always considers us responsible, whatever the environment.

    Finger pointing comes from pride and ego - you are not willing to accept that you have made a mistake.

    For white nationalists, they are too proud to admit European culture made a mistake. But all success comes from being absolutely ruthless and unsentimental with oneself about ones mistakes. You don't make an idol of yourself.

    Great engineers, great scientists, great generals all have no pride and no ego - they have mastered their pride, which is after all the source of evil, as all religions acknowledge.

    But for people who don't believe in God, they have no choice but to make an idol of themselves - and then how can their idol be subjected to criticism? They themselves are God.

    Jews are the unqualified masters of finger pointing. The holocaust, the 2000 years of persecution the horrible mistreatment by whites of minorities. The accusations of racist white supremacy by any white who defends white interests. And most of them claim to be atheists. What they have is a strong racial identity.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Not the same thing.

    The same thing would be if we blamed the secularizing trend in our community, or our communal moral failings, on our European cultural environment - or worse, on anti-Semitic agents trying to destroy Jewish religion.

    Of course we recognize that the European cultural environment plays a role, but the primary responsibility is our own. We are supposed to be better than our environment.

    While our self image allows us to realize we are capable of being influenced by outside forces, it does not permit us to see ourselves as capable of being mind controlled by outside agents. Always the primary responsibility must rest with our own moral character.

    The current white nationalist narrative of white decline would be thoroughly alien to the spirit of Judaism.

    Or to give another example, in 2006 Israel performed beneath expectations in the war in Lebanon - there followed a ruthless process of self appraisal and criticism.

    We did not blame outside agents or subversive agents within Israel or anything other than ourselves.

    Yet the urge to blame military failure on others began appearing in Europe already in the early 20th century, which was when the decline seriously began to appear.
  100. @Thomm

    Some white nationalists are socialist but not all of them.
     
    About 70% of them are. Hence, I agree that 30% are not.

    If they have a choice between anti-white international socialists and pro-white national socialists, being white themselves, some of these white libertarians are going to end up on the white national socialist side.
     
    As a white quasi-Libertarian, I am in 'None of the Above' mode.

    For example, here are some mugshots of prominent White Trashionalist Kevin Crawford Kraft. He is one of the premier WNs in NorCal. Nonetheless, he gets arrested every 30-60 days for some lame crime (except when he is incarcerated outright, which is when there are two-year gaps between arrests).

    http://mugshotssantacruz.com/search/?last_name=KRAFT&first_name=KEVIN&#prof

    But the reason he is a leading light of WN is that at least he a) is out there doing things, and b) is not homosexual.

    You seem troubled by the fact that WNs have low IQ. You should be even more troubled by the huge subculture of bisexuality within in. 40% of White Nationalists openly say that they would rather have sex with a white man than a black woman, since race loyalty trumps sexual preference, and producing no baby is vastly better than producing a mulatto baby.

    Where’s your poll of white nationalists to that effect? Waiting.

    I have never once heard any male white nationalist write or say, even intimate or joke, that he’d rather have sex with a white guy than a black woman. We are never, in fact, in need of making that “fallacy of the false alternative” choice. So we choose, sensibly, never to have sex with men or with African women. Pretty simple.

    You should try giving up those two kinds of sexual encounters yourself.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I'm not a white nationalist, but I laughed at that last bit.

    I will say there's been a move away from being strongly anti-gay in alt-right circles over the past few years from what I've seen, though it's still not something they're fond of.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    It's the only kind he can get lol.

    Subcons are known for being the least attractive men. Would not surprise me if they fuck in the privacy of their bedrooms.
  101. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't usually agree with you on American political history, Feryl (cause I was THERE), but this is a good comment. About the only disagreement is about the South and West and the Reagan GOP vote. No, it wasn't all about military spending. These regions are , make that "were" significantly more conservative and, results not withstanding, Ronnie WAS a conservative and came across as one very well too.

    Even regarding the Cold War Reagan defense build-up, the South has more military bases, but that's not where most of the money of the defense buildup went - southern California got a whole hell of a lot for defense "procurement", meaning building of satellites, electronic systems, some fighters (Northrup), air tankers, etc.

    Do you remember the sagebrush rebellion, Feryl? Lots of the big, sparsly-populated Western States wanted the US Gov't to leave them the hell alone. That includes Area 51's and such, except, of course, for the employees. These States aren't the same now, after both Californication and other immigration, Nevada being Exhibit A on that.

    Anyway, that was just a quibble. I want to reply on one last point, but I'll write another comment.

    Lots of the big, sparsly-populated Western States wanted the US Gov’t to leave them the hell alone.

    My response to much of the Plains and Interior West is: who cares? Back in the New Deal era, we emotionally and financially invested in regions in a way that took population into account. So the Eastern seaboard came first. Then came the interior East. Then came the West Coast. Last in line was the interior West.

    By the 1960’s, Republicans like Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan clearly resented the dominance of the Eastern US. As you point out, by the 1980’s Reagan was able to take advantage of growing public dissatisfaction with the East, as well as Cold War sentiment, in order to give lots of pork to the Western US (the South was also on board, however the South did just fine in the New Deal era until the 1964 Civil Rights act was passed, which caused many Southerners to sour on the Democrats by 1980).

    Agnostic did a great post during 2016 about the tendency of “frontier” candidates to come to the fore during eras of Social Darwinism and chaos. So the mid-late 19th century had presidents from the then-frontier of Tennessee, Illinois, and so forth. In the early-mid 20th century, we shifted to candidates from New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the oldest parts of the South (Virginia primarily). But during the shift that began in the mid-1960’s (and was complete by 1980), we went from JFK (MA) to LBJ (Texas). Then with Nixon we shifted even further to the West (California). We did a bit of an about-face with Carter (Georgia), but then we went back to a Californian (albeit one who was raised in Illinois) with Reagan. Then Reagan and Bush* (Texas) routed Midwesterner Mondale and Masshole Dukakis. This prompted the Dems to run Clinton, who was from the furthest reaches of the South (Arkansas) and was able to win two elections. It’s astonishing that from 1964-2008, we did not have a single president whose identity was derived from the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, or even the oldest parts of the South; in fact, once could argue that Hawaiian Obama wasn’t really a Midwesterner, in which case that would mean that we waited until 2017 to get a more Eastern president.

    *Bush was a New England Yankee who nevertheless felt it expedient to masquerade as a Texan to boost his political and social fortune.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    We also had presidents from the Midwest in the early-mid 20th century, and no surprise that Ohio, the Easternmost part of the Midwest, was represented. And by the time Eisenhower was elected, Kansas was well beyond it's Wild West days.
  102. @RadicalCenter
    Where’s your poll of white nationalists to that effect? Waiting.

    I have never once heard any male white nationalist write or say, even intimate or joke, that he’d rather have sex with a white guy than a black woman. We are never, in fact, in need of making that “fallacy of the false alternative” choice. So we choose, sensibly, never to have sex with men or with African women. Pretty simple.

    You should try giving up those two kinds of sexual encounters yourself.

    I’m not a white nationalist, but I laughed at that last bit.

    I will say there’s been a move away from being strongly anti-gay in alt-right circles over the past few years from what I’ve seen, though it’s still not something they’re fond of.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    You may be right, I don’t know enough to say what the recent trend is among “us” that regard.

    Personally, my wife and I have become MORE offended and concerned by the normalization and glorification of homosexuality and other psychological disorders and perversions to our children.

    And far more willing to restrict public displays of homosexuality and “transgenderism” on the streets or in advertising and “entertainment”, barring homosexuals and mentally ill people (“transgenders”) from teaching or otherwise guiding our children, and drastically changing (or eliminating) the Perversion Indoctrination (“sex Ed”) classes in government and private schools alike.

    Yes, the constitution will need to be interpreted very differently, even changed or replaced, to accomplish this. Sad to say, but some kind of secession, civil war, or other breakup of the USA (or breakdown of order) seems not unlikely, and becoming slightly more likely as time goes by. So if we can survive and find some part of the current USA where likeminded people will establish such a society, we’ll be there. The drastic reforms mentioned above will probably take hold in some of the new pieces of the former USA, along with, admittedly, measures which we would find too intolerant or harsh on other issues.

  103. @Futurethirdworlder
    Jews are the unqualified masters of finger pointing. The holocaust, the 2000 years of persecution the horrible mistreatment by whites of minorities. The accusations of racist white supremacy by any white who defends white interests. And most of them claim to be atheists. What they have is a strong racial identity.

    Not the same thing.

    The same thing would be if we blamed the secularizing trend in our community, or our communal moral failings, on our European cultural environment – or worse, on anti-Semitic agents trying to destroy Jewish religion.

    Of course we recognize that the European cultural environment plays a role, but the primary responsibility is our own. We are supposed to be better than our environment.

    While our self image allows us to realize we are capable of being influenced by outside forces, it does not permit us to see ourselves as capable of being mind controlled by outside agents. Always the primary responsibility must rest with our own moral character.

    The current white nationalist narrative of white decline would be thoroughly alien to the spirit of Judaism.

    Or to give another example, in 2006 Israel performed beneath expectations in the war in Lebanon – there followed a ruthless process of self appraisal and criticism.

    We did not blame outside agents or subversive agents within Israel or anything other than ourselves.

    Yet the urge to blame military failure on others began appearing in Europe already in the early 20th century, which was when the decline seriously began to appear.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @SFG
    The left-wing Jews you're both complaining about have little attachment to traditional Judaism--it's about a 'commitment to social justice' as historically oppressed people.

    Those people actually do constantly criticize white people for very small amounts of 'racism'. Look at Michelle Goldberg or Sarah Silverman.
  104. @Feryl
    Guns are a major reason why the "uniparty" theory is bogus. Different kinds of people inhabit the mainstream of each party's establishment in a given era. And even if their goals are similar, the methods will still vary.

    For example, the turn toward police-statism that began in the 1980's was handled differently by the Left and Right. The Right was perfectly comfortable with mass gun ownership as long as we kept the populace off drugs and incarcerated tons of criminals. The Left, on the other hand, was comfortable with low incarceration rates and drugs but did not want such an obviously dangerous situation being inflamed by guns. Essentially, the mainstream of each party in the 80's and 90's was comfortable with creeping authoritarianism, it's just that each side wanted a different flavor. How does this square with the "libertarian" turn of the 70's? Well, society since the 70's has been less and less interested in promoting traditional values and regulating the markets. In that sense, we did get libertarianism. However, PC/speech codes, gun grabbing, mass incarceration, etc. are not libertarian, but rather, institutions becoming increasingly authoritarian. So it's fair to say that American culture has collapsed due to a bizarre combination of hedonist libertarianism and police statism, a state of affairs produced by neo-liberalism that as far as I know has few or no precedents in human history.

    Modern America is neither "Left" nor "Right" in any traditional understanding of these terms. The modern Left has never earnestly attempted to restore taxes on the wealthy that were the norm before the 80's. The modern Left has abandoned industrial labor. The modern Right is substantially less devoted to most traditional norms than it once was (WRT gays, the role of women, and the importance of the Church in our affairs). The modern Right has also been an overwhelming failure at reducing the size of the government, or making the government more competent (indeed, it was, yep, Jimmy Carter who oversaw revamped civil servant tests intended to weed out the dummies, but the tests were never used after they were found to benefit white applicants). What's more, the idea that America is so inherently awesome that it needs to be shared with more foreign countries and immigrants is a notion that now has more widespread acceptance among affluent US conservatives than it ever had in any previous era (the forefathers of American and Brit conservatism, often cited to this day by modern cucks, would've been horrified at the neo-con infilitration of the GOP, and the rising influence of the globalist Bush clan).

    WRT feminism, the 1980's Right had no problem with women in the workforce provided they not soak the government for "support". The Left, on the other hand, has, since the feminist revolution of the 70's, been promulgating the idea that the government ought to step in to assist female careerism.

    Excellent comment, sir.

    I wonder only which church you mean by “the role of the church in our affairs.”
    When someone capitalizes Church or The Church, they usually mean the Roman Catholic Church.

    If you are proposing that we keep following (or, in our family’s case, return to) the RCC, that would not seem to encourage normal male-female relations and the propagation of intact, stable, loving families by any means. It would also empower an active enemy of white European people and our traditional western culture here in the USA and elsewhere, because that is what “The Church” has been for some time now.

    Rather, it would continue enriching a very dishonest and corrupt group of homosexuals, known as the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, and some (permanent) deacons (some deacons are married men with children and thoroughly normal, admirable, relatable, and credible for parishioners).

    The RCC and its agencies (Catholic Charities, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, etc) are also active advocates and apologists for any nonwhite immigrant who wants to come to our country, including those who come in violation of our laws and wishes, and certainly including those who have no serious desire or effort to learn our language and live by our mores. When we still attend RC Mass, we were repeatedly offended by the church (more than one parish) setting up tables in the parking lot to help “immigrants, including our undocumented brothers and sisters”, to get anything and everything they could get from American taxpayers “for free” and to press a claim for asylum or the like.

    To Hell with “The Church”, because if there is such a place or state of being, that is where many of its leaders and clergy are headed.

    Okay, I feel better now, LOL. Thank you and good night 😉

    • Replies: @Feryl
    My point was that traditional conservatism emphasize the role of organized religion. But during the libertarian turn of the 1970's, Boomers deserted the established wings of various religions in droves. Some gave up religion altogether, while others joined newer or more "radical" sects.

    Relentlessly attacking Catholics for their real or imagined short-comings in recent decades is to act as if the New Deal norm of Catholicism and the oldest Protestant denominations setting the religious and cultural agenda was a bad thing.

    Of course, this is hardly the only example of the two libertarian generations (Silents and Boomers) ferociously attacking the norms of their parents and grandparents so as to make their own generation's choices seem a lot better than they actually are.

    After the established denominations were "discredited" by Boomers from the 1970's-1990's, it's forced these institutions to adapt to trendy (decadent) social changes in order to attract more people to their flock. In other words: when old-school religious institutions were traditionalist and stability promoting in a previous era, they were attacked as sanctimonious, bigoted, and as much as anything else, "boring". As the traditionalist church lost relevance to younger generations, they felt obligated to become more experimental in order to survive.

    If we become interested in promoting stability again (rather than promoting fashion or experimentation, no matter how destructive), then we can expect religion to also do the same.
  105. @AaronB
    Blaming others and finger pointing is one of the engines of decline. I mean its not a side issue - its at the very heart of decline.

    One positive aspect of Judaism is that in the Bible, whenever Jews get influenced by their environment and start worshipping idols, we are never let off the hook - God always considers us responsible, whatever the environment.

    Finger pointing comes from pride and ego - you are not willing to accept that you have made a mistake.

    For white nationalists, they are too proud to admit European culture made a mistake. But all success comes from being absolutely ruthless and unsentimental with oneself about ones mistakes. You don't make an idol of yourself.

    Great engineers, great scientists, great generals all have no pride and no ego - they have mastered their pride, which is after all the source of evil, as all religions acknowledge.

    But for people who don't believe in God, they have no choice but to make an idol of themselves - and then how can their idol be subjected to criticism? They themselves are God.

    I’d actually disagree and say that secular left-wing Jews (and if you’re not all three of those this isn’t directed you) do an awful lot of finger pointing, mostly at whites. My opinion is they’ve bought into this ‘cultural cringe’ stuff but still have ‘white privilege’, a few nasty emails and the occasional disaster like in Pittsburgh notwithstanding. So they have to prove they’re ‘cool’ by exhorting ‘fellow white people’ not to be ‘racist’.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Some secular left wing Jews are for all intents and purposes cultural white Europeans.

    I'm talking about Jews who retain a Jewish identity - it would be foreign to their beliefs to blame the religious decline of the community primarily in outside influences.

    Outside influences are recognized as playing a role, but primary responsibility is internal.

  106. @silviosilver
    Even if there were something to the shadowstats conspiracy theory (and I see no reason to believe so), unemployment calculations have not changed since the Obama presidency, so it would still make perfect sense for Trump to play up his track record on unemployment.

    Sure, it makes perfect sense if Trump intends to be a lying asshole like Bathhouse Barry is.

  107. @Audacious Epigone
    Do you have any new tweets? It's funny that you have tweets from four and five years ago always at the ready, though!

    Do you have any new tweets? It’s funny that you have tweets from four and five years ago always at the ready, though!

    I might have to break with my radical stubborn ways and start Tweeting again.

    I had the most fun, and learned the most, from UKIP Twitter #UKIP.

    Farage was smart enough to use the immigration issue to convince English voters to break with the EU and reclaim English sovereignty in order to regain control of English borders and institute an immigration policy that advances the interests of England and the English people.

    2014 and 2015 were interesting years to be on Twitter. Trump took advantage of the political and cultural atmosphere of that time to win in 2016.

    Tulsi Gabbard is a nice lady I met at a presidential primary town hall event. I was happy to see Gabbard rhetorically pop that Kamala Harris a good one in the debates!

    The GOP goes explicit White or the GOP goes DODO!

    Since the GOP donors won’t go explicit White, that means the current GOP is deader than a doornail.

    Republican Party voters must remove the Republican Party donors and Republican Party ruling class from power and re-name the Republican Party.

    White Core America Now is a suggestion.

    Got to have WHITE in the name!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The last sentence aside, Core America Now (CAN) is a pretty clever acronym. Yes, we CAN!
  108. @AaronB
    Not the same thing.

    The same thing would be if we blamed the secularizing trend in our community, or our communal moral failings, on our European cultural environment - or worse, on anti-Semitic agents trying to destroy Jewish religion.

    Of course we recognize that the European cultural environment plays a role, but the primary responsibility is our own. We are supposed to be better than our environment.

    While our self image allows us to realize we are capable of being influenced by outside forces, it does not permit us to see ourselves as capable of being mind controlled by outside agents. Always the primary responsibility must rest with our own moral character.

    The current white nationalist narrative of white decline would be thoroughly alien to the spirit of Judaism.

    Or to give another example, in 2006 Israel performed beneath expectations in the war in Lebanon - there followed a ruthless process of self appraisal and criticism.

    We did not blame outside agents or subversive agents within Israel or anything other than ourselves.

    Yet the urge to blame military failure on others began appearing in Europe already in the early 20th century, which was when the decline seriously began to appear.

    The left-wing Jews you’re both complaining about have little attachment to traditional Judaism–it’s about a ‘commitment to social justice’ as historically oppressed people.

    Those people actually do constantly criticize white people for very small amounts of ‘racism’. Look at Michelle Goldberg or Sarah Silverman.

  109. @Feryl

    Lots of the big, sparsly-populated Western States wanted the US Gov’t to leave them the hell alone.
     
    My response to much of the Plains and Interior West is: who cares? Back in the New Deal era, we emotionally and financially invested in regions in a way that took population into account. So the Eastern seaboard came first. Then came the interior East. Then came the West Coast. Last in line was the interior West.

    By the 1960's, Republicans like Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan clearly resented the dominance of the Eastern US. As you point out, by the 1980's Reagan was able to take advantage of growing public dissatisfaction with the East, as well as Cold War sentiment, in order to give lots of pork to the Western US (the South was also on board, however the South did just fine in the New Deal era until the 1964 Civil Rights act was passed, which caused many Southerners to sour on the Democrats by 1980).

    Agnostic did a great post during 2016 about the tendency of "frontier" candidates to come to the fore during eras of Social Darwinism and chaos. So the mid-late 19th century had presidents from the then-frontier of Tennessee, Illinois, and so forth. In the early-mid 20th century, we shifted to candidates from New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the oldest parts of the South (Virginia primarily). But during the shift that began in the mid-1960's (and was complete by 1980), we went from JFK (MA) to LBJ (Texas). Then with Nixon we shifted even further to the West (California). We did a bit of an about-face with Carter (Georgia), but then we went back to a Californian (albeit one who was raised in Illinois) with Reagan. Then Reagan and Bush* (Texas) routed Midwesterner Mondale and Masshole Dukakis. This prompted the Dems to run Clinton, who was from the furthest reaches of the South (Arkansas) and was able to win two elections. It's astonishing that from 1964-2008, we did not have a single president whose identity was derived from the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, or even the oldest parts of the South; in fact, once could argue that Hawaiian Obama wasn't really a Midwesterner, in which case that would mean that we waited until 2017 to get a more Eastern president.

    *Bush was a New England Yankee who nevertheless felt it expedient to masquerade as a Texan to boost his political and social fortune.

    We also had presidents from the Midwest in the early-mid 20th century, and no surprise that Ohio, the Easternmost part of the Midwest, was represented. And by the time Eisenhower was elected, Kansas was well beyond it’s Wild West days.

  110. @SFG
    I'd actually disagree and say that secular left-wing Jews (and if you're not all three of those this isn't directed you) do an awful lot of finger pointing, mostly at whites. My opinion is they've bought into this 'cultural cringe' stuff but still have 'white privilege', a few nasty emails and the occasional disaster like in Pittsburgh notwithstanding. So they have to prove they're 'cool' by exhorting 'fellow white people' not to be 'racist'.

    Some secular left wing Jews are for all intents and purposes cultural white Europeans.

    I’m talking about Jews who retain a Jewish identity – it would be foreign to their beliefs to blame the religious decline of the community primarily in outside influences.

    Outside influences are recognized as playing a role, but primary responsibility is internal.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Some secular left wing Jews are for all intents and purposes cultural white Europeans.
     
    Yes. What a lot of people around these parts won't accept is that secularism is as dire a threat to Jewish identity as it is to any other cultural identity. Secular Jews might retain a degree of Jewish identity but within a couple of generations they'll just be generic white globalist liberals.

    Rootless cosmopolitanism destroys all cultures.
  111. @Mr. Rational

    You also seem to be primarily engaged in trolling and trying to get an emotional reaction out of people when you say white nationalists have an average IQ of 70.
     
    Did he actually write that?  Too funny.  Thanks for taking the brain-cell hit for the rest of us.

    About 2% of the White population has an IQ under 70 (-2 SD) and they are very obviously impaired; I suspect that the minimum IQ of the White nationalists/separatists/whatevers posting here is closer to 120.  But for blacks, about 15% have a sub-70 IQ (mean of 85) and they look relatively normal; blacks probably have no idea that a sub-70 IQ is almost in freak territory in the pale races.  The funniest part is that a Black posting here would be such a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Your last sentence is obviously true. The whites pretending to be black who post here don’t seem to realize that they are giving themselves away with every comment they post.

  112. @Achmed E. Newman

    I actually agree that “female” is degrading, but so is “male.”
     
    Do you mean as NOUNS, Rosie? For that case I would agree. It sounds like the way cops talk about "perps", and it makes people sound like just another type of animal, which is the way many cops DO think. "There are 2 males behind the shed, and we've got a female on the run behind the fence ...."

    As far as adjectives, "male" and "female" seem OK to me. My joke at the end there may have been missed by all, in which case, is it even a joke at all?

    As far as adjectives, “male” and “female” seem OK to me.

    Yes, I agree. They’re acceptable, but only because, as I said, there is no better alternative.

  113. @Futurethirdworlder
    My biggest problem is the victim blaming.

    The '65 antiwhite immigration act was passed during the baby boom. Whites weren't declining in numbers they were"booming."

    Even if whites were reproducing at replacement levels they would still be on course to become a minority with this level of nonwhite immigration. Which is one of the factors lowering birth rates.

    The Japanese aren't reproducing at replacement levels but no one believes they are being genocided.

    The issue isn't not having enough children. Which can be corrected by a generation of whites having more children and this could be incentivised to varying degrees by gov't policy.

    I clicked agree, overall, but please allow me to add a note about white folks not having children. Even if there were very little legal or illegal immigration, as we would both presumably prefer, white People still would not survive and thrive without having children above replacement rate.

    Without children, people typically lack the sense of purpose, fulfillment, and driving concern for the future and what will be left behind when they die. They also cannot possibly fully understand and relate to the feelings, priorities, and mission of parents, though many admirably try to do so.

    Moreover, any fear, hesitation, anxiety, that I might have defending myself or fellow countrymen, will have no force if it is my children whom I am defending. I am not a military guy and don’t claim to be especially brave or tough, but I would suffer anything for my children, anything.

    Ultimately, a people that does not have enough children to sustain its numbers and strength, will not have the confidence, pride, vigor, hope for the future, cohesiveness, willingness to sacrifice, and willingness to fight, that a healthy, growing, proud, heterosexual-normed society will have.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
    Would it be nice if whites were having more children? Yes, I have three myself.

    Do whites deserve to be replaced because they aren't producing enough tax and consumer donkeys to meet GDP projections? No.

    Are there socioeconomic forces reducing the white birthrate?

    Marriage law, antenatal propaganda, climate doom propaganda, destruction of community, promotion of homosexuality, feminism, loss of earning power by white men, immigration, discrimination against whites in hiring and college enrollment. Yes.

    Acknowledging the problem isn't making excuses and I make no excuses for the misguided whites who have accepted the propaganda. But it is what it is.
    , @dfordoom

    Without children, people typically lack the sense of purpose, fulfillment, and driving concern for the future and what will be left behind when they die.
     
    True. But which comes first? Does demographic collapse cause that lack of purpose or is it a symptom?
  114. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't usually agree with you on American political history, Feryl (cause I was THERE), but this is a good comment. About the only disagreement is about the South and West and the Reagan GOP vote. No, it wasn't all about military spending. These regions are , make that "were" significantly more conservative and, results not withstanding, Ronnie WAS a conservative and came across as one very well too.

    Even regarding the Cold War Reagan defense build-up, the South has more military bases, but that's not where most of the money of the defense buildup went - southern California got a whole hell of a lot for defense "procurement", meaning building of satellites, electronic systems, some fighters (Northrup), air tankers, etc.

    Do you remember the sagebrush rebellion, Feryl? Lots of the big, sparsly-populated Western States wanted the US Gov't to leave them the hell alone. That includes Area 51's and such, except, of course, for the employees. These States aren't the same now, after both Californication and other immigration, Nevada being Exhibit A on that.

    Anyway, that was just a quibble. I want to reply on one last point, but I'll write another comment.

    No, it wasn’t all about military spending. These regions are , make that “were” significantly more conservative and, results not withstanding, Ronnie WAS a conservative and came across as one very well too.

    Only if one defines “conservative” as “leave me alone”, which of course, the modern GOP is mostly not really interested in, either (if they were, they would’ve repealed affirmative action laws and fired campus officials for violating people’s first amendment rights).

    In terms of actual behavioral values, the South and especially the Western US have always been more volatile and nihilistic than the Northeast and most of the Midwest. The Western US has always been the softest on gambling, drugs, prostitution, drunken revelry*, and the like. Telling the school marms to “fuck off” is part and parcel of the region’s culture. The interlopers of which you speak aren’t doing much to change that culture per se, but rather, they don’t buy into reflexive hatred of big government the way that older generations of Western residents did**.

    *California had the first no-fault divorce laws passed

    **Gen X and Millennial, the white ones, in the Western US have a much less libertarian identity WRT government size than Silents and Boomers did. So immigrants can’t be blamed for everything, in much the same way that our culture would be changing due to generational differences regardless of the races involved. Immigrants didn’t create “free love” or the drug culture of the 1960’s and 70’s, did they?

  115. @Feryl
    Well, quite a few light-complected "minorities" often have a thorny history with racial issues. Why? They often resent white people for being more at-ease around them, while whites are more visibly (or vocally) avoidant of darker skinned people. This neurosis can manifest itself with a lot of "over-acting" by light-skinned/softer featured minorities, to prove that they are "keeping it real". Sometimes this includes being quite hostile to whites (perhaps Obama would be less resentful of whites if he grew up in a violent ghetto full of "authentic" blacks?).

    “Sometimes this includes being quite hostile to whites (perhaps Obama would be less resentful of whites if he grew up in a violent ghetto full of “authentic” blacks?).”

    It’s also possible that he wouldn’t have lived long enough to have entered college, let alone politics.

  116. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    It's possible. I remember hearing a 30 year old white woman in Toronto complaining about "bussing" for her kid. More about the effed up school boundary districts that ensured there was plenty of "diversity" to go around.

    Anyways she was clearly quite uneasy about this. She seemed deeply ashamed though, and tried her hardest to not sound racist. She even said, "I can see where they're coming from..."

    It was quite sad. You could tell that she was clearly afraid of being called "Becky" and "racist". But to me it sounds like it's also a husband problem. If she had a strong, racially conscious husband, perhaps she would be taking a stronger stand.

    Anyways, whitey will keep losing until he becomes unapologetically tribal.

    Anyways she was clearly quite uneasy about this. She seemed deeply ashamed though, and tried her hardest to not sound racist. She even said, “I can see where they’re coming from…”

    Yes, the shame is very deep. I’m not even a very typical woman, but I experienced very intense shame about entertaining the idea of racial differences in intelligence. The JQ was still worse.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Why is the shame so deep? Just the womans fear of being ostracized?

    Personally I really dont give a shit, I always say what I think and some cucks ostracize me but most respect me for saying the truth. But I can see how for women it might be worse to be shunned.
  117. @Audacious Epigone
    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no "genocide". They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no “genocide”. They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    Finger pointing is all of politics and war. Andrew Jackson gave the finger called the middle to Nicholas Biddle and his Boston/New York/Philadelphia money-grubber pals and foreign money-grubber pals. I wonder how much loot the English were clam raking out of Biddle’s central bank schemes and scams?

    In war your leaders point the finger and you attack or attack in another direction — also called retreat.

    White Genocide is real and it is happening in most European Christian nations. Economic conditions and cultural conditions have been engineered and orchestrated by the evil ruling classes of the various European Christian nations to bring about White Genocide.

    Monetary policy and immigration policy have been weaponized in a way to hinder and harm AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for young White Core Americans.

    • Agree: Futurethirdworlder
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Monetary policy and immigration policy have been weaponized in a way to hinder and harm AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for young White Core Americans."

    In the 1950's a bus mechanic could afford to buy a house, a car, have 4 children, send them to Catholic high school, and mom could stay home.

    I know this because I just described my grandfather, who owned a 2 flat on a double lot in Chicago's Back of the Yards neighborhood.

    Now a mediocre new car costs as much as a house did or more. The cost of raising one child is more than the cost of raising 4 of them 60 years ago. But no no! We're just choosing to have less kids! It has nothing to do with the fact that people can't afford to have as many. It has nothing to do with women being taught to put their careers first and wait until they are in their 30's to have kids, if at all. Abortion? Nothing to do with it! Being taught to hate yourself? Nada. Kids are bad for the environment? Zilch!
  118. @SFG
    I'm not a white nationalist, but I laughed at that last bit.

    I will say there's been a move away from being strongly anti-gay in alt-right circles over the past few years from what I've seen, though it's still not something they're fond of.

    You may be right, I don’t know enough to say what the recent trend is among “us” that regard.

    Personally, my wife and I have become MORE offended and concerned by the normalization and glorification of homosexuality and other psychological disorders and perversions to our children.

    And far more willing to restrict public displays of homosexuality and “transgenderism” on the streets or in advertising and “entertainment”, barring homosexuals and mentally ill people (“transgenders”) from teaching or otherwise guiding our children, and drastically changing (or eliminating) the Perversion Indoctrination (“sex Ed”) classes in government and private schools alike.

    Yes, the constitution will need to be interpreted very differently, even changed or replaced, to accomplish this. Sad to say, but some kind of secession, civil war, or other breakup of the USA (or breakdown of order) seems not unlikely, and becoming slightly more likely as time goes by. So if we can survive and find some part of the current USA where likeminded people will establish such a society, we’ll be there. The drastic reforms mentioned above will probably take hold in some of the new pieces of the former USA, along with, admittedly, measures which we would find too intolerant or harsh on other issues.

  119. @Audacious Epigone
    What is this in response to?

    AE, it’s probably in response to the voices in his head. He argues with them, you know.

  120. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't usually agree with you on American political history, Feryl (cause I was THERE), but this is a good comment. About the only disagreement is about the South and West and the Reagan GOP vote. No, it wasn't all about military spending. These regions are , make that "were" significantly more conservative and, results not withstanding, Ronnie WAS a conservative and came across as one very well too.

    Even regarding the Cold War Reagan defense build-up, the South has more military bases, but that's not where most of the money of the defense buildup went - southern California got a whole hell of a lot for defense "procurement", meaning building of satellites, electronic systems, some fighters (Northrup), air tankers, etc.

    Do you remember the sagebrush rebellion, Feryl? Lots of the big, sparsly-populated Western States wanted the US Gov't to leave them the hell alone. That includes Area 51's and such, except, of course, for the employees. These States aren't the same now, after both Californication and other immigration, Nevada being Exhibit A on that.

    Anyway, that was just a quibble. I want to reply on one last point, but I'll write another comment.

    BTW, I’m not specifically picking on Reagan as much as I’m picking on the young and middle aged people of the 1980’s-present who affect to be “conservative” while obviously failing to set a good example, to lead, by adhering to and promoting behavioral conservatism, in addition to their embarrassing failure to rein in pork and stop a police state from developing.

    Since Reagan’s own generation was in it’s 70’s and 80’s by 1990, I don’t see how they can be held responsible for what has happened. They, for the most part, were not calling the shots during corporate board meetings and city council meetings by the late 80’s. In fact, a full gerontocracy would not exist in America until the 2000’s….And who created it? Silents and Boomers, of course. Furthermore, GIs in the 1960’s-1980’s often acted in response to what Silents and Boomers wanted. Silent and Boomers wanted the political and behavioral norms of the 1970’s and 80’s. On the other hand, Silents and Boomers in recent decades have often been openly contemptuous of what X-ers and Millennials want. There is a lot of hostility between these generations, dating back to teen X-ers of the 80’s being called MTV addict zombies, that’s been gradually rising since then. Because we are tired of two generations who failed as political and cultural leaders but are still acting like they are better than other generations. Are we supposed to continue treating now 50 year old Gen X-ers like a child that wasn’t supposed to happen, the one with “defects” kept hidden away in the family home?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Because we are tired of two generations who failed as political and cultural leaders but are still acting like they are better than other generations.
     
    No, your problem is your idea that we need to have political and cultural leaders to follow, to begin with. At least many in the older generations understood that we don't, but, alas, not enough. Now, we've got a generation half of which is in love with the proven-failure idea of Socialism, aka, taking portions of responsible people's lives (their labor) and redistributing it to the irresponsible. The Socialists are the defectives who we really should keep hidden away at (a) home.
  121. @snorlax
    You can find plenty of people who have IQs in the 90s (thoughts coherent but banal, limited vocabulary, average of one to three significant spelling or grammar errors per paragraph) in the Breitbart and Daily Mail comment sections.

    Anyway, my point was the idea that any commenter here has an IQ as low as 70 is preposterous.

    “Bigger” is not better, in terms of a comments section. Also, a lot of smart people have memorized cuck/establishment talking points, and don’t mind regurgitating them. You might be surprised at just how many “smart” people sound like MSNBC or Fox talking heads, when it comes to politics, as they succumb to partisan non-sense that everything would be just fine if only everyone voted for the GOP or the Dems.

    It takes a willingness to go against the grain, and some effort, to do lots of “research” that spells out the often complicated reality of life and many of it’s “issues”. It’s far easier to be a partisan propagandist.

  122. @RadicalCenter
    I clicked agree, overall, but please allow me to add a note about white folks not having children. Even if there were very little legal or illegal immigration, as we would both presumably prefer, white People still would not survive and thrive without having children above replacement rate.

    Without children, people typically lack the sense of purpose, fulfillment, and driving concern for the future and what will be left behind when they die. They also cannot possibly fully understand and relate to the feelings, priorities, and mission of parents, though many admirably try to do so.

    Moreover, any fear, hesitation, anxiety, that I might have defending myself or fellow countrymen, will have no force if it is my children whom I am defending. I am not a military guy and don’t claim to be especially brave or tough, but I would suffer anything for my children, anything.

    Ultimately, a people that does not have enough children to sustain its numbers and strength, will not have the confidence, pride, vigor, hope for the future, cohesiveness, willingness to sacrifice, and willingness to fight, that a healthy, growing, proud, heterosexual-normed society will have.

    Would it be nice if whites were having more children? Yes, I have three myself.

    Do whites deserve to be replaced because they aren’t producing enough tax and consumer donkeys to meet GDP projections? No.

    Are there socioeconomic forces reducing the white birthrate?

    Marriage law, antenatal propaganda, climate doom propaganda, destruction of community, promotion of homosexuality, feminism, loss of earning power by white men, immigration, discrimination against whites in hiring and college enrollment. Yes.

    Acknowledging the problem isn’t making excuses and I make no excuses for the misguided whites who have accepted the propaganda. But it is what it is.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    3 is not enough. 6+ is necessary from each white family.
  123. @dfordoom

    Most whites feel terrible these days
     
    I suspect that most upper-class or upper middle-class whites feel better than ever before.

    Nope, not a chance. 1950’s elites consciously “down-shifted”, not feeling much pressure to accumulate the trappings of “success”. People were comfortable in their own skin.

    Now that Gilded Age norms are punishing to 2/3 of the population but much more reward to the top 1/3 or so, we’ve incentivized striving to make it to the top. Inevitably, not only are many of the losers bitter and frustrated, but even many of the ostensible winners feel very protective of what they have, and can’t stand the the thought of losing it. Because their self-concept in this corrupt era is heavily based on status.

    Peter Turchin says that overly competitive behavior by elites (and wannabe elites) has been actively diminishing our overall sense of well being since the mid-70’s.

    We are far, far away from the mostly agreeable nature of the mid-20th century.

    If elites were happy, then our cultural commenters would be calm and pleasant. They are certainly not, at the moment (loud and angry commentary began to get more popular in the 80’s, and has only become more popular in each subsequent decade).

    Also, if elites felt secure, then we wouldn’t have 5 million people trying to be president right now. In times of goodwill among man, we have a handful of candidates who are trusted by all others to do a decent job in the White House. Beginning with the GOP field of 2016, though, there’s been a massive shift towards elites distrusting each other, as is indicated by the now crowded field of candidates in 2016 and 2020.

    And the 2010’s have seen a massive breakdown of civility among political candidates; you’d have to go back to the late 19th century original Gilded Age to find so much ad hominem abuse and bad faith arguments being hurled by the candidates themselves; imagine if GHW Bush on the campaign trail sounded like Lee Atwater at the water cooler, rather than publicly being agreeable while Atwater devised some dirty tricks in the backroom.

    • Agree: El Dato
  124. @Michael S
    Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren't meant for blacks or latinos or women, they're meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them.

    I fully expect that this will result in approximately zero additional pee oh cee votes, but as the Democrats become increasingly anti-white, the Republicans will put out this kind of rhetoric to try to peel away white Democrats, and I think it will work and is working, to a degree. Meanwhile, I doubt it's going to depress turnout from the partisan base, especially now that Muh Russia is dead and SCOTUS finally handed Trump his wall funding. Republicans are gonna vote Republican unless there's some major war or economic crisis.

    “Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren’t meant for blacks or latinos or women, they’re meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them.”

    Good point.

  125. No news about Easter Worshipper unemployment?

  126. @Audacious Epigone
    Yes.

    The only significant demographic shift between Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016 is Trump lost a chunk of college-educated whites and gained a chunk of no college whites.

    The POC vote was down.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Also, Trump, and hopefully a successor, doesn't need 40-50% of the non-white vote. All that is needed is maybe 3-4% more than what he got last time.
  127. @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed. In a political landscape increasingly defined by 'identity politics', the biggest losers will be those who refuse to assert their identities.

    Those whites that assert their identities here are labelled white nationalists (HITLER!!). If a blog community can’t get on board with IOKTBW, then a country sure isn’t gonna.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    If a blog community can’t get on board with IOKTBW
     
    I might get on board with it if I knew what it meant.

    Too many acronyms people.
  128. @Intelligent Dasein
    Diffidence (and the more unconscious, the better) is the surest form of demonstrating privilege. Most whites still think that they're just fine. This explains a lot.

    Based on some family and friends of mine (who happen to be lawyers of all things) your statement couldn’t be more accurate.

  129. @iffen
    The POC vote was down.

    Also, Trump, and hopefully a successor, doesn’t need 40-50% of the non-white vote. All that is needed is maybe 3-4% more than what he got last time.

    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
    "All that is needed is maybe 3-4% more than what he got last time."


    To win reelection but to what end? To continue to pander and incentivize nonwhites at the expensive of white Americans? That's no victory.
    , @Twodees Partain
    In '16, the democrats simply miscalculated the number of fraudulent votes needed to put their hag over the top. They'll probably screw it up in '20 as well.
  130. @Audacious Epigone
    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no "genocide". They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    “No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. ”

    Trickery never works. In fact, no one has ever been tricked ever, in the world. Trickery is a myth!

  131. @Rosie

    Anyways she was clearly quite uneasy about this. She seemed deeply ashamed though, and tried her hardest to not sound racist. She even said, “I can see where they’re coming from…”
     
    Yes, the shame is very deep. I'm not even a very typical woman, but I experienced very intense shame about entertaining the idea of racial differences in intelligence. The JQ was still worse.

    Why is the shame so deep? Just the womans fear of being ostracized?

    Personally I really dont give a shit, I always say what I think and some cucks ostracize me but most respect me for saying the truth. But I can see how for women it might be worse to be shunned.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Why is the shame so deep? Just the womans fear of being ostracized?
     
    No. It isn't calculated like that. It probably has evolutionary roots in somewhat calculated conformist behaviors, but now it's just our nature to internalize group moral norms. The shame is real, because we have made the moral norms our own. Now, obviously men are vulnerable to this as well, and NAWALT, but on the whole, women have a tendency to internalize norms where men will just conform to avoid punishment.

    Obviously, this can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances.


    Personally I really dont give a shit, I always say what I think and some cucks ostracize me but most respect me for saying the truth. But I can see how for women it might be worse to be shunned.
     
    Right, but that's a separate question, because you have already given yourself permission to take your own side.
  132. @Audacious Epigone
    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no "genocide". They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    I agree on this point. Yes, immigration is ultimately genocide and we need to stop it. But that doesn’t excuse the low white birthrate. USA and canada fertility fell below replacement in the 70s and never recovered. Whites are reproducing as if there are no outside threats.

    However, when I walk down my street and see 25 Indians for every white man and 60 Indians for every white man under 30, you know there’s a birth rate problem too. Face it. There’s nothing stopping you from having more babies.

    If you’re married and wealthy: don’t stop at 2. This is a severe problem right now.2 CHILDREN IS BELOW REPLACEMENT LEVELS!
    If you’re lower income, why aren’t you on welfare?
    If you’re wealthy and single, man up and find a wife.

    If you’re poor and single, stop acting like a w*gger #1, man up and act and dress decent. There is a severe shortage of lower class white men who are decent enough to partner with lower class white women. Marry your McDonalds colleague and then get on welfare and start fucking.

  133. @Michael S
    Ya know, for a group of people critiquing political strategy, some of you show staggering unawareness of white voting patterns. These stats aren't meant for blacks or latinos or women, they're meant for liberal white men, the moderate swing voters, and this stuff is catnip for them.

    I fully expect that this will result in approximately zero additional pee oh cee votes, but as the Democrats become increasingly anti-white, the Republicans will put out this kind of rhetoric to try to peel away white Democrats, and I think it will work and is working, to a degree. Meanwhile, I doubt it's going to depress turnout from the partisan base, especially now that Muh Russia is dead and SCOTUS finally handed Trump his wall funding. Republicans are gonna vote Republican unless there's some major war or economic crisis.

    suburban soccer moms are a soft segment of GOPe voters who the media try to split off using accusations of racism.

    stuff like this is targeted at the same segment of voters in an attempt to neuter the media’s tactic.

    however this particular example is very dumb as it would be perfectly reasonable to include “white unemployment” in a list like this and leaving it out is too glaring.

    also given that under PC you can’t say anything about white people unless it’s negative just including white unemployment as a neutral element in a list would trigger SJWs to attack – so it’s a wasted trolling opportunity as well.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  134. @Audacious Epigone
    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no "genocide". They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it.

    integrated schools

  135. @RadicalCenter
    Where’s your poll of white nationalists to that effect? Waiting.

    I have never once heard any male white nationalist write or say, even intimate or joke, that he’d rather have sex with a white guy than a black woman. We are never, in fact, in need of making that “fallacy of the false alternative” choice. So we choose, sensibly, never to have sex with men or with African women. Pretty simple.

    You should try giving up those two kinds of sexual encounters yourself.

    It’s the only kind he can get lol.

    Subcons are known for being the least attractive men. Would not surprise me if they fuck in the privacy of their bedrooms.

  136. @Charles Pewitt

    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no “genocide”. They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

     

    Finger pointing is all of politics and war. Andrew Jackson gave the finger called the middle to Nicholas Biddle and his Boston/New York/Philadelphia money-grubber pals and foreign money-grubber pals. I wonder how much loot the English were clam raking out of Biddle's central bank schemes and scams?

    In war your leaders point the finger and you attack or attack in another direction -- also called retreat.

    White Genocide is real and it is happening in most European Christian nations. Economic conditions and cultural conditions have been engineered and orchestrated by the evil ruling classes of the various European Christian nations to bring about White Genocide.

    Monetary policy and immigration policy have been weaponized in a way to hinder and harm AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for young White Core Americans.

    “Monetary policy and immigration policy have been weaponized in a way to hinder and harm AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for young White Core Americans.”

    In the 1950’s a bus mechanic could afford to buy a house, a car, have 4 children, send them to Catholic high school, and mom could stay home.

    I know this because I just described my grandfather, who owned a 2 flat on a double lot in Chicago’s Back of the Yards neighborhood.

    Now a mediocre new car costs as much as a house did or more. The cost of raising one child is more than the cost of raising 4 of them 60 years ago. But no no! We’re just choosing to have less kids! It has nothing to do with the fact that people can’t afford to have as many. It has nothing to do with women being taught to put their careers first and wait until they are in their 30’s to have kids, if at all. Abortion? Nothing to do with it! Being taught to hate yourself? Nada. Kids are bad for the environment? Zilch!

    • Replies: @Feryl
    To many 65 or 70 year old people, it Does. Not. Compute. that economic circumstances over the last 25 years have made it impossible for Gen X or Millennials to credibly say that we live in a society based on a strong middle class. That's where the sanctimonious horse crap about today's "selfish", "entitled", "lazy" youngsters comes from. We've been hearing that since the early 90's, when a lot of X-er complained that their parents told them to go to college and they'd be set, yet in 1992 a lot of X-ers couldn't find much work beyond flipping burgers. The parents of the X-ers told them to just shut up and "work harder".
  137. @Futurethirdworlder
    Would it be nice if whites were having more children? Yes, I have three myself.

    Do whites deserve to be replaced because they aren't producing enough tax and consumer donkeys to meet GDP projections? No.

    Are there socioeconomic forces reducing the white birthrate?

    Marriage law, antenatal propaganda, climate doom propaganda, destruction of community, promotion of homosexuality, feminism, loss of earning power by white men, immigration, discrimination against whites in hiring and college enrollment. Yes.

    Acknowledging the problem isn't making excuses and I make no excuses for the misguided whites who have accepted the propaganda. But it is what it is.

    3 is not enough. 6+ is necessary from each white family.

    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
    So that we can suffer the ills of over population with 1 billion whites instead of nonwhites? This is not logical thinking.

    You have to reject this idea that we have to continually breed a sufficient number of livestock to feed our gov't and corporate overlords.
  138. @iffen
    Also, Trump, and hopefully a successor, doesn't need 40-50% of the non-white vote. All that is needed is maybe 3-4% more than what he got last time.

    “All that is needed is maybe 3-4% more than what he got last time.”

    To win reelection but to what end? To continue to pander and incentivize nonwhites at the expensive of white Americans? That’s no victory.

  139. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    3 is not enough. 6+ is necessary from each white family.

    So that we can suffer the ills of over population with 1 billion whites instead of nonwhites? This is not logical thinking.

    You have to reject this idea that we have to continually breed a sufficient number of livestock to feed our gov’t and corporate overlords.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    You have to reject this idea that we have to continually breed a sufficient number of livestock to feed our gov’t and corporate overlords.
     
    Agreed.  We fought and won WWII with something like 180 million people.  Today we have something like 210 million Whites.  That's enough if we deal with some of our self-imposed structural problems.

    We don't need more of us, we need fewer of them.  We cannot outbreed the global South and would destroy everything we were trying to save if we did.  Our first response has to be to stop any more of them from coming here, and send the ones here back (or any other variant of "gone").
  140. @RadicalCenter
    Excellent comment, sir.

    I wonder only which church you mean by “the role of the church in our affairs.”
    When someone capitalizes Church or The Church, they usually mean the Roman Catholic Church.

    If you are proposing that we keep following (or, in our family’s case, return to) the RCC, that would not seem to encourage normal male-female relations and the propagation of intact, stable, loving families by any means. It would also empower an active enemy of white European people and our traditional western culture here in the USA and elsewhere, because that is what “The Church” has been for some time now.

    Rather, it would continue enriching a very dishonest and corrupt group of homosexuals, known as the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, and some (permanent) deacons (some deacons are married men with children and thoroughly normal, admirable, relatable, and credible for parishioners).

    The RCC and its agencies (Catholic Charities, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, etc) are also active advocates and apologists for any nonwhite immigrant who wants to come to our country, including those who come in violation of our laws and wishes, and certainly including those who have no serious desire or effort to learn our language and live by our mores. When we still attend RC Mass, we were repeatedly offended by the church (more than one parish) setting up tables in the parking lot to help “immigrants, including our undocumented brothers and sisters”, to get anything and everything they could get from American taxpayers “for free” and to press a claim for asylum or the like.

    To Hell with “The Church”, because if there is such a place or state of being, that is where many of its leaders and clergy are headed.

    Okay, I feel better now, LOL. Thank you and good night ;)

    My point was that traditional conservatism emphasize the role of organized religion. But during the libertarian turn of the 1970’s, Boomers deserted the established wings of various religions in droves. Some gave up religion altogether, while others joined newer or more “radical” sects.

    Relentlessly attacking Catholics for their real or imagined short-comings in recent decades is to act as if the New Deal norm of Catholicism and the oldest Protestant denominations setting the religious and cultural agenda was a bad thing.

    Of course, this is hardly the only example of the two libertarian generations (Silents and Boomers) ferociously attacking the norms of their parents and grandparents so as to make their own generation’s choices seem a lot better than they actually are.

    After the established denominations were “discredited” by Boomers from the 1970’s-1990’s, it’s forced these institutions to adapt to trendy (decadent) social changes in order to attract more people to their flock. In other words: when old-school religious institutions were traditionalist and stability promoting in a previous era, they were attacked as sanctimonious, bigoted, and as much as anything else, “boring”. As the traditionalist church lost relevance to younger generations, they felt obligated to become more experimental in order to survive.

    If we become interested in promoting stability again (rather than promoting fashion or experimentation, no matter how destructive), then we can expect religion to also do the same.

  141. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Monetary policy and immigration policy have been weaponized in a way to hinder and harm AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for young White Core Americans."

    In the 1950's a bus mechanic could afford to buy a house, a car, have 4 children, send them to Catholic high school, and mom could stay home.

    I know this because I just described my grandfather, who owned a 2 flat on a double lot in Chicago's Back of the Yards neighborhood.

    Now a mediocre new car costs as much as a house did or more. The cost of raising one child is more than the cost of raising 4 of them 60 years ago. But no no! We're just choosing to have less kids! It has nothing to do with the fact that people can't afford to have as many. It has nothing to do with women being taught to put their careers first and wait until they are in their 30's to have kids, if at all. Abortion? Nothing to do with it! Being taught to hate yourself? Nada. Kids are bad for the environment? Zilch!

    To many 65 or 70 year old people, it Does. Not. Compute. that economic circumstances over the last 25 years have made it impossible for Gen X or Millennials to credibly say that we live in a society based on a strong middle class. That’s where the sanctimonious horse crap about today’s “selfish”, “entitled”, “lazy” youngsters comes from. We’ve been hearing that since the early 90’s, when a lot of X-er complained that their parents told them to go to college and they’d be set, yet in 1992 a lot of X-ers couldn’t find much work beyond flipping burgers. The parents of the X-ers told them to just shut up and “work harder”.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    in 1992 a lot of X-ers couldn’t find much work beyond flipping burgers. The parents of the X-ers told them to just shut up and “work harder”.
     
    How much of that was due to affirmative action FORBIDDING employers from hiring them?

    A ban on affirmative action and a cessation of "disparate impact" is the #2 issue immediately after an immigration cutoff.
  142. @silviosilver
    Even if there were something to the shadowstats conspiracy theory (and I see no reason to believe so), unemployment calculations have not changed since the Obama presidency, so it would still make perfect sense for Trump to play up his track record on unemployment.

    There are also other measures of unemployment that are broader, such as U6 and employment to population ratio. The Trump economy is good by all measures other than the deficit. Even then, the demand for our debt is so high that rates are extremely low, so the amount we pay in interest on the national debt is lower than in the early 1990s for example.

    His immigration record could definitely be a lot better. However, during the peak of prior booms, immigration usually surges. Grading him on a curve this way, and comparing 2018-2019 to 2005-2006 or 1998-1999 or 1985-1986, his record looks considerably better.

    The evidence is really in the strength of the low end of the labor force that got elbowed out of prior booms by migrant waves. So it is very significant that black unemployment is the lowest in 60 years, and that unskilled wages are rising faster now that in many decades.

  143. @iffen
    Also, Trump, and hopefully a successor, doesn't need 40-50% of the non-white vote. All that is needed is maybe 3-4% more than what he got last time.

    In ’16, the democrats simply miscalculated the number of fraudulent votes needed to put their hag over the top. They’ll probably screw it up in ’20 as well.

  144. Given where the democratic party is, unless this president experiences something extreme event the president will remain in his hands for another four years.

    It doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t campaign or that there won;t be a fight, but matter as they are — i am not overly concerned at this moment that the democrats represent a serious threat.

    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
    The don't represent a serious threat only if your sole interest is having an R president for another term.
  145. @Rosie

    You’re right, A.E., that “women unemployment” is awkward; it’s not even good English. You’d think feminists would be proud to be “female”, but it does contain male in it, some of the time ….
     
    I actually agree that "female" is degrading, but so is "male." Jared Taylor has made this point before, that "white male" sounds like a lab rat. He says White men should call themselves "White men." I agree.

    The problem is that there is no other adjective to describe human beings (as opposed to animals) as belonging to either the male sex or the female sex. "Feminine" and "masculine" don't quite work because they generally refer to social expectations or general patterns (i.e. stereotypes, but I don't mean that in a bad way).

    All that said, this is really kind of an offensive post. It almost seems like a deliberate f*** you to the demographic group under discussion here.

    Male and female work fine as adjectives. It’s as nouns that they’re degrading.

    I think people have picked this up from watching too many cop shows..

  146. @Charles Pewitt

    Grand Old Party Forgets Its Voters

     

    The Republican Party Goes Explicit White Or It Goes Dodo

    Trump has made the decision to massively increase legal immigration and Trump has decided to do nothing about the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    At this point it is clear that patriotic White Core Americans must targetize and destroy the current Republican Party.

    Marine Le Pen changed the name of her political party from the National Front to the National Rally.

    Patriotic members of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA must remove the current anti-White controllers of the Republican Party from power and they must immediately change the name of the Republican Party to White Core America Rising or White CAP for short or White America Rising or WAR for short.

    Another suggestion would be to call the new Republican Party the Washington Jacksons or the Wash-Jacks or the Washington Jackson Whites.

    The disgusting coward whore rats in the GOP will not defend the historic American nation nor will they defend George Washington or Andrew Jackson or Confederate American Patriots. Make the anti-White Democrat Party globalizer rats attack George Washington and Andrew Jackson and make it clear to White voters that the gutless cowards in the GOP will not defend Washington nor Jackson and the GOP will not defend the future of White Core Americans nor the future children and grandchildren of White Core America.

    Tweet from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/533045744551198720

    Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/607994021621940225

    Another suggestion would be to call the new Republican Party the Washington Jacksons or the Wash-Jacks or the Washington Jackson Whites.

    Andrew Jackson, who removed the Cherokees to make room for more Negroes?

    No thanks!

    • Replies: @iffen
    Andrew Jackson, who removed the Cherokees to make room for more Negroes?

    Actually, it was to make more room for my ancestors, the Negroes were incidental.

    I like to think that he did it to try and save some of the Indians. It would have been much worse for them had they tried to stay.
  147. @EliteCommInc.
    Given where the democratic party is, unless this president experiences something extreme event the president will remain in his hands for another four years.


    It doesn't mean that he shouldn't campaign or that there won;t be a fight, but matter as they are -- i am not overly concerned at this moment that the democrats represent a serious threat.

    The don’t represent a serious threat only if your sole interest is having an R president for another term.

  148. @Reg Cæsar

    Another suggestion would be to call the new Republican Party the Washington Jacksons or the Wash-Jacks or the Washington Jackson Whites.
     
    Andrew Jackson, who removed the Cherokees to make room for more Negroes?


    No thanks!

    Andrew Jackson, who removed the Cherokees to make room for more Negroes?

    Actually, it was to make more room for my ancestors, the Negroes were incidental.

    I like to think that he did it to try and save some of the Indians. It would have been much worse for them had they tried to stay.

  149. “The don’t represent a serious threat only if your sole interest is having an R president for another term.”

    I don’t think they represent a threat to the re-election of the current executive.

  150. @Audacious Epigone
    What is this in response to?

    What is this in response to?

    The fact that WNs are not a good fit for the GOP due to their left-wing views.

    More broadly, a two-party system does not work outside of the most homogeneous societies (and I don’t just mean racial homogeny) since both parties devolve into coalitions of groups that have nothing in common other than hatred of the other party and/or a desire to harvest from productive people in the other party.

    As I said, WNs are currently in the Republican party only because they hate blacks and Jews slightly more than they hate libertarians. Outside of that, WN wiggers are entirely left-wing and un-American.

  151. The U6 unemployment rate is 7% that is 100% more than the current rate being reported. And is even higher than the error rate in the standard model.

    I don’t know about you but a 100% increase is a serious indication that the modeling is a problem. And according to that model if one examines the trend, there’s nothing dramatic about the president’s arrival that seems to have dramatically changed the direction of those numbers.

    ——————————-

    “I like to think that he did it to try and save some of the Indians. It would have been much worse for them had they tried to stay/”

    Ever astounds how the “law and order” sect make excuses when the breaking of the law is to their benefit.

  152. t says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no "genocide". They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    If you go by completed cohort fertility us white are at if not above fertility in the GSS between 2014-2018 women age 40-44 averaged 2.20 children, for technical reasons TFR can under estimate actual fertility.

    Outside of Israel almost no population in any rich country has a TFR above replacement even most of Latin America and the Middle East are now below replacement
    .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    • Replies: @t
    Variables used

    RACEHISP(1)
    Filter AGE(40-45)
    Filter SEX(2)
  153. @t
    If you go by completed cohort fertility us white are at if not above fertility in the GSS between 2014-2018 women age 40-44 averaged 2.20 children, for technical reasons TFR can under estimate actual fertility.

    Outside of Israel almost no population in any rich country has a TFR above replacement even most of Latin America and the Middle East are now below replacement
    .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    Variables used

    RACEHISP(1)
    Filter AGE(40-45)
    Filter SEX(2)

  154. @Futurethirdworlder
    So that we can suffer the ills of over population with 1 billion whites instead of nonwhites? This is not logical thinking.

    You have to reject this idea that we have to continually breed a sufficient number of livestock to feed our gov't and corporate overlords.

    You have to reject this idea that we have to continually breed a sufficient number of livestock to feed our gov’t and corporate overlords.

    Agreed.  We fought and won WWII with something like 180 million people.  Today we have something like 210 million Whites.  That’s enough if we deal with some of our self-imposed structural problems.

    We don’t need more of us, we need fewer of them.  We cannot outbreed the global South and would destroy everything we were trying to save if we did.  Our first response has to be to stop any more of them from coming here, and send the ones here back (or any other variant of “gone”).

  155. @Feryl
    To many 65 or 70 year old people, it Does. Not. Compute. that economic circumstances over the last 25 years have made it impossible for Gen X or Millennials to credibly say that we live in a society based on a strong middle class. That's where the sanctimonious horse crap about today's "selfish", "entitled", "lazy" youngsters comes from. We've been hearing that since the early 90's, when a lot of X-er complained that their parents told them to go to college and they'd be set, yet in 1992 a lot of X-ers couldn't find much work beyond flipping burgers. The parents of the X-ers told them to just shut up and "work harder".

    in 1992 a lot of X-ers couldn’t find much work beyond flipping burgers. The parents of the X-ers told them to just shut up and “work harder”.

    How much of that was due to affirmative action FORBIDDING employers from hiring them?

    A ban on affirmative action and a cessation of “disparate impact” is the #2 issue immediately after an immigration cutoff.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @L Woods
    I know I'm not the first to suggest this, but affirmative action has a particular ladder-raising effect because the non-entities they hire at the entry level have generally been too incompetent to be competitive at the mid-level (and women, especially tend to self-attrit to go raise babies). So, if you can survive the hunger games at the entry-level as a white male, things become dramatically easier down the road. Of course, with the Awokening, society is now hell-bent on 'correcting' this final holdout of meritocracy.
    , @Feryl
    Demand for jobs began to exceed the supply in the late 70's, which late Boomers often accurately point out. The biggest birth cohort in Western history was born from about 1955-1962; when this cohort had matured to working age in the late 70's, suddenly there was immense competition for jobs. Had immigration remained at a low level, eventually job equilibrium would've been restored since birth rates got progressively lower mid-way through 1963, and continued to fall as the 60's and 70's went on. But nope, immigration began to surge in the Jimmy Carter era, and has remained high ever since (Operation Wetback, BTW, discouraged illegal immigration into the 60's and even early 70's, but in the late 70's it became apparent that we were no longer policing aliens like we used to, and thus the invasion began).

    We don't get enough credit for adjusting reproduction according to the available resources. Unfortunately, corrupt elites don't listen to the natural rhythm of pop. growth and resource competition, resulting in excessive "growth" that imperils the average person's well-being.
  156. @Futurethirdworlder
    Any whites who are concerned about the blacks aren't basing anything on objective reality (like employment numbers) they do it for the social signaling points. They aren't going to go against the modern zeitgeist and support the "orange man" because he has improved black unemployment or intervened on behalf of a criminal rapper in Sweden.

    How many whites will Trump lose by pandering to nonwhites combined with his his failure on immigration?

    Also

    Silvio silver and gold
    Won't buy back the beat of a heart grown cold
    Silvio I gotta go
    Find out somethin only dead men know.

    His tweet about getting that guy off the hook in Switzerland (or wherever it was) exploded, though:

    Looks like it might hit a million likes which is virtually unheard of for a tweet. I don’t know exactly what that means, but it is probably good for Trump.

  157. Low birthrates are due to low morale. As per “Bowling Alone”, the atomization has taken to new dysgenic levels now. Low trust societies are usually dark skinned by definition. Low IQ and corruption are a way of life there.
    “Socialism” is a boogeyman word like racism or “anti-semitism”, from the same sources naturally.
    My IQ goes off your scales, but WNs like physicist William Pierce are hardly retarded. Around 130 is the White Nationalist median, I would gather. At least the ones who matter and are not FBI plants.

    Donnie Trump is a part of the system. The system is falling apart at the seams. That interest rate cut is NECESSARY as deficits SKYROCKET. How much longer can Babylon keep this up?

    TICK TOCK. The Clock runs down on Babylon 2.

  158. @Futurethirdworlder
    It is a sign of the times that politicians no longer stump about the ways they will benefit middle class Americans.

    The GOP boasting about the unemployment #s is little more than bragging about how many wage slaves they have garnered for themselves.

    Are these jobs that are paying enough to allow the worker a middle class lifestyle? Let's not get into the details. What's important is that they are working. We've decided to go with quantity over quality. Better for everybody!

    Quantity over Quality is NEVER better for Everybody. How could it be?

    Quantity over Quality leads to Quantity without Quality.

    And Quantity without Quality becomes a mass with no center.

    In social terms it becomes an undifferentiated mindless mass of chaotic, confused, corrupt people.

    Or, CCCP for short!

    You know, the third world.

  159. Another slightly related tidbit you might find interesting is that Boris Johnson just appointed two Subcons to two of the most important positions in the Cabinet…

    Priti Patel as Home Secretary

    Sajid Javed as Chancellor of the Exchequer

    Great Offices of State as they are called

    Both are hardcore Ziopigs. One actually got reprimanded because she scheduled meetings surreptitiously with Israeli political leaders(Patel). The other is a self-acclaimed friend of Israel(Javed).

    I don’t know if I should be ashamed or happy. I don’t know

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I've been raising the red flag on this for a while.

    New elites are Jews + Brahmin Hindoos.

    You can be so proud that a fellow brown man is in office but you're still going to get treated like shit by them, just like you did in India.

  160. @Feryl
    Guns are a major reason why the "uniparty" theory is bogus. Different kinds of people inhabit the mainstream of each party's establishment in a given era. And even if their goals are similar, the methods will still vary.

    For example, the turn toward police-statism that began in the 1980's was handled differently by the Left and Right. The Right was perfectly comfortable with mass gun ownership as long as we kept the populace off drugs and incarcerated tons of criminals. The Left, on the other hand, was comfortable with low incarceration rates and drugs but did not want such an obviously dangerous situation being inflamed by guns. Essentially, the mainstream of each party in the 80's and 90's was comfortable with creeping authoritarianism, it's just that each side wanted a different flavor. How does this square with the "libertarian" turn of the 70's? Well, society since the 70's has been less and less interested in promoting traditional values and regulating the markets. In that sense, we did get libertarianism. However, PC/speech codes, gun grabbing, mass incarceration, etc. are not libertarian, but rather, institutions becoming increasingly authoritarian. So it's fair to say that American culture has collapsed due to a bizarre combination of hedonist libertarianism and police statism, a state of affairs produced by neo-liberalism that as far as I know has few or no precedents in human history.

    Modern America is neither "Left" nor "Right" in any traditional understanding of these terms. The modern Left has never earnestly attempted to restore taxes on the wealthy that were the norm before the 80's. The modern Left has abandoned industrial labor. The modern Right is substantially less devoted to most traditional norms than it once was (WRT gays, the role of women, and the importance of the Church in our affairs). The modern Right has also been an overwhelming failure at reducing the size of the government, or making the government more competent (indeed, it was, yep, Jimmy Carter who oversaw revamped civil servant tests intended to weed out the dummies, but the tests were never used after they were found to benefit white applicants). What's more, the idea that America is so inherently awesome that it needs to be shared with more foreign countries and immigrants is a notion that now has more widespread acceptance among affluent US conservatives than it ever had in any previous era (the forefathers of American and Brit conservatism, often cited to this day by modern cucks, would've been horrified at the neo-con infilitration of the GOP, and the rising influence of the globalist Bush clan).

    WRT feminism, the 1980's Right had no problem with women in the workforce provided they not soak the government for "support". The Left, on the other hand, has, since the feminist revolution of the 70's, been promulgating the idea that the government ought to step in to assist female careerism.

    Late reply here, Feryl, but the last couple of times this happened, I got 2 days behind and figured the thread was a goner. Here’s where we disagree (as I’ve meant to write you at least twice before): That word “Libertarianism” – I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    You have said multiple times that this country has been de-regulated in some fashion. I understand what you mean about big finance and the repeal of Glass-Siegle, etc. Those big finance guys might pretend to be, or even be actual libertarians in principle, but what they have been up to is just big-money crony-capitalism, using Big Gov to get the rules made for them. The big bailout of ’08 is I guess the example you would bring up to, I assume.

    Some libertarians might tell you they agree with the finance guys there, but that’s not in general what it’s about. If you think this country is less regulated than 30 or especially 50 years back, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Have you been in business for yourself, Feryl? There are a myriad of local, State, and Federal agencies that can tax you, regulate you, and shut you down, and the rules could change overnight. You brought up Jimmy Carter on the civil-service exams, but he’s also the one who regulated another big part of the economy (at the Federal level, that is), which is education. Are things better now, in education than 50 years ago? Hell, no. Health Care, 1/6 of the economy from what I’ve read is the latest piece of our lives to be regulated, though that’s been on-going for many decades. The business end of healthcare sucks ass nowadays due to this extreme, bureaucratic crap out of Washington, FS.

    Most of these people on “the Right” and “the Left” that you write about never were libertarians in any sense. Do you want examples in politics? Two are Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater. Yes, the Establishment (both wings) wanted nothing to do with them. Reagan was a more mild example. I was there, Feryl, and I remember that the media and GOPe of the time were dead set against the guy from the get-go, and I guess the Deep State too.

    DEREGULATE AMERICA!

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I dunno if you saw it, but I recently wrote about how, since the 70's, we've been pretty ideologically schizoid, where labels of "Left" or "Right" or "libertarian" (as we've traditionally understood them) don't really fit.

    Modern Right trends: globalist war-mongering, mass surveillance, mass incarceration, poor protection of the 1st amendment, leaving affirmative action in place. All of these trends don't really fit into traditional Anglo Conservatism that was practiced before circa 1970. Freedom of speech, thought, and association have all withered over the last 50 years, and seldom does the establishment right ever seem to care.

    Modern Left trends: the native born white working class is stupid and worthless, sexual deviancy is cool, borders are racist and stupid, legalize all drugs, ban all guns. None of this was part of the New Deal Left (or really, the traditional labor Left at any point in human history). Stalin and Mao didn't promote pot smoking, or cross dressing.

    So since circa 1970 we've been heading toward a bizarre cross between a police state, where many freedoms are curtailed, and a Sodom-esque abyss of debauched hedonism.

    Contrary to libertarian dreams, what is needed is a return to enforced traditionalism on both sides, which will entail some sort of regulation (e.g., don't let children get sex re-assignment surgery). Modern idiotic elites won't let hairdressers operate without a license, but they think it's fine for 13 year olds to be doing bong hits.

    Certainly, I'm not naive anymore to think that the Reaganites are responsible for the current level of decadence, since after all they wanted stuff like hair dressing to be de-regulated, but they sure as hell did not want society to descend to Sodom values of perversion and degeneracy. It's Clintonism that was the initial blast of corporate globalism and pervert culture. One or the other is bad enough, but both at the same time?
  161. @Charles Pewitt

    Do you have any new tweets? It’s funny that you have tweets from four and five years ago always at the ready, though!

     

    I might have to break with my radical stubborn ways and start Tweeting again.

    I had the most fun, and learned the most, from UKIP Twitter #UKIP.

    Farage was smart enough to use the immigration issue to convince English voters to break with the EU and reclaim English sovereignty in order to regain control of English borders and institute an immigration policy that advances the interests of England and the English people.

    2014 and 2015 were interesting years to be on Twitter. Trump took advantage of the political and cultural atmosphere of that time to win in 2016.

    Tulsi Gabbard is a nice lady I met at a presidential primary town hall event. I was happy to see Gabbard rhetorically pop that Kamala Harris a good one in the debates!

    The GOP goes explicit White or the GOP goes DODO!

    Since the GOP donors won't go explicit White, that means the current GOP is deader than a doornail.

    Republican Party voters must remove the Republican Party donors and Republican Party ruling class from power and re-name the Republican Party.

    White Core America Now is a suggestion.

    Got to have WHITE in the name!

    The last sentence aside, Core America Now (CAN) is a pretty clever acronym. Yes, we CAN!

  162. @Audacious Epigone
    If whites simply reproduced at or above replacement, there could be no "genocide". They constitute a majority of the population. No one is forcing this on them, they are welcoming it. The finger pointing is the biggest problem I have with the various strains of alt right/white nationalism.

    I agree with some of your repliers here, A.E., especially F3W and UFO. It’s not that whites just don’t want to have kids anymore, though there is something to that. Whites are being cut out of good jobs by immigration, both due to cheap illegal and legal (work-visa) labor and in some place by the language or hiring barrier. At the same time taxes and healthcare costs are going up due to these newcomers (whether illegal Central American or old Chinese legal immigrant under-the-table restaurant owners) abusing the welfare system and clogging up the emergency rooms, respectively.

    People are getting squeezed to where they can’t afford to have kids, even with the suboptimal arrangement of both parents working long hours and using the cheapest day-care available. It’s the family formation thing that Mr. Sailer brings up a lot. If you want to abuse the system, family formation is high. If you want to play by the rules and “be a man”, you’re getting screwed out of having a family. Oh, and the feminism and divorce racket that makes a marriage a big gamble for a man doesn’t help.

    But, but, muh Socialism!

  163. So the disease has hit Japan…I wonder if in the next decade or so, Japan will begin to experience obesity as all aspects of its traditional culture erode.

    What is shocking here are the comments by Americans – most celebrating that Japanese women are no longer marrying.

    This is clearly a worldwide cultural issue with economic cost of family formation having little to with it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/world/asia/japan-single-women-marriage.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

    • Replies: @notanon

    This is clearly a worldwide cultural issue with economic cost of family formation having little to with it.
     
    affordable family formation is clearly part of it but the east Asian version of the problem does seem to have a different base level.

    i wonder if millenia of women not having much choice over whether they wanted lots of children or not (arranged marriage, limited contraception etc) meant there was no selection for desire for children.

    so when women suddenly got a choice the average desire was maybe lower than it might otherwise have been?

    whereas in the most hajnal areas of Europe where a lot of women never married maybe there was some (if only a little) selection for maternal desire?

    if so you might see the biggest drops in fertility in places which used to be the strictest but now aren't?
    , @Anounder
    Modern Man doesn't want to live. But he's afraid to die. He's living through the world after God's death.
  164. If anyone can see this can you tell me if my comments are in a spam trap?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm not sure why yours keep getting caught. It may be some single character handle restriction I'm unaware of.
  165. @Intelligent Dasein
    Regarding framing the GOP as the party of white interests: far, far too many whites are "interested" in things like universalism, healing the world, and uplifting the downtrodden races. To that extent, the Sailer Strategy has been nothing but a poison pill.

    To that extent, the Sailer Strategy has been nothing but a poison pill.

    Well, what do you expect? Steve is a 100 IQ blogger catering to an 80 IQ audience.

    • Troll: Audacious Epigone
  166. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Why is the shame so deep? Just the womans fear of being ostracized?

    Personally I really dont give a shit, I always say what I think and some cucks ostracize me but most respect me for saying the truth. But I can see how for women it might be worse to be shunned.

    Why is the shame so deep? Just the womans fear of being ostracized?

    No. It isn’t calculated like that. It probably has evolutionary roots in somewhat calculated conformist behaviors, but now it’s just our nature to internalize group moral norms. The shame is real, because we have made the moral norms our own. Now, obviously men are vulnerable to this as well, and NAWALT, but on the whole, women have a tendency to internalize norms where men will just conform to avoid punishment.

    Obviously, this can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances.

    Personally I really dont give a shit, I always say what I think and some cucks ostracize me but most respect me for saying the truth. But I can see how for women it might be worse to be shunned.

    Right, but that’s a separate question, because you have already given yourself permission to take your own side.

    • Replies: @L Woods

    but on the whole, women have a tendency to internalize norms where men will just conform to avoid punishment.
     
    I think a pig just flew past the window, but I think you give the basic All-American white male cuck too much credit vis a vis his female counterpart: they may be slower to internalize this shit (and nearly all the recalcitrant exceptions are male), but internalize it they do. I see it all the time with military dudes, though I wouldn't be surprised if self-respecting men are simply selected out of that labor pool at this point.
  167. “How much of that was due to affirmative action FORBIDDING employers from hiring them?”

    Well, good luck that. I will have to ask my female housemate how she feels about her potential affirmative action positioning being taken away. She along with other 70% plus white women might have some objections.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    “How much of that was due to affirmative action FORBIDDING employers from hiring them?”

    Well, good luck that. I will have to ask my female housemate how she feels about her potential affirmative action positioning being taken away. She along with other 70% plus white women might have some objections.
     
    And...here it is again:

    White women hate, hate, hate affirmative action.

    https://www.bustle.com/p/who-does-affirmative-action-benefit-white-women-are-some-of-its-biggest-opponents-74034
  168. @EliteCommInc.
    "How much of that was due to affirmative action FORBIDDING employers from hiring them?"

    Well, good luck that. I will have to ask my female housemate how she feels about her potential affirmative action positioning being taken away. She along with other 70% plus white women might have some objections.

    “How much of that was due to affirmative action FORBIDDING employers from hiring them?”

    Well, good luck that. I will have to ask my female housemate how she feels about her potential affirmative action positioning being taken away. She along with other 70% plus white women might have some objections.

    And…here it is again:

    White women hate, hate, hate affirmative action.

    https://www.bustle.com/p/who-does-affirmative-action-benefit-white-women-are-some-of-its-biggest-opponents-74034

  169. @Achmed E. Newman

    I actually agree that “female” is degrading, but so is “male.”
     
    Do you mean as NOUNS, Rosie? For that case I would agree. It sounds like the way cops talk about "perps", and it makes people sound like just another type of animal, which is the way many cops DO think. "There are 2 males behind the shed, and we've got a female on the run behind the fence ...."

    As far as adjectives, "male" and "female" seem OK to me. My joke at the end there may have been missed by all, in which case, is it even a joke at all?

    As far as adjectives, “male” and “female” seem OK to me. My joke at the end there may have been missed by all, in which case, is it even a joke at all?

    I caught your joke, Achmed. It’s quite subtle. In today’s panoply of all things sexual (57 so-called “genders”), this-sexual and that-sexual, in your face public displays of deviancy of all stripes, I fear that your cute, simple wordplay didn’t register on very many Richter scales.

  170. @AaronB
    So the disease has hit Japan...I wonder if in the next decade or so, Japan will begin to experience obesity as all aspects of its traditional culture erode.

    What is shocking here are the comments by Americans - most celebrating that Japanese women are no longer marrying.

    This is clearly a worldwide cultural issue with economic cost of family formation having little to with it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/world/asia/japan-single-women-marriage.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

    This is clearly a worldwide cultural issue with economic cost of family formation having little to with it.

    affordable family formation is clearly part of it but the east Asian version of the problem does seem to have a different base level.

    i wonder if millenia of women not having much choice over whether they wanted lots of children or not (arranged marriage, limited contraception etc) meant there was no selection for desire for children.

    so when women suddenly got a choice the average desire was maybe lower than it might otherwise have been?

    whereas in the most hajnal areas of Europe where a lot of women never married maybe there was some (if only a little) selection for maternal desire?

    if so you might see the biggest drops in fertility in places which used to be the strictest but now aren’t?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Perhaps.

    But then where has this sudden desire for personal autonomy and business careers come from? After all, for millennia women had neither of these things, so desire for them could not have been selected for.

    Yet these Japanese women, when allowed to choose, suddenly manifest a burning desire for things that could not have been selected for.
  171. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Feryl
    I know that if IQ tests were recalibrated to emphasize visual-spatial IQ, much of the "parity" between male and female IQ would disappear. Women are slightly better in verbal IQ (though this advantage decreases with age), while men are definitely better on visual-spatial tasks. And moreover, the gap on this skill doesn't shrink with age; one could argue that men are mentally superior in the sense that men get a lot better at certain things in their 20's and 30's (verbal skills primarily), while women intellectually peak in their early 20's and never get much better (aside from a slight boost in verbal skills, that isn't the same level of improvement that men get.

    Everyone also knows that 20 year old men are much smarter than 13 year old men, while 30 year old men tend to have better speaking skills, and social skills*, than 20 year old men do. Whereas the "improvements" seen in females are much less noticeable (females seem to arrive at their life-long character by the time they finish college, with men it happens 8-10 years later)

    So trying to intellectually equate men and women seems to be pretty questionable (basically, you'll get different results depending on the age of test subjects, and depending on which areas of ability are emphasized).

    *Jordan Peterson says that male violence and criminality begin to decline at the age of 27; so we can deduce that 27 is probably the earliest possible age at which many men could be said to be fully "developed".

    How much of this is survivorship bias?

    A lot of the “gains” men and black people make as they age are just due to the low IQ, high testosterone ones dying or ending up in prison.

    People make similar arguments about black people all the time. They say “young blacks do quite poorly in intellect and life choices in their teens and 20’s, but 65 year old black people behave almost as well as 65 year old whites”. Well of course they do! The dumbest and most aggressive blacks are either dead or serving a life sentence by age 40!

    Same with boys and men. When kids are young, there are fewer differences between boys and girls. But the average adult man has higher testosterone than the average adult woman. Low IQ + low testosterone = dumb person who is able to keep a stable blue collar job and obey the law. Low IQ + high testosterone = Darwin awards. Of course the average man you see in society is a little bit smarter than the average woman by age 30, and this gap increases with age! The dumbest and most aggressive men are dead or in prison!

    Are women and whites really “mediocre” or is it just that almost all women, whites, and especially white women stay in open society for the entirety of their lives? The dumbest white women isn’t aggressive enough to mass murder people, join a crack gang, engage in a high speed car chase, or whatever it is that white men and blacks, with their high average testosterone levels, enjoy doing. White women of all IQ levels just want to live their daily lives the same way they have always lived them, and not cause trouble or do anything drastic.

  172. @Feryl
    BTW, I'm not specifically picking on Reagan as much as I'm picking on the young and middle aged people of the 1980's-present who affect to be "conservative" while obviously failing to set a good example, to lead, by adhering to and promoting behavioral conservatism, in addition to their embarrassing failure to rein in pork and stop a police state from developing.

    Since Reagan's own generation was in it's 70's and 80's by 1990, I don't see how they can be held responsible for what has happened. They, for the most part, were not calling the shots during corporate board meetings and city council meetings by the late 80's. In fact, a full gerontocracy would not exist in America until the 2000's....And who created it? Silents and Boomers, of course. Furthermore, GIs in the 1960's-1980's often acted in response to what Silents and Boomers wanted. Silent and Boomers wanted the political and behavioral norms of the 1970's and 80's. On the other hand, Silents and Boomers in recent decades have often been openly contemptuous of what X-ers and Millennials want. There is a lot of hostility between these generations, dating back to teen X-ers of the 80's being called MTV addict zombies, that's been gradually rising since then. Because we are tired of two generations who failed as political and cultural leaders but are still acting like they are better than other generations. Are we supposed to continue treating now 50 year old Gen X-ers like a child that wasn't supposed to happen, the one with "defects" kept hidden away in the family home?

    Because we are tired of two generations who failed as political and cultural leaders but are still acting like they are better than other generations.

    No, your problem is your idea that we need to have political and cultural leaders to follow, to begin with. At least many in the older generations understood that we don’t, but, alas, not enough. Now, we’ve got a generation half of which is in love with the proven-failure idea of Socialism, aka, taking portions of responsible people’s lives (their labor) and redistributing it to the irresponsible. The Socialists are the defectives who we really should keep hidden away at (a) home.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The primary beneficiaries of the dawn of the neo-lib era that began in the 1980's were Silents and Boomers. You can't blame other generations for resenting the police statism and social Darwinism that these generations demanded, and voted for......Time and time again.

    Generation X is the slowest generation in American history to gain political power. Millennials, of course, are too young to be of much importance. Policy is decided these days by the middle aged and elderly establishment/donor base of each party. People born over the last 50 years are overwhelmingly broke and lacking in any sort of influence or power. We are now firmly in a new Gilded Age and in a gerontocracy. Back in the 50's and 60's, Silents got married early, easily got financial security, and quickly climbed the ladder in business and government. Gen X in the 80's and 90's began having the opposite experience, and Millennials have been even more hampered.

    You can't seriously suggest that a generation of paupers ought to be resented for questioning what their parents and grandparents did to society.

    You need to have empathy; do you understand how nauseating it is when today's 40-30-20 year old people hear older generations brag about "hard" they worked? Yeah right, adjusted for inflation average wages in the 1970's were much higher, and back then housing and healthcare didn't cost all that much.
  173. @notanon

    This is clearly a worldwide cultural issue with economic cost of family formation having little to with it.
     
    affordable family formation is clearly part of it but the east Asian version of the problem does seem to have a different base level.

    i wonder if millenia of women not having much choice over whether they wanted lots of children or not (arranged marriage, limited contraception etc) meant there was no selection for desire for children.

    so when women suddenly got a choice the average desire was maybe lower than it might otherwise have been?

    whereas in the most hajnal areas of Europe where a lot of women never married maybe there was some (if only a little) selection for maternal desire?

    if so you might see the biggest drops in fertility in places which used to be the strictest but now aren't?

    Perhaps.

    But then where has this sudden desire for personal autonomy and business careers come from? After all, for millennia women had neither of these things, so desire for them could not have been selected for.

    Yet these Japanese women, when allowed to choose, suddenly manifest a burning desire for things that could not have been selected for.

    • Replies: @notanon
    right, i'm suggesting personal autonomy is maybe the default and desire for children as a counterweight has to be selected for i.e. maybe the female "desire for children" bell curve is centered at zero.

    if correct then the solution is to breed breeders i.e. identify 100+ IQ women who do want kids and subsidize them.
    , @Anonymous
    I love it when white men who avoid all types of non-whites and non-men act surprised when they find out that colored people and women desire personal autonomy.

    Desire for personal autonomy is the human default. It's not just something that white men desire. Everybody wants personal autonomy. You white nationalist types would understand this if you didn't avoid women and colored folk like the plague.

    This is why black American slaves ran away from their slave owners. It didn't matter that they were fed and housed, and that they were given daily directions in how to work and live their lives. Almost 100% of black Americans would prefer the freedom to make their own mistakes and to live their own chaotic lives. They don't want orderly, mistake free lives if it means cosntantly having to obey some overlord with 100% life or death control over them.

    It's the same reason why British India, and the black African/Caribbean colonies fought for independence. They are poorer, and their government systems are more chaotic, but they are happier. I understand it. Almost everyone would prefer to be poor and free than a fed and housed slave.

    It is 100000x better to be a white American woman than it is to be a Saudi woman, who is legally considered a minor her entire life. Who can't drive, can't leave the house without her husband or father, and can't work or go to university without their permission.

    Just because someone doesn't show outward signs of wanting personal autonomy, doesn't mean they don't want it. Japanese women, like all other human subgroups, have probably wanted personal autonomy from the beginning. It's just that they were not allowed to say it until the late 20th century.

    As for "business careers". Most women pursue them out of necessity, or perceived necessity. There is a minority of women who really do enjoy them. You need to accept that each bellcurve has a standard deviation. Just because the AVERAGE woman wants to be married, have 2 kids, and have a part time job, doesn't mean that all do. It's not feminism, or liberalism, it's just nature. Not all women want marriage and kids. Not all women are heterosexual. Not all women love babies.

    In the 2019 economy, most women are correct to pursue business careers out of necessity. Economic conditions don't favor women who drop out of the workforce at age 25 to become a full time housewife. It only works these days for women whose fathers or husbands are UC. Even UMC families can no longer afford a stay at home wife like they could in the 80s and 90s.
  174. @BengaliCanadianDude
    Another slightly related tidbit you might find interesting is that Boris Johnson just appointed two Subcons to two of the most important positions in the Cabinet...

    Priti Patel as Home Secretary

    Sajid Javed as Chancellor of the Exchequer

    Great Offices of State as they are called


    Both are hardcore Ziopigs. One actually got reprimanded because she scheduled meetings surreptitiously with Israeli political leaders(Patel). The other is a self-acclaimed friend of Israel(Javed).



    I don't know if I should be ashamed or happy. I don't know

    I’ve been raising the red flag on this for a while.

    New elites are Jews + Brahmin Hindoos.

    You can be so proud that a fellow brown man is in office but you’re still going to get treated like shit by them, just like you did in India.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    One of them is a Punjabi Pakistani. Regardless, the brown man is doing fantastically well in the West.

    Hmm, what do you mean? For good or bad, my family owned Hindu 'slaves' and profited immensely from the colonial venture.

    I'd probably say my ancestors treated Hindoos badly though. Not bragging as there is nothing to brag but yeah.

    It's bitterweet. Two of the most powerful positions are going to browns!
  175. @Achmed E. Newman

    Because we are tired of two generations who failed as political and cultural leaders but are still acting like they are better than other generations.
     
    No, your problem is your idea that we need to have political and cultural leaders to follow, to begin with. At least many in the older generations understood that we don't, but, alas, not enough. Now, we've got a generation half of which is in love with the proven-failure idea of Socialism, aka, taking portions of responsible people's lives (their labor) and redistributing it to the irresponsible. The Socialists are the defectives who we really should keep hidden away at (a) home.

    The primary beneficiaries of the dawn of the neo-lib era that began in the 1980’s were Silents and Boomers. You can’t blame other generations for resenting the police statism and social Darwinism that these generations demanded, and voted for……Time and time again.

    Generation X is the slowest generation in American history to gain political power. Millennials, of course, are too young to be of much importance. Policy is decided these days by the middle aged and elderly establishment/donor base of each party. People born over the last 50 years are overwhelmingly broke and lacking in any sort of influence or power. We are now firmly in a new Gilded Age and in a gerontocracy. Back in the 50’s and 60’s, Silents got married early, easily got financial security, and quickly climbed the ladder in business and government. Gen X in the 80’s and 90’s began having the opposite experience, and Millennials have been even more hampered.

    You can’t seriously suggest that a generation of paupers ought to be resented for questioning what their parents and grandparents did to society.

    You need to have empathy; do you understand how nauseating it is when today’s 40-30-20 year old people hear older generations brag about “hard” they worked? Yeah right, adjusted for inflation average wages in the 1970’s were much higher, and back then housing and healthcare didn’t cost all that much.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Feryl, you seem to take that Generations and the 4th Turning business a bit too seriously. Strauss & Howe sure liked to organize things in neat little baskets and matrices, but real life doesn't work that way. There are people with plenty of different views on politics in every generation.

    I completely understand your point on the BS out of older people about "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and "I worked my way through college working each summer, and still had money for one dollar pitchers of beer, blah, blah". Believe me, Feryl, I sympathize with young people with the really small chance of getting decent, family-supporting jobs, the extremely poor working man's wage, and the misery of working alongside diversity.

    Not everyone in every generation is clueless, you know? Lots of people are though, and my only generalization before was that the young people are increasingly Socialist in view. That is a form of stupidity that is unforgivable, as I don't care if they pay for this stupidity themselves in their further lives in the resulting miserable economy, but they drag down the rest of us and our children with them.

    It's not like we have no examples, for crying out loud. When you're already in a big hole, due to the 3 horsemen of the stupocalypse, extreme debt, a welfare state, and a massive immigration invasion, YOU STOP DIGGING. PUT DOWN ALL 3 SHOVELS, DAMMIT!
  176. @Feryl
    The primary beneficiaries of the dawn of the neo-lib era that began in the 1980's were Silents and Boomers. You can't blame other generations for resenting the police statism and social Darwinism that these generations demanded, and voted for......Time and time again.

    Generation X is the slowest generation in American history to gain political power. Millennials, of course, are too young to be of much importance. Policy is decided these days by the middle aged and elderly establishment/donor base of each party. People born over the last 50 years are overwhelmingly broke and lacking in any sort of influence or power. We are now firmly in a new Gilded Age and in a gerontocracy. Back in the 50's and 60's, Silents got married early, easily got financial security, and quickly climbed the ladder in business and government. Gen X in the 80's and 90's began having the opposite experience, and Millennials have been even more hampered.

    You can't seriously suggest that a generation of paupers ought to be resented for questioning what their parents and grandparents did to society.

    You need to have empathy; do you understand how nauseating it is when today's 40-30-20 year old people hear older generations brag about "hard" they worked? Yeah right, adjusted for inflation average wages in the 1970's were much higher, and back then housing and healthcare didn't cost all that much.

    Feryl, you seem to take that Generations and the 4th Turning business a bit too seriously. Strauss & Howe sure liked to organize things in neat little baskets and matrices, but real life doesn’t work that way. There are people with plenty of different views on politics in every generation.

    I completely understand your point on the BS out of older people about “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” and “I worked my way through college working each summer, and still had money for one dollar pitchers of beer, blah, blah”. Believe me, Feryl, I sympathize with young people with the really small chance of getting decent, family-supporting jobs, the extremely poor working man’s wage, and the misery of working alongside diversity.

    Not everyone in every generation is clueless, you know? Lots of people are though, and my only generalization before was that the young people are increasingly Socialist in view. That is a form of stupidity that is unforgivable, as I don’t care if they pay for this stupidity themselves in their further lives in the resulting miserable economy, but they drag down the rest of us and our children with them.

    It’s not like we have no examples, for crying out loud. When you’re already in a big hole, due to the 3 horsemen of the stupocalypse, extreme debt, a welfare state, and a massive immigration invasion, YOU STOP DIGGING. PUT DOWN ALL 3 SHOVELS, DAMMIT!

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I think the modern Dems are trying to appeal to the 10% or so of the population who are the leading edge of the SJW/Striver Left. According to Hiddentribes, only about 1/10 of the population gave survey answers that fit the dimensions of the modern extreme Left.

    In other words, it's pretty annoying to the sort of Millennials who read this website that we are generalized as belonging to the "Hollywood values" of legalizing sexual reassignment surgery among children, or offering healthcare to illegals.

    Believe it or not, I think that this extremism is going to inadvertently drive plenty of people to the Right; remember that Trump won white Millennials in more than a few states; certainly he did quite well with the male Millennials (as 216 often points out, educated female white liberals are the single most deranged group of all, and that's basically been the case since Obama split America into a dozen different ideological groups that are bitterly tense in their sentiment). And the gooey non-sense about muh feelings is grossly feminized discourse, for which many working class male Millennials are disgusted.

    , @Feryl

    Feryl, you seem to take that Generations and the 4th Turning business a bit too seriously. Strauss & Howe sure liked to organize things in neat little baskets and matrices, but real life doesn’t work that way. There are people with plenty of different views on politics in every generation.
     
    It does have some merit, in the sense that we have periods that last from 15-25 years (basically, the time it takes for a generation to reach adulthood) that are clearly distinct from each other. Nobody would ever mistake 1992 for 1972, like how nobody would mistake 1972 for 1952.

    Silents reached adulthood during post-war prosperity; once they finished that stage, Boomers then created the culture of the late 60's and 70's as they reached adulthood. Once Gen X took over in the 80's, the culture changed again.

    So clearly there are generational differences, that exert at least some sort of influence on where we are headed (e.g., Silents would never have been given mass incarceration, while popular support for mass incarceration peaked in the late 80's and early 90's when all teen criminals were X-ers, who were dubbed "super-predators" by Hilary).

  177. @AaronB
    Perhaps.

    But then where has this sudden desire for personal autonomy and business careers come from? After all, for millennia women had neither of these things, so desire for them could not have been selected for.

    Yet these Japanese women, when allowed to choose, suddenly manifest a burning desire for things that could not have been selected for.

    right, i’m suggesting personal autonomy is maybe the default and desire for children as a counterweight has to be selected for i.e. maybe the female “desire for children” bell curve is centered at zero.

    if correct then the solution is to breed breeders i.e. identify 100+ IQ women who do want kids and subsidize them.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    But personal autonomy is a very modern concept, so I don't think it can be the default.

    For most of history, some kind of collectivism ruled.
  178. @Achmed E. Newman
    Late reply here, Feryl, but the last couple of times this happened, I got 2 days behind and figured the thread was a goner. Here's where we disagree (as I've meant to write you at least twice before): That word "Libertarianism" - I don't think it means what you think it means.

    You have said multiple times that this country has been de-regulated in some fashion. I understand what you mean about big finance and the repeal of Glass-Siegle, etc. Those big finance guys might pretend to be, or even be actual libertarians in principle, but what they have been up to is just big-money crony-capitalism, using Big Gov to get the rules made for them. The big bailout of '08 is I guess the example you would bring up to, I assume.

    Some libertarians might tell you they agree with the finance guys there, but that's not in general what it's about. If you think this country is less regulated than 30 or especially 50 years back, you don't know what you're talking about. Have you been in business for yourself, Feryl? There are a myriad of local, State, and Federal agencies that can tax you, regulate you, and shut you down, and the rules could change overnight. You brought up Jimmy Carter on the civil-service exams, but he's also the one who regulated another big part of the economy (at the Federal level, that is), which is education. Are things better now, in education than 50 years ago? Hell, no. Health Care, 1/6 of the economy from what I've read is the latest piece of our lives to be regulated, though that's been on-going for many decades. The business end of healthcare sucks ass nowadays due to this extreme, bureaucratic crap out of Washington, FS.

    Most of these people on "the Right" and "the Left" that you write about never were libertarians in any sense. Do you want examples in politics? Two are Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater. Yes, the Establishment (both wings) wanted nothing to do with them. Reagan was a more mild example. I was there, Feryl, and I remember that the media and GOPe of the time were dead set against the guy from the get-go, and I guess the Deep State too.

    DEREGULATE AMERICA!

    I dunno if you saw it, but I recently wrote about how, since the 70’s, we’ve been pretty ideologically schizoid, where labels of “Left” or “Right” or “libertarian” (as we’ve traditionally understood them) don’t really fit.

    Modern Right trends: globalist war-mongering, mass surveillance, mass incarceration, poor protection of the 1st amendment, leaving affirmative action in place. All of these trends don’t really fit into traditional Anglo Conservatism that was practiced before circa 1970. Freedom of speech, thought, and association have all withered over the last 50 years, and seldom does the establishment right ever seem to care.

    Modern Left trends: the native born white working class is stupid and worthless, sexual deviancy is cool, borders are racist and stupid, legalize all drugs, ban all guns. None of this was part of the New Deal Left (or really, the traditional labor Left at any point in human history). Stalin and Mao didn’t promote pot smoking, or cross dressing.

    So since circa 1970 we’ve been heading toward a bizarre cross between a police state, where many freedoms are curtailed, and a Sodom-esque abyss of debauched hedonism.

    Contrary to libertarian dreams, what is needed is a return to enforced traditionalism on both sides, which will entail some sort of regulation (e.g., don’t let children get sex re-assignment surgery). Modern idiotic elites won’t let hairdressers operate without a license, but they think it’s fine for 13 year olds to be doing bong hits.

    Certainly, I’m not naive anymore to think that the Reaganites are responsible for the current level of decadence, since after all they wanted stuff like hair dressing to be de-regulated, but they sure as hell did not want society to descend to Sodom values of perversion and degeneracy. It’s Clintonism that was the initial blast of corporate globalism and pervert culture. One or the other is bad enough, but both at the same time?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Modern Left trends: the native born white working class is stupid and worthless, sexual deviancy is cool, borders are racist and stupid, legalize all drugs, ban all guns. None of this was part of the New Deal Left (or really, the traditional labor Left at any point in human history). Stalin and Mao didn’t promote pot smoking, or cross dressing.
     
    Prior to the late 60s no important leftist political leader embraced degeneracy or wanted to encourage the drug culture. Whether you're talking about communists or moderate leftists.

    Then the left got hijacked. Not by Boomers but by moneyed interests and by special interest groups. The moneyed interests encouraged those special interest groups.
  179. @Achmed E. Newman
    Feryl, you seem to take that Generations and the 4th Turning business a bit too seriously. Strauss & Howe sure liked to organize things in neat little baskets and matrices, but real life doesn't work that way. There are people with plenty of different views on politics in every generation.

    I completely understand your point on the BS out of older people about "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and "I worked my way through college working each summer, and still had money for one dollar pitchers of beer, blah, blah". Believe me, Feryl, I sympathize with young people with the really small chance of getting decent, family-supporting jobs, the extremely poor working man's wage, and the misery of working alongside diversity.

    Not everyone in every generation is clueless, you know? Lots of people are though, and my only generalization before was that the young people are increasingly Socialist in view. That is a form of stupidity that is unforgivable, as I don't care if they pay for this stupidity themselves in their further lives in the resulting miserable economy, but they drag down the rest of us and our children with them.

    It's not like we have no examples, for crying out loud. When you're already in a big hole, due to the 3 horsemen of the stupocalypse, extreme debt, a welfare state, and a massive immigration invasion, YOU STOP DIGGING. PUT DOWN ALL 3 SHOVELS, DAMMIT!

    I think the modern Dems are trying to appeal to the 10% or so of the population who are the leading edge of the SJW/Striver Left. According to Hiddentribes, only about 1/10 of the population gave survey answers that fit the dimensions of the modern extreme Left.

    In other words, it’s pretty annoying to the sort of Millennials who read this website that we are generalized as belonging to the “Hollywood values” of legalizing sexual reassignment surgery among children, or offering healthcare to illegals.

    Believe it or not, I think that this extremism is going to inadvertently drive plenty of people to the Right; remember that Trump won white Millennials in more than a few states; certainly he did quite well with the male Millennials (as 216 often points out, educated female white liberals are the single most deranged group of all, and that’s basically been the case since Obama split America into a dozen different ideological groups that are bitterly tense in their sentiment). And the gooey non-sense about muh feelings is grossly feminized discourse, for which many working class male Millennials are disgusted.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I hope so, Feryl, about your prediction that the Millennial guys will come around to that attitude.

    Sorry, I was going to not write much today, so this may be my last reply on this thread. Thanks for all the replies.
    , @Feryl
    Make that single educated white female liberals.
    , @dfordoom

    In other words, it’s pretty annoying to the sort of Millennials who read this website that we are generalized as belonging to the “Hollywood values” of legalizing sexual reassignment surgery among children, or offering healthcare to illegals.
     
    It's also pretty annoying to Boomers who read this website that they are generalized as belonging to those perverted, destructive and decadent “Hollywood values” or to other assorted destructive value systems. Those values were and are pushed by the elites, not by generations.
  180. @Rosie

    Why is the shame so deep? Just the womans fear of being ostracized?
     
    No. It isn't calculated like that. It probably has evolutionary roots in somewhat calculated conformist behaviors, but now it's just our nature to internalize group moral norms. The shame is real, because we have made the moral norms our own. Now, obviously men are vulnerable to this as well, and NAWALT, but on the whole, women have a tendency to internalize norms where men will just conform to avoid punishment.

    Obviously, this can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances.


    Personally I really dont give a shit, I always say what I think and some cucks ostracize me but most respect me for saying the truth. But I can see how for women it might be worse to be shunned.
     
    Right, but that's a separate question, because you have already given yourself permission to take your own side.

    but on the whole, women have a tendency to internalize norms where men will just conform to avoid punishment.

    I think a pig just flew past the window, but I think you give the basic All-American white male cuck too much credit vis a vis his female counterpart: they may be slower to internalize this shit (and nearly all the recalcitrant exceptions are male), but internalize it they do. I see it all the time with military dudes, though I wouldn’t be surprised if self-respecting men are simply selected out of that labor pool at this point.

  181. @Achmed E. Newman
    Feryl, you seem to take that Generations and the 4th Turning business a bit too seriously. Strauss & Howe sure liked to organize things in neat little baskets and matrices, but real life doesn't work that way. There are people with plenty of different views on politics in every generation.

    I completely understand your point on the BS out of older people about "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and "I worked my way through college working each summer, and still had money for one dollar pitchers of beer, blah, blah". Believe me, Feryl, I sympathize with young people with the really small chance of getting decent, family-supporting jobs, the extremely poor working man's wage, and the misery of working alongside diversity.

    Not everyone in every generation is clueless, you know? Lots of people are though, and my only generalization before was that the young people are increasingly Socialist in view. That is a form of stupidity that is unforgivable, as I don't care if they pay for this stupidity themselves in their further lives in the resulting miserable economy, but they drag down the rest of us and our children with them.

    It's not like we have no examples, for crying out loud. When you're already in a big hole, due to the 3 horsemen of the stupocalypse, extreme debt, a welfare state, and a massive immigration invasion, YOU STOP DIGGING. PUT DOWN ALL 3 SHOVELS, DAMMIT!

    Feryl, you seem to take that Generations and the 4th Turning business a bit too seriously. Strauss & Howe sure liked to organize things in neat little baskets and matrices, but real life doesn’t work that way. There are people with plenty of different views on politics in every generation.

    It does have some merit, in the sense that we have periods that last from 15-25 years (basically, the time it takes for a generation to reach adulthood) that are clearly distinct from each other. Nobody would ever mistake 1992 for 1972, like how nobody would mistake 1972 for 1952.

    Silents reached adulthood during post-war prosperity; once they finished that stage, Boomers then created the culture of the late 60’s and 70’s as they reached adulthood. Once Gen X took over in the 80’s, the culture changed again.

    So clearly there are generational differences, that exert at least some sort of influence on where we are headed (e.g., Silents would never have been given mass incarceration, while popular support for mass incarceration peaked in the late 80’s and early 90’s when all teen criminals were X-ers, who were dubbed “super-predators” by Hilary).

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, one last reply, haha! Nobody would mistake one period from another, simply because the world changes. That doesn't always reflect on different age groups having inherent different ways of thinking. Cause and effect goes both ways too, as different times create different people, and different people create different times.

    I want to write a couple of reviews on the 2 Strauss & Howe books. The authors have a very interesting idea on the cyclical theory of English/American history. Their prediction of an unravelling period (that I didn't even know I was in when I first read the books) and then a crisis around this time is remarkably good.

    However, their getting into detail on every "cohort" during every "turning" of every cycle is based on words mostly from various politicians and celebrities. One could find an opposing example for every single one they use to explain why "this generation was like this, because of this, and being raised by this other generation, who was like that".

    Additionally, the 2 authors' views are extremely statist, as if every thing in history is a function of government. That may be getting true now, but it sure wasn't the case during most of US history. Regarding the cycles too, the more immigrants from way, way beyond the English-speaking world we have here, the less their whole theme means anything. They based it on English-descended people to begin with.

    OK, then, now you don't have to read my review when it comes out. ;-}
  182. “White women hate, hate, hate affirmative action.”

    Laughing. I didn’t make up the employment stats on that issue. White women may very well state they hate affirmative action. Like I hate to do this as one proceeds to milk it for all its worth. Most people hate welfare, that is different than whether they benefit from it and utilize its services.

    https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11682950/fisher-supreme-court-white-women-affirmative-action

    https://now.org/read-this/who-does-affirmative-action-benefit-white-women-are-some-of-its-biggest-opponents/

    I used to be on the AA “bad” band wagon, until I actually looked at its design, implementation and history. in its original form it could have ended a lot of discussion. And then a strange data set a appeared. that whites were the largest beneficiaries. And worse, when it came to applying standards, across the board the standards were not lowered for african americans or native americans, but women. So I had to cease talking about blacks lowering standards and and benefiting from quotas because the real force behind lowering standards were women.

    I think the hate here is faux, a politically correct rhetorical device created once the cat was out of the bag that in almost all ways whites managed to turn a programs designed and intended to redress a structural data laden wrong to their benefit.

  183. @Mr. Rational

    in 1992 a lot of X-ers couldn’t find much work beyond flipping burgers. The parents of the X-ers told them to just shut up and “work harder”.
     
    How much of that was due to affirmative action FORBIDDING employers from hiring them?

    A ban on affirmative action and a cessation of "disparate impact" is the #2 issue immediately after an immigration cutoff.

    I know I’m not the first to suggest this, but affirmative action has a particular ladder-raising effect because the non-entities they hire at the entry level have generally been too incompetent to be competitive at the mid-level (and women, especially tend to self-attrit to go raise babies). So, if you can survive the hunger games at the entry-level as a white male, things become dramatically easier down the road. Of course, with the Awokening, society is now hell-bent on ‘correcting’ this final holdout of meritocracy.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    A former employer's (creative) solution to the lack of performance by affirmative action hires (and they had a ton of them) was to create a "special group" (mostly white males and a few high IQ child-less white females) to solve the toughest problems.

    The employer picked them out and isolated them from everyone else. Needless to say, the "team" morale was sky high.

    The other units' performance dropped substantially--but management felt the benefits outweighed the costs.

    There were no press releases. :-)

    I suspect they are not the only employer using this strategy.

  184. @Feryl
    I think the modern Dems are trying to appeal to the 10% or so of the population who are the leading edge of the SJW/Striver Left. According to Hiddentribes, only about 1/10 of the population gave survey answers that fit the dimensions of the modern extreme Left.

    In other words, it's pretty annoying to the sort of Millennials who read this website that we are generalized as belonging to the "Hollywood values" of legalizing sexual reassignment surgery among children, or offering healthcare to illegals.

    Believe it or not, I think that this extremism is going to inadvertently drive plenty of people to the Right; remember that Trump won white Millennials in more than a few states; certainly he did quite well with the male Millennials (as 216 often points out, educated female white liberals are the single most deranged group of all, and that's basically been the case since Obama split America into a dozen different ideological groups that are bitterly tense in their sentiment). And the gooey non-sense about muh feelings is grossly feminized discourse, for which many working class male Millennials are disgusted.

    I hope so, Feryl, about your prediction that the Millennial guys will come around to that attitude.

    Sorry, I was going to not write much today, so this may be my last reply on this thread. Thanks for all the replies.

  185. @notanon
    right, i'm suggesting personal autonomy is maybe the default and desire for children as a counterweight has to be selected for i.e. maybe the female "desire for children" bell curve is centered at zero.

    if correct then the solution is to breed breeders i.e. identify 100+ IQ women who do want kids and subsidize them.

    But personal autonomy is a very modern concept, so I don’t think it can be the default.

    For most of history, some kind of collectivism ruled.

    • Replies: @notanon
    the label is modern but it's just a euphemism for selfishness which i'd say is the default

    (default defined as the mid-point of a bell curve so outliers either side)

    default selfishness is constrained by culture and environment - take the constraints away and behavior bounces back to the default.

    (maybe)

    just a theory anyway - would be interesting to see TFR as a function of hajnalness (if it was possible to extract from the data jumble)
  186. @Feryl

    Feryl, you seem to take that Generations and the 4th Turning business a bit too seriously. Strauss & Howe sure liked to organize things in neat little baskets and matrices, but real life doesn’t work that way. There are people with plenty of different views on politics in every generation.
     
    It does have some merit, in the sense that we have periods that last from 15-25 years (basically, the time it takes for a generation to reach adulthood) that are clearly distinct from each other. Nobody would ever mistake 1992 for 1972, like how nobody would mistake 1972 for 1952.

    Silents reached adulthood during post-war prosperity; once they finished that stage, Boomers then created the culture of the late 60's and 70's as they reached adulthood. Once Gen X took over in the 80's, the culture changed again.

    So clearly there are generational differences, that exert at least some sort of influence on where we are headed (e.g., Silents would never have been given mass incarceration, while popular support for mass incarceration peaked in the late 80's and early 90's when all teen criminals were X-ers, who were dubbed "super-predators" by Hilary).

    OK, one last reply, haha! Nobody would mistake one period from another, simply because the world changes. That doesn’t always reflect on different age groups having inherent different ways of thinking. Cause and effect goes both ways too, as different times create different people, and different people create different times.

    I want to write a couple of reviews on the 2 Strauss & Howe books. The authors have a very interesting idea on the cyclical theory of English/American history. Their prediction of an unravelling period (that I didn’t even know I was in when I first read the books) and then a crisis around this time is remarkably good.

    However, their getting into detail on every “cohort” during every “turning” of every cycle is based on words mostly from various politicians and celebrities. One could find an opposing example for every single one they use to explain why “this generation was like this, because of this, and being raised by this other generation, who was like that”.

    Additionally, the 2 authors’ views are extremely statist, as if every thing in history is a function of government. That may be getting true now, but it sure wasn’t the case during most of US history. Regarding the cycles too, the more immigrants from way, way beyond the English-speaking world we have here, the less their whole theme means anything. They based it on English-descended people to begin with.

    OK, then, now you don’t have to read my review when it comes out. ;-}

    • Replies: @Feryl
    However, their getting into detail on every “cohort” during every “turning” of every cycle is based on words mostly from various politicians and celebrities. One could find an opposing example for every single one they use to explain why “this generation was like this, because of this, and being raised by this other generation, who was like that”.

    It's impossible to not cherry pick when you are trying to capture the rhetorical sentiment of the time. However, it's also true that they cited survey data to reinforce their summation of different generations and time periods. For example, the UCLA freshman survey asks people if living a meaningful life is more important than financial security. Beginning in 1980, with people born in 1961-1962, freshmen said "no" more frequently to that question than previous generations did.

    And certain things can have a life-long imprint on a generation, that other generations don't experience. You can't expect X-ers, who were children during the "divorce revolution" of the 1970's, to have the same glib attitude about divorce that Silents and Boomers did (indeed, X-ers and Millennials are less likely to ever have been married than older generations, however these younger generations when they do get married are less likely to get divorced than Silents and Boomers are).

    Attitude towards parents is another imprint. Boomers and many Gen X-ers were socialized by their peers (not authority, not society per se) to resent parental authority and seek autonomy away from their parents and siblings. Boomers and X-ers frequently got into shouting matches with their parents, and brawled with their siblings as they came of age. This is a sharp contrast to Millennials who, as children, often displayed more patience and grace then their own parents. Child abuse researcher David Finkelhor has stated that the behavior of children began improving in the 1990's, even as Boomers and X-ers were at what was quite possibly their overall behavioral low-point in the early-mid 90's. In terms of generational crime rates, when American Gen X-ers left our high schools around the year 2000, the teen crime rate fell dramatically, whereas the crime rate among adult Boomers and X-ers declined more modestly in the 2000's.

    In my own dealings, I've often noticed that Silents and Millennials are more quiet and graceful, while it's Boomers who are the hurricanes when it comes to creating disputes, and figuring out how to resolve them. X-ers can also be a handful, but not to the same degree as Boomers.

    It's really naive for a generation to assume that all generations experience the same things at each phase of life. Millennials did not come of age wanting to destroy tradition or authority, after all.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Regarding the cycles too, the more immigrants from way, way beyond the English-speaking world we have here, the less their whole theme means anything.

    I've long appreciated the generational lens Feryl views things through. It's certainly opened my eyes to things I hadn't noticed before. But this is the biggest reservation I have about its future utility. Boomers are pre-1965 America--90% white, 10% black--while Zoomers are "majority-minority".
  187. @L Woods
    I know I'm not the first to suggest this, but affirmative action has a particular ladder-raising effect because the non-entities they hire at the entry level have generally been too incompetent to be competitive at the mid-level (and women, especially tend to self-attrit to go raise babies). So, if you can survive the hunger games at the entry-level as a white male, things become dramatically easier down the road. Of course, with the Awokening, society is now hell-bent on 'correcting' this final holdout of meritocracy.

    A former employer’s (creative) solution to the lack of performance by affirmative action hires (and they had a ton of them) was to create a “special group” (mostly white males and a few high IQ child-less white females) to solve the toughest problems.

    The employer picked them out and isolated them from everyone else. Needless to say, the “team” morale was sky high.

    The other units’ performance dropped substantially–but management felt the benefits outweighed the costs.

    There were no press releases. 🙂

    I suspect they are not the only employer using this strategy.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    That's effectively how any large organization does things in one way or another, I think. Military, same way: the 'tip of the spear' has remained overwhelmingly white and male. Of course, over time, the eye of Sauron will turn on these islands of competence, and they'll have to be broken up and reformed along some other dimension. It's sort of an intra-institutional form of white flight.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    That is increasingly even something academia is doing, creating diversity and inclusion departments to boost the non-white, non-male faculty percentages without comprising high-end output.
  188. @Futurethirdworlder
    I'm always intrigued by whites who don't seem to care that their interests are not even acknowledged by the people who are supposed to represent them. You could argue I suppose that whites in America are racially classified as "middle class." But I'm not sure that terminally is keeping up with the times.

    But beyond not being acknowledged, that more whites aren't bothered on a basic fairness level by the political establishment pandering to a group that is already a privileged class culturally and institutionally is astounding.

    Who has heard anyone mention that minorities who recieve special benefits like gov't grants and loans, affirmative action, hiring quotas as well as special protections with anti discrimination and hate crime laws, and are represented by a special civil rights division of the justice department, not to mention 100s of ethnic advocacy groups, are about to become the majority in a country who's culture becomes more belligerent towards whites everyday?

    It is a recipe for genocide.

    I’m always intrigued by whites who don’t seem to care that their interests are not even acknowledged by the people who are supposed to represent them.

    You have to understand that the majority of whites are only here for a short time and are simply waiting until they ascend into heaven to help God rule over the Earth. And in order to be permitted to share in heavenly joy, they must be nice to all those other people, regardless of behavior.

    It’s just one of the rules for entry into eternal life.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    As frustrating as that mentality is, whites have been Christian for many, many centuries. It can't alone explain the shift in behavior.
  189. @Justvisiting
    A former employer's (creative) solution to the lack of performance by affirmative action hires (and they had a ton of them) was to create a "special group" (mostly white males and a few high IQ child-less white females) to solve the toughest problems.

    The employer picked them out and isolated them from everyone else. Needless to say, the "team" morale was sky high.

    The other units' performance dropped substantially--but management felt the benefits outweighed the costs.

    There were no press releases. :-)

    I suspect they are not the only employer using this strategy.

    That’s effectively how any large organization does things in one way or another, I think. Military, same way: the ‘tip of the spear’ has remained overwhelmingly white and male. Of course, over time, the eye of Sauron will turn on these islands of competence, and they’ll have to be broken up and reformed along some other dimension. It’s sort of an intra-institutional form of white flight.

  190. @HallParvey

    I’m always intrigued by whites who don’t seem to care that their interests are not even acknowledged by the people who are supposed to represent them.
     
    You have to understand that the majority of whites are only here for a short time and are simply waiting until they ascend into heaven to help God rule over the Earth. And in order to be permitted to share in heavenly joy, they must be nice to all those other people, regardless of behavior.

    It's just one of the rules for entry into eternal life.

    As frustrating as that mentality is, whites have been Christian for many, many centuries. It can’t alone explain the shift in behavior.

  191. @Mr. Rational

    in 1992 a lot of X-ers couldn’t find much work beyond flipping burgers. The parents of the X-ers told them to just shut up and “work harder”.
     
    How much of that was due to affirmative action FORBIDDING employers from hiring them?

    A ban on affirmative action and a cessation of "disparate impact" is the #2 issue immediately after an immigration cutoff.

    Demand for jobs began to exceed the supply in the late 70’s, which late Boomers often accurately point out. The biggest birth cohort in Western history was born from about 1955-1962; when this cohort had matured to working age in the late 70’s, suddenly there was immense competition for jobs. Had immigration remained at a low level, eventually job equilibrium would’ve been restored since birth rates got progressively lower mid-way through 1963, and continued to fall as the 60’s and 70’s went on. But nope, immigration began to surge in the Jimmy Carter era, and has remained high ever since (Operation Wetback, BTW, discouraged illegal immigration into the 60’s and even early 70’s, but in the late 70’s it became apparent that we were no longer policing aliens like we used to, and thus the invasion began).

    We don’t get enough credit for adjusting reproduction according to the available resources. Unfortunately, corrupt elites don’t listen to the natural rhythm of pop. growth and resource competition, resulting in excessive “growth” that imperils the average person’s well-being.

  192. @Feryl
    I think the modern Dems are trying to appeal to the 10% or so of the population who are the leading edge of the SJW/Striver Left. According to Hiddentribes, only about 1/10 of the population gave survey answers that fit the dimensions of the modern extreme Left.

    In other words, it's pretty annoying to the sort of Millennials who read this website that we are generalized as belonging to the "Hollywood values" of legalizing sexual reassignment surgery among children, or offering healthcare to illegals.

    Believe it or not, I think that this extremism is going to inadvertently drive plenty of people to the Right; remember that Trump won white Millennials in more than a few states; certainly he did quite well with the male Millennials (as 216 often points out, educated female white liberals are the single most deranged group of all, and that's basically been the case since Obama split America into a dozen different ideological groups that are bitterly tense in their sentiment). And the gooey non-sense about muh feelings is grossly feminized discourse, for which many working class male Millennials are disgusted.

    Make that single educated white female liberals.

  193. @AaronB
    But personal autonomy is a very modern concept, so I don't think it can be the default.

    For most of history, some kind of collectivism ruled.

    the label is modern but it’s just a euphemism for selfishness which i’d say is the default

    (default defined as the mid-point of a bell curve so outliers either side)

    default selfishness is constrained by culture and environment – take the constraints away and behavior bounces back to the default.

    (maybe)

    just a theory anyway – would be interesting to see TFR as a function of hajnalness (if it was possible to extract from the data jumble)

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Quite possibly.

    I think its more likely that we are genetically selected for both selfishness and altruism/collectivism, and that both are needed for flourishing.

    Since both selfishness and altruism seem to be necessary, there must be a third element that mediates between the two - and this is obviously culture, or the mind.

    It does not seem that blind instinct without mind can resolve the competing strands of our nature. Mind as a mediating agent between competing genetic strands seems indispensable.

    To breed creatures without selfishness, as you suggest, would lead to extinction.

    If we go deeper, we see even that the opposition between selfishness and altruism is superficial - altruism is expanding the sense of self to include others.
  194. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I've been raising the red flag on this for a while.

    New elites are Jews + Brahmin Hindoos.

    You can be so proud that a fellow brown man is in office but you're still going to get treated like shit by them, just like you did in India.

    One of them is a Punjabi Pakistani. Regardless, the brown man is doing fantastically well in the West.

    Hmm, what do you mean? For good or bad, my family owned Hindu ‘slaves’ and profited immensely from the colonial venture.

    I’d probably say my ancestors treated Hindoos badly though. Not bragging as there is nothing to brag but yeah.

    It’s bitterweet. Two of the most powerful positions are going to browns!

  195. @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, one last reply, haha! Nobody would mistake one period from another, simply because the world changes. That doesn't always reflect on different age groups having inherent different ways of thinking. Cause and effect goes both ways too, as different times create different people, and different people create different times.

    I want to write a couple of reviews on the 2 Strauss & Howe books. The authors have a very interesting idea on the cyclical theory of English/American history. Their prediction of an unravelling period (that I didn't even know I was in when I first read the books) and then a crisis around this time is remarkably good.

    However, their getting into detail on every "cohort" during every "turning" of every cycle is based on words mostly from various politicians and celebrities. One could find an opposing example for every single one they use to explain why "this generation was like this, because of this, and being raised by this other generation, who was like that".

    Additionally, the 2 authors' views are extremely statist, as if every thing in history is a function of government. That may be getting true now, but it sure wasn't the case during most of US history. Regarding the cycles too, the more immigrants from way, way beyond the English-speaking world we have here, the less their whole theme means anything. They based it on English-descended people to begin with.

    OK, then, now you don't have to read my review when it comes out. ;-}

    However, their getting into detail on every “cohort” during every “turning” of every cycle is based on words mostly from various politicians and celebrities. One could find an opposing example for every single one they use to explain why “this generation was like this, because of this, and being raised by this other generation, who was like that”.

    It’s impossible to not cherry pick when you are trying to capture the rhetorical sentiment of the time. However, it’s also true that they cited survey data to reinforce their summation of different generations and time periods. For example, the UCLA freshman survey asks people if living a meaningful life is more important than financial security. Beginning in 1980, with people born in 1961-1962, freshmen said “no” more frequently to that question than previous generations did.

    And certain things can have a life-long imprint on a generation, that other generations don’t experience. You can’t expect X-ers, who were children during the “divorce revolution” of the 1970’s, to have the same glib attitude about divorce that Silents and Boomers did (indeed, X-ers and Millennials are less likely to ever have been married than older generations, however these younger generations when they do get married are less likely to get divorced than Silents and Boomers are).

    Attitude towards parents is another imprint. Boomers and many Gen X-ers were socialized by their peers (not authority, not society per se) to resent parental authority and seek autonomy away from their parents and siblings. Boomers and X-ers frequently got into shouting matches with their parents, and brawled with their siblings as they came of age. This is a sharp contrast to Millennials who, as children, often displayed more patience and grace then their own parents. Child abuse researcher David Finkelhor has stated that the behavior of children began improving in the 1990’s, even as Boomers and X-ers were at what was quite possibly their overall behavioral low-point in the early-mid 90’s. In terms of generational crime rates, when American Gen X-ers left our high schools around the year 2000, the teen crime rate fell dramatically, whereas the crime rate among adult Boomers and X-ers declined more modestly in the 2000’s.

    In my own dealings, I’ve often noticed that Silents and Millennials are more quiet and graceful, while it’s Boomers who are the hurricanes when it comes to creating disputes, and figuring out how to resolve them. X-ers can also be a handful, but not to the same degree as Boomers.

    It’s really naive for a generation to assume that all generations experience the same things at each phase of life. Millennials did not come of age wanting to destroy tradition or authority, after all.

  196. @notanon
    the label is modern but it's just a euphemism for selfishness which i'd say is the default

    (default defined as the mid-point of a bell curve so outliers either side)

    default selfishness is constrained by culture and environment - take the constraints away and behavior bounces back to the default.

    (maybe)

    just a theory anyway - would be interesting to see TFR as a function of hajnalness (if it was possible to extract from the data jumble)

    Quite possibly.

    I think its more likely that we are genetically selected for both selfishness and altruism/collectivism, and that both are needed for flourishing.

    Since both selfishness and altruism seem to be necessary, there must be a third element that mediates between the two – and this is obviously culture, or the mind.

    It does not seem that blind instinct without mind can resolve the competing strands of our nature. Mind as a mediating agent between competing genetic strands seems indispensable.

    To breed creatures without selfishness, as you suggest, would lead to extinction.

    If we go deeper, we see even that the opposition between selfishness and altruism is superficial – altruism is expanding the sense of self to include others.

  197. To breed creatures without selfishness, as you suggest,

    suggesting moving the mid-point +1 SD

    would lead to extinction.

    well that’s the twist of breeding maternal selflessness – it guarantees survival.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    suggesting moving the mid-point +1 SD
     
    This would take a few generations. How can you be sure this is the right amount? That new conditions might not dictate a different balance? That it turns out to be a mistake? Will you have a few generations then to change it back?

    Isn't it better to have genetically the potential for both qualities, and a flexible mediating agent - the mind - that can apply real time corrections based on evolving conditions?

    And isn't your breeding program a version of the conscious mind acting as mediating agent and choosing the correct balance of attributes, the opposite of genetic auto-pilot - you seem to wish to use the mediating activity of the mind one time only, to create a situation where things can then go on auto-pilot. To use mind to eliminate the necessity of using mind.

    Isn't it better to have a constant dynamic use of the mind - i.e culture - that can adapt in real time, rather than requiring genetic changes over generations?
  198. @notanon

    To breed creatures without selfishness, as you suggest,
     
    suggesting moving the mid-point +1 SD

    would lead to extinction.
     
    well that's the twist of breeding maternal selflessness - it guarantees survival.

    suggesting moving the mid-point +1 SD

    This would take a few generations. How can you be sure this is the right amount? That new conditions might not dictate a different balance? That it turns out to be a mistake? Will you have a few generations then to change it back?

    Isn’t it better to have genetically the potential for both qualities, and a flexible mediating agent – the mind – that can apply real time corrections based on evolving conditions?

    And isn’t your breeding program a version of the conscious mind acting as mediating agent and choosing the correct balance of attributes, the opposite of genetic auto-pilot – you seem to wish to use the mediating activity of the mind one time only, to create a situation where things can then go on auto-pilot. To use mind to eliminate the necessity of using mind.

    Isn’t it better to have a constant dynamic use of the mind – i.e culture – that can adapt in real time, rather than requiring genetic changes over generations?

    • Replies: @notanon

    Isn’t it better to have a constant dynamic use of the mind – i.e culture – that can adapt in real time, rather than requiring genetic changes over generations?
     
    yes and i think the spread of "breeder" genes would happen naturally if people are patient enough.

    the reasons for considering speeding it up are

    1) the cultural switch from women having no choice to women having lots of choice has been so quick there hasn't been any time to adapt

    and

    2) as a counter to the pressure of "muh unlimited immigration" from globalist oligarchs.
  199. @anonymous
    Could you please address the question posed (#12) by commenter The Alarmist?

    "BTW, if the Trump economy is so great, why do we need rate cuts on top of historically low interest rates? It’s a sham economy."

    An interest rate cut would be consistent with the inflation-targeting approach to interest rate policy. The decision to raise or lower interest rates can never be a perfect science; there’s an always an element of guesswork involved. That doesn’t mean that such decisions render the economy a “sham” however.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thanks for addressing that. I’ll try to remember to check back and see if anyone argues the other side.
  200. @silviosilver
    An interest rate cut would be consistent with the inflation-targeting approach to interest rate policy. The decision to raise or lower interest rates can never be a perfect science; there's an always an element of guesswork involved. That doesn't mean that such decisions render the economy a "sham" however.

    Thanks for addressing that. I’ll try to remember to check back and see if anyone argues the other side.

  201. @eah
    the GOP is for all practical purposes finished in CA

    The CA state legislature is bicameral: it consists of the CA State Senate and the CA State Assembly -- current makeup is: State Senate 29 Democrats, 11 Republicans -- State Assembly 61 Democrats, 18 Republicans, 1 vacant seat.

    The only possible way for Republicans to exert any state-wide political influence in CA is via ballot propositions.

    Hey there buddy! Just think, “natcheral conservatives.”

    What we need ta do is include the other in The Big Tent. Outreach to the under-represented in the GOP. If we would just go easy on the immigration talk, have a limited amnesty with compassionate enforcement, enterprise zones for Hispanics, right-to-life, lower taxes and less government and more eddycashun – then, finally, all those natcheral Republicans from south of the border and from Africa and from the Middle East (don’t try ta tell me Saudis ain’t conservative!) will vote GOP.

    Them Chinamen are also natcheral conservatives too. An’ we can import them by the tens of millions and the PRC won’t miss them one bit outta the billion and a half people they got. President Xi might like us fer takin’ them Hong Kong rioter-democracy people off his hands. They kin git plenty o’ democracy here.

    I know that’ll work cause my baby brother Jeb and mah buddy Karl and mah other buddy Mitt told me it would work!

    Regards, Dubya

  202. @AaronB

    suggesting moving the mid-point +1 SD
     
    This would take a few generations. How can you be sure this is the right amount? That new conditions might not dictate a different balance? That it turns out to be a mistake? Will you have a few generations then to change it back?

    Isn't it better to have genetically the potential for both qualities, and a flexible mediating agent - the mind - that can apply real time corrections based on evolving conditions?

    And isn't your breeding program a version of the conscious mind acting as mediating agent and choosing the correct balance of attributes, the opposite of genetic auto-pilot - you seem to wish to use the mediating activity of the mind one time only, to create a situation where things can then go on auto-pilot. To use mind to eliminate the necessity of using mind.

    Isn't it better to have a constant dynamic use of the mind - i.e culture - that can adapt in real time, rather than requiring genetic changes over generations?

    Isn’t it better to have a constant dynamic use of the mind – i.e culture – that can adapt in real time, rather than requiring genetic changes over generations?

    yes and i think the spread of “breeder” genes would happen naturally if people are patient enough.

    the reasons for considering speeding it up are

    1) the cultural switch from women having no choice to women having lots of choice has been so quick there hasn’t been any time to adapt

    and

    2) as a counter to the pressure of “muh unlimited immigration” from globalist oligarchs.

  203. @AaronB
    Some secular left wing Jews are for all intents and purposes cultural white Europeans.

    I'm talking about Jews who retain a Jewish identity - it would be foreign to their beliefs to blame the religious decline of the community primarily in outside influences.

    Outside influences are recognized as playing a role, but primary responsibility is internal.

    Some secular left wing Jews are for all intents and purposes cultural white Europeans.

    Yes. What a lot of people around these parts won’t accept is that secularism is as dire a threat to Jewish identity as it is to any other cultural identity. Secular Jews might retain a degree of Jewish identity but within a couple of generations they’ll just be generic white globalist liberals.

    Rootless cosmopolitanism destroys all cultures.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    Ashkenazi Jews don't even breed as much as their darker neighbors in Israel. Their military allows women, they have fags.
  204. @RadicalCenter
    I clicked agree, overall, but please allow me to add a note about white folks not having children. Even if there were very little legal or illegal immigration, as we would both presumably prefer, white People still would not survive and thrive without having children above replacement rate.

    Without children, people typically lack the sense of purpose, fulfillment, and driving concern for the future and what will be left behind when they die. They also cannot possibly fully understand and relate to the feelings, priorities, and mission of parents, though many admirably try to do so.

    Moreover, any fear, hesitation, anxiety, that I might have defending myself or fellow countrymen, will have no force if it is my children whom I am defending. I am not a military guy and don’t claim to be especially brave or tough, but I would suffer anything for my children, anything.

    Ultimately, a people that does not have enough children to sustain its numbers and strength, will not have the confidence, pride, vigor, hope for the future, cohesiveness, willingness to sacrifice, and willingness to fight, that a healthy, growing, proud, heterosexual-normed society will have.

    Without children, people typically lack the sense of purpose, fulfillment, and driving concern for the future and what will be left behind when they die.

    True. But which comes first? Does demographic collapse cause that lack of purpose or is it a symptom?

  205. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Those whites that assert their identities here are labelled white nationalists (HITLER!!). If a blog community can't get on board with IOKTBW, then a country sure isn't gonna.

    If a blog community can’t get on board with IOKTBW

    I might get on board with it if I knew what it meant.

    Too many acronyms people.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    It's OK to be white.
  206. @Feryl
    I dunno if you saw it, but I recently wrote about how, since the 70's, we've been pretty ideologically schizoid, where labels of "Left" or "Right" or "libertarian" (as we've traditionally understood them) don't really fit.

    Modern Right trends: globalist war-mongering, mass surveillance, mass incarceration, poor protection of the 1st amendment, leaving affirmative action in place. All of these trends don't really fit into traditional Anglo Conservatism that was practiced before circa 1970. Freedom of speech, thought, and association have all withered over the last 50 years, and seldom does the establishment right ever seem to care.

    Modern Left trends: the native born white working class is stupid and worthless, sexual deviancy is cool, borders are racist and stupid, legalize all drugs, ban all guns. None of this was part of the New Deal Left (or really, the traditional labor Left at any point in human history). Stalin and Mao didn't promote pot smoking, or cross dressing.

    So since circa 1970 we've been heading toward a bizarre cross between a police state, where many freedoms are curtailed, and a Sodom-esque abyss of debauched hedonism.

    Contrary to libertarian dreams, what is needed is a return to enforced traditionalism on both sides, which will entail some sort of regulation (e.g., don't let children get sex re-assignment surgery). Modern idiotic elites won't let hairdressers operate without a license, but they think it's fine for 13 year olds to be doing bong hits.

    Certainly, I'm not naive anymore to think that the Reaganites are responsible for the current level of decadence, since after all they wanted stuff like hair dressing to be de-regulated, but they sure as hell did not want society to descend to Sodom values of perversion and degeneracy. It's Clintonism that was the initial blast of corporate globalism and pervert culture. One or the other is bad enough, but both at the same time?

    Modern Left trends: the native born white working class is stupid and worthless, sexual deviancy is cool, borders are racist and stupid, legalize all drugs, ban all guns. None of this was part of the New Deal Left (or really, the traditional labor Left at any point in human history). Stalin and Mao didn’t promote pot smoking, or cross dressing.

    Prior to the late 60s no important leftist political leader embraced degeneracy or wanted to encourage the drug culture. Whether you’re talking about communists or moderate leftists.

    Then the left got hijacked. Not by Boomers but by moneyed interests and by special interest groups. The moneyed interests encouraged those special interest groups.

  207. @Feryl
    I think the modern Dems are trying to appeal to the 10% or so of the population who are the leading edge of the SJW/Striver Left. According to Hiddentribes, only about 1/10 of the population gave survey answers that fit the dimensions of the modern extreme Left.

    In other words, it's pretty annoying to the sort of Millennials who read this website that we are generalized as belonging to the "Hollywood values" of legalizing sexual reassignment surgery among children, or offering healthcare to illegals.

    Believe it or not, I think that this extremism is going to inadvertently drive plenty of people to the Right; remember that Trump won white Millennials in more than a few states; certainly he did quite well with the male Millennials (as 216 often points out, educated female white liberals are the single most deranged group of all, and that's basically been the case since Obama split America into a dozen different ideological groups that are bitterly tense in their sentiment). And the gooey non-sense about muh feelings is grossly feminized discourse, for which many working class male Millennials are disgusted.

    In other words, it’s pretty annoying to the sort of Millennials who read this website that we are generalized as belonging to the “Hollywood values” of legalizing sexual reassignment surgery among children, or offering healthcare to illegals.

    It’s also pretty annoying to Boomers who read this website that they are generalized as belonging to those perverted, destructive and decadent “Hollywood values” or to other assorted destructive value systems. Those values were and are pushed by the elites, not by generations.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The most consistent gripe that X-ers (and later generations) have with Boomers is that they were suckered into "trickle down economics", yuppieism/consumerism, massive deficits, "free trade", and the like.

    We can debate cultural issues til the cows come home, but since cultural stuff is subjective, and moreover, not really germane to whether people can pay their bills or not, younger people instead have had a growing level of discontent with how their parents and/or grandparents were snookered starting in the 80's.

    Older generations took the generally comfortable economic conditions of the 1950's-1980's for granted, and thus they collectively had little reason to safeguard the policies that made them possible. In fact, these generations often complained that unions, government regulation, public ownership of things, anti-monopoly measures, and "confiscatory" taxes made life miserable. So that's why since the late 70's we've been attacking unions, de-regulating the market, cutting taxes for rich people, and de-fanging anti-trust enforcement.

    BTW, there was a lot more ideological harmony in America as recently as the late 80's. While the nature of the current and next ideological phase is fraught with uncertainty due to the current extreme division in America, pre-1990 was a different story. On economic issues, Americans from 1930-1990 largely were in agreement with each other, within each generation anyway. We wanted stronger labor unions in the 1930's and 40's, because the Progressive era was marked by a growing awareness of worker's rights while Social Darwinist capital often resisted the movement. But Silents and Boomers had no memory of child factory workers dying in 1910, so they became increasingly cavalier about labor issues as time went on. By 1980, Losts and GIs couldn't stop Silents and Boomers from launching a full scale assault on the Progressive worker's rights movements.

    Since it was mostly Silents and Boomers who presided over reactionary economic policies over the last 40 years, it's fair to assign them responsibility for it. Many GIs were dead or retired by 1980, and Gen X often struggled to climb the ladder.
  208. @dfordoom

    If a blog community can’t get on board with IOKTBW
     
    I might get on board with it if I knew what it meant.

    Too many acronyms people.

    It’s OK to be white.

  209. The last gasp of Boomer conservatism or the Boomer zombie rises from the grave. These guys reached up from the grave they were put into after 2016 and grabbed the younger generation’s ankle, pulling them back down into their casket. “Taaaaax cuts … uhhhh …. taaaaaxes …. uhhhh …. milwatarweeeee …. uhhhh … braaaains.”

  210. anon[311] • Disclaimer says:

    The GOP doesn’t care. They never cared about their voters. The party’s leadership just wants to go back to being the respectable opposition that always loses gracefully so they can have nice, comfy jobs where they don’t have to do any hard work. It’s hard to do that when the corporate media you let become monopolized by the democrats calls you mean names all the time. The whole of conservatism is a racket aimed at extracting money from gullible donors while diverting the energies of their base into worthless debates like tax policy and economic theory.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The GOP doesn’t care. They never cared about their voters. The party’s leadership just wants to go back to being the respectable opposition that always loses gracefully
     
    But they don't always lose. Mostly they win. Over the past half century mainstream conservatives have won consistently. Your mistake is in not understanding what their actual objectives are. Their actual objectives have no connection to the things that the idiots who vote for them would like to see.

    Their actual objectives have been to cut taxes for the rich, make life easy for big business, drive wages down, destroy trade unions, demoralise the working class, encourage people to structure their lives around mindless consumption, to keep the masses happy by giving them trash entertainment and easy access to drugs and sex, to keep the money flowing to the military-industrial complex and to expand the American Empire.

    Mainstream conservatives have consistently achieved their objectives. They are not losers. They are winners. It's just that their objectives are totally evil. They're not weak or stupid. They're smart and evil.
  211. @dfordoom

    Some secular left wing Jews are for all intents and purposes cultural white Europeans.
     
    Yes. What a lot of people around these parts won't accept is that secularism is as dire a threat to Jewish identity as it is to any other cultural identity. Secular Jews might retain a degree of Jewish identity but within a couple of generations they'll just be generic white globalist liberals.

    Rootless cosmopolitanism destroys all cultures.

    Ashkenazi Jews don’t even breed as much as their darker neighbors in Israel. Their military allows women, they have fags.

  212. @dfordoom

    In other words, it’s pretty annoying to the sort of Millennials who read this website that we are generalized as belonging to the “Hollywood values” of legalizing sexual reassignment surgery among children, or offering healthcare to illegals.
     
    It's also pretty annoying to Boomers who read this website that they are generalized as belonging to those perverted, destructive and decadent “Hollywood values” or to other assorted destructive value systems. Those values were and are pushed by the elites, not by generations.

    The most consistent gripe that X-ers (and later generations) have with Boomers is that they were suckered into “trickle down economics”, yuppieism/consumerism, massive deficits, “free trade”, and the like.

    We can debate cultural issues til the cows come home, but since cultural stuff is subjective, and moreover, not really germane to whether people can pay their bills or not, younger people instead have had a growing level of discontent with how their parents and/or grandparents were snookered starting in the 80’s.

    Older generations took the generally comfortable economic conditions of the 1950’s-1980’s for granted, and thus they collectively had little reason to safeguard the policies that made them possible. In fact, these generations often complained that unions, government regulation, public ownership of things, anti-monopoly measures, and “confiscatory” taxes made life miserable. So that’s why since the late 70’s we’ve been attacking unions, de-regulating the market, cutting taxes for rich people, and de-fanging anti-trust enforcement.

    BTW, there was a lot more ideological harmony in America as recently as the late 80’s. While the nature of the current and next ideological phase is fraught with uncertainty due to the current extreme division in America, pre-1990 was a different story. On economic issues, Americans from 1930-1990 largely were in agreement with each other, within each generation anyway. We wanted stronger labor unions in the 1930’s and 40’s, because the Progressive era was marked by a growing awareness of worker’s rights while Social Darwinist capital often resisted the movement. But Silents and Boomers had no memory of child factory workers dying in 1910, so they became increasingly cavalier about labor issues as time went on. By 1980, Losts and GIs couldn’t stop Silents and Boomers from launching a full scale assault on the Progressive worker’s rights movements.

    Since it was mostly Silents and Boomers who presided over reactionary economic policies over the last 40 years, it’s fair to assign them responsibility for it. Many GIs were dead or retired by 1980, and Gen X often struggled to climb the ladder.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    that’s why since the late 70’s we’ve been attacking unions, de-regulating the market, cutting taxes for rich people, and de-fanging anti-trust enforcement.
     
    Unions acted very (make that VERY) badly in the run up to the anti-union movement.  When unionized unskilled workers were making more money than the intelligent AND hard-working engineers who created the things they merely put together, they created one fuckton of a lot of resentment.  Those engineers (and managers, and others) lost huge amounts of wealth to people of lesser accomplishment who often lived as well or better than they did.

    I saw this happen.  The pounding on unions, like the two-tier wage system for the UAW, was payback for the UAW's abuses of the past.  The pendulum swung too far, and then it swung back.  Fucking deal with it.  And try not to repeat past mistakes.
    , @dfordoom

    The most consistent gripe that X-ers (and later generations) have with Boomers is that they were suckered into “trickle down economics”, yuppieism/consumerism, massive deficits, “free trade”, and the like.
     
    The Boomers I used to know were old-fashioned leftists who supported the kinds of policies that you equate with the New Deal. They loathed yuppies. And amazingly enough they weren't running the country so they had no control over the deficit. Most, being actual old-fashioned leftists, were suspicious of free trade.

    It's almost as if generations were just vague meaningless abstractions with no connection to reality.
  213. @t
    If anyone can see this can you tell me if my comments are in a spam trap?

    I’m not sure why yours keep getting caught. It may be some single character handle restriction I’m unaware of.

  214. @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, one last reply, haha! Nobody would mistake one period from another, simply because the world changes. That doesn't always reflect on different age groups having inherent different ways of thinking. Cause and effect goes both ways too, as different times create different people, and different people create different times.

    I want to write a couple of reviews on the 2 Strauss & Howe books. The authors have a very interesting idea on the cyclical theory of English/American history. Their prediction of an unravelling period (that I didn't even know I was in when I first read the books) and then a crisis around this time is remarkably good.

    However, their getting into detail on every "cohort" during every "turning" of every cycle is based on words mostly from various politicians and celebrities. One could find an opposing example for every single one they use to explain why "this generation was like this, because of this, and being raised by this other generation, who was like that".

    Additionally, the 2 authors' views are extremely statist, as if every thing in history is a function of government. That may be getting true now, but it sure wasn't the case during most of US history. Regarding the cycles too, the more immigrants from way, way beyond the English-speaking world we have here, the less their whole theme means anything. They based it on English-descended people to begin with.

    OK, then, now you don't have to read my review when it comes out. ;-}

    Regarding the cycles too, the more immigrants from way, way beyond the English-speaking world we have here, the less their whole theme means anything.

    I’ve long appreciated the generational lens Feryl views things through. It’s certainly opened my eyes to things I hadn’t noticed before. But this is the biggest reservation I have about its future utility. Boomers are pre-1965 America–90% white, 10% black–while Zoomers are “majority-minority”.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The '65 immigration act wasn't phased in until 1968.

    The main reason younger generations are so diverse is due to the twin factors of native fertility collapsing around 1970, while immigration levels were going up a lot by the Carter Admin. Had immigration remained at New Deal era levels, America would've ended up, by 2010, with 3 Boomers for every Gen X-ers, and 2.25 Boomers for every Millennial. Now eventually, with the Boomer die off, American would've begun having a lot of kids again. For that matter, native birth rates in the late 80's and 90's probably would've been higher also, after the understandable fall in births of the mid-60's-early 80's (America's population back then was so young, we didn't need anymore kids).

    I’ve long appreciated the generational lens Feryl views things through. It’s certainly opened my eyes to things I hadn’t noticed before. But this is the biggest reservation I have about its future utility. Boomers are pre-1965 America–90% white, 10% black–while Zoomers are “majority-minority”.
     
    I'd argue that the racial homogeneity of Boomers actually validates generational differences. Why? Because the Boomers are so individualistic, experimental, and ideologically diverse, compared to other generations. In other words, the circumstances of our experiences (be they social, economic, political, or spiritual) exert some kind of effect on us, no matter what demographic we fall into.

    It's been noted that a lot of underclass Millennials resent the notion that they got the soccer mom white suburban upbringing that some Millennials got in the 90's. However, that would suggest that some "minorities" are trying to act as if everyone in their ethnic group has the same experience one generation after another. Golly, judging from the state of political and cultural affiars across the world, it's just a tad.....Improbable, to suggest that many ethnic groups are denied unique generation forming experiences (the ethnic ID politics angle is clearly an attempt to downplay generational angles lest people think that something besides ethnicity actually matters).

    I'll give you that jungle dwelling pre-historic people (like Adamandan Islanders) never deal with generational cycles, but I think other ethnic groups do. Even many tribes of Sub-Saharan Africans.

    Let's face it, why do you ever feel.....Uncomfortable around strangers who are 20, 30, 40 years older than you are, even if they share your race or regional background? It's a lot easier to approach a stranger from your generation, because you have a shared set of psychologically important formative events, and practices. With that similarity comes a certain level of kinship and camaraderie.

    Part of what motivated by Strauss and Howe was the history of many cultures openly acknowledging the creation of one generation and the death of another. It was often observed that one generation seemed to consciously reject the mores and objectives of another, for better or for worse. And indeed, some generations seemed to be particularly wistful in older age, as they understood that the world they built or wanted to build, was being undone by youngster who did not share the same vision.
  215. @Justvisiting
    A former employer's (creative) solution to the lack of performance by affirmative action hires (and they had a ton of them) was to create a "special group" (mostly white males and a few high IQ child-less white females) to solve the toughest problems.

    The employer picked them out and isolated them from everyone else. Needless to say, the "team" morale was sky high.

    The other units' performance dropped substantially--but management felt the benefits outweighed the costs.

    There were no press releases. :-)

    I suspect they are not the only employer using this strategy.

    That is increasingly even something academia is doing, creating diversity and inclusion departments to boost the non-white, non-male faculty percentages without comprising high-end output.

  216. @Feryl
    The most consistent gripe that X-ers (and later generations) have with Boomers is that they were suckered into "trickle down economics", yuppieism/consumerism, massive deficits, "free trade", and the like.

    We can debate cultural issues til the cows come home, but since cultural stuff is subjective, and moreover, not really germane to whether people can pay their bills or not, younger people instead have had a growing level of discontent with how their parents and/or grandparents were snookered starting in the 80's.

    Older generations took the generally comfortable economic conditions of the 1950's-1980's for granted, and thus they collectively had little reason to safeguard the policies that made them possible. In fact, these generations often complained that unions, government regulation, public ownership of things, anti-monopoly measures, and "confiscatory" taxes made life miserable. So that's why since the late 70's we've been attacking unions, de-regulating the market, cutting taxes for rich people, and de-fanging anti-trust enforcement.

    BTW, there was a lot more ideological harmony in America as recently as the late 80's. While the nature of the current and next ideological phase is fraught with uncertainty due to the current extreme division in America, pre-1990 was a different story. On economic issues, Americans from 1930-1990 largely were in agreement with each other, within each generation anyway. We wanted stronger labor unions in the 1930's and 40's, because the Progressive era was marked by a growing awareness of worker's rights while Social Darwinist capital often resisted the movement. But Silents and Boomers had no memory of child factory workers dying in 1910, so they became increasingly cavalier about labor issues as time went on. By 1980, Losts and GIs couldn't stop Silents and Boomers from launching a full scale assault on the Progressive worker's rights movements.

    Since it was mostly Silents and Boomers who presided over reactionary economic policies over the last 40 years, it's fair to assign them responsibility for it. Many GIs were dead or retired by 1980, and Gen X often struggled to climb the ladder.

    that’s why since the late 70’s we’ve been attacking unions, de-regulating the market, cutting taxes for rich people, and de-fanging anti-trust enforcement.

    Unions acted very (make that VERY) badly in the run up to the anti-union movement.  When unionized unskilled workers were making more money than the intelligent AND hard-working engineers who created the things they merely put together, they created one fuckton of a lot of resentment.  Those engineers (and managers, and others) lost huge amounts of wealth to people of lesser accomplishment who often lived as well or better than they did.

    I saw this happen.  The pounding on unions, like the two-tier wage system for the UAW, was payback for the UAW’s abuses of the past.  The pendulum swung too far, and then it swung back.  Fucking deal with it.  And try not to repeat past mistakes.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Were unions perfect? No, of course not. Nothing is.

    But nobody in their right mind would seriously suggest that the corporate pork neo-liberal era of the last 40 years has been an overall positive, economically or socially. We now have massive levels of overt corruption, a massive excess of labor, lots of jobs that pay awful and give few or no benefits/pensions, massive inequality and so forth.

    I suppose that the nice thing about everything being so awful these days is that a lot of people no longer blow smoke about some things being so "bad" in the 60's and 70's. And to the extent that people still do this, nobody under the age of about 45 really is buying it.
  217. @anon
    The GOP doesn't care. They never cared about their voters. The party's leadership just wants to go back to being the respectable opposition that always loses gracefully so they can have nice, comfy jobs where they don't have to do any hard work. It's hard to do that when the corporate media you let become monopolized by the democrats calls you mean names all the time. The whole of conservatism is a racket aimed at extracting money from gullible donors while diverting the energies of their base into worthless debates like tax policy and economic theory.

    The GOP doesn’t care. They never cared about their voters. The party’s leadership just wants to go back to being the respectable opposition that always loses gracefully

    But they don’t always lose. Mostly they win. Over the past half century mainstream conservatives have won consistently. Your mistake is in not understanding what their actual objectives are. Their actual objectives have no connection to the things that the idiots who vote for them would like to see.

    Their actual objectives have been to cut taxes for the rich, make life easy for big business, drive wages down, destroy trade unions, demoralise the working class, encourage people to structure their lives around mindless consumption, to keep the masses happy by giving them trash entertainment and easy access to drugs and sex, to keep the money flowing to the military-industrial complex and to expand the American Empire.

    Mainstream conservatives have consistently achieved their objectives. They are not losers. They are winners. It’s just that their objectives are totally evil. They’re not weak or stupid. They’re smart and evil.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    That's an interesting point, and you've got me musing philosophically for a bit.

    I am prone to say that historically, only the Left wins, but in a certain other sense, the Right always wins also.

    Selfishness and greed - the Right - always win in a deep underlying sense, but moral vision always wins in a superficial public sense.

    Morality masking greed - what we have today - is the killer unstoppable combo.

    And a genuinely moral movement will always get coopted by greed. Always, over time.

    I suppose if the dissident Right wants to win, it must do two things - 1) craft a public moral persosa, which it is abysmally failing at 2) secretly ally with the powers of greed, find a way the "new world order" they envision will benefit them. And then voila everything will fall into place as if by magic.

    God!

    The deep underlying rules of the world, the more you understand them, makes you more and more lose interest in the whole thing.

    It seems genuine morality, not allied to greed, cannot win. However, maybe morality can make a sort of temporary detente with greed, a compromise, that results in periods of relative benignity.

    Of course they don't last, but a compromise with greed may be the best "paradise on earth" possible for humans.

    But one thing is for sure that we must come to terms on Earth with the powers of greed and selfishness - we cannot banish them, much as we like. No final victory is possible. We must coopt them and enlist them on our side by way of compromise - the devil must get his due on Earth, his domain after all.

    And Utopia may be just a period in which the powers of greed don't absolutely predominate.

    So much for our poor sad earth....

    And that is why our ultimate concern cannot be with this earth.
  218. @Feryl
    The most consistent gripe that X-ers (and later generations) have with Boomers is that they were suckered into "trickle down economics", yuppieism/consumerism, massive deficits, "free trade", and the like.

    We can debate cultural issues til the cows come home, but since cultural stuff is subjective, and moreover, not really germane to whether people can pay their bills or not, younger people instead have had a growing level of discontent with how their parents and/or grandparents were snookered starting in the 80's.

    Older generations took the generally comfortable economic conditions of the 1950's-1980's for granted, and thus they collectively had little reason to safeguard the policies that made them possible. In fact, these generations often complained that unions, government regulation, public ownership of things, anti-monopoly measures, and "confiscatory" taxes made life miserable. So that's why since the late 70's we've been attacking unions, de-regulating the market, cutting taxes for rich people, and de-fanging anti-trust enforcement.

    BTW, there was a lot more ideological harmony in America as recently as the late 80's. While the nature of the current and next ideological phase is fraught with uncertainty due to the current extreme division in America, pre-1990 was a different story. On economic issues, Americans from 1930-1990 largely were in agreement with each other, within each generation anyway. We wanted stronger labor unions in the 1930's and 40's, because the Progressive era was marked by a growing awareness of worker's rights while Social Darwinist capital often resisted the movement. But Silents and Boomers had no memory of child factory workers dying in 1910, so they became increasingly cavalier about labor issues as time went on. By 1980, Losts and GIs couldn't stop Silents and Boomers from launching a full scale assault on the Progressive worker's rights movements.

    Since it was mostly Silents and Boomers who presided over reactionary economic policies over the last 40 years, it's fair to assign them responsibility for it. Many GIs were dead or retired by 1980, and Gen X often struggled to climb the ladder.

    The most consistent gripe that X-ers (and later generations) have with Boomers is that they were suckered into “trickle down economics”, yuppieism/consumerism, massive deficits, “free trade”, and the like.

    The Boomers I used to know were old-fashioned leftists who supported the kinds of policies that you equate with the New Deal. They loathed yuppies. And amazingly enough they weren’t running the country so they had no control over the deficit. Most, being actual old-fashioned leftists, were suspicious of free trade.

    It’s almost as if generations were just vague meaningless abstractions with no connection to reality.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I know a Gen X-er with a Boomer dad, the latter of whom is a retired former auto worker. This guy has always told his son that the union for whom he worked was venal and a nuisance, and responsible for hurting the company's competitiveness and eventually causing off-shoring.

    Well, great, thanks to corporate apologist excuses most post-Boomers no longer have unionized private sector jobs.

    The Boomers I used to know were old-fashioned leftists who supported the kinds of policies that you equate with the New Deal. They loathed yuppies. And amazingly enough they weren’t running the country so they had no control over the deficit. Most, being actual old-fashioned leftists, were suspicious of free trade.
     
    What yer really describing is the last remnants of mid-century egalitarian culture. But this attitude pretty much declined every year after about 1975. Supposing that anti-elitism (and anti-corruption) sentiment was that high, it should've resulted in our leaders being put on notice that they better not dare sell us out. But, you see, by the late 70' s a not insubstantial number of Americans were beginning to resent unions and strong market controls. That's why so much "post-apocalyptic" culture began to be popularized around circa 1980; we knew that order and stability were slipping away, and collectively the masses felt impotent, knowing that they could not organize and mount any resistance to the looming corruption.

    I mean, the air-headed sentiment that business owners are always worth sympathy and excuses is something which most people would not have dared even speak in say, the early 1960's. But by 1980', there many prominent voices (who had a shameful number of apologists) pleading on behalf of Capital.
  219. anon[221] • Disclaimer says:

    “Older generations took the generally comfortable economic conditions of the 1950’s-1980’s for granted, and thus they collectively had little reason to safeguard the policies that made them possible.”

    That’s another reason why a UBI can never work in the current United States. Supporters naively think people who get a UBI will then have a strong incentive to police immigration in order to protect it, but what will actually happen is that short-sighted recipients will take it for granted/not understand how it works and eventually vote to extend it to everyone, including illegal aliens, in the belief that free money can simply fall from the sky forever. The democrats already want to do something like this with giving healthcare to illegals, so it’s not so much of a stretch. IMHO, the alt-right memelords discredited themselves once again by promoting Yang and his UBI. Not only were they naive about how the world works (as usual), but they also openly advertised the fact that they were willing to throw in the towel in exchange for a proverbial 30 pieces.

  220. @dfordoom

    The GOP doesn’t care. They never cared about their voters. The party’s leadership just wants to go back to being the respectable opposition that always loses gracefully
     
    But they don't always lose. Mostly they win. Over the past half century mainstream conservatives have won consistently. Your mistake is in not understanding what their actual objectives are. Their actual objectives have no connection to the things that the idiots who vote for them would like to see.

    Their actual objectives have been to cut taxes for the rich, make life easy for big business, drive wages down, destroy trade unions, demoralise the working class, encourage people to structure their lives around mindless consumption, to keep the masses happy by giving them trash entertainment and easy access to drugs and sex, to keep the money flowing to the military-industrial complex and to expand the American Empire.

    Mainstream conservatives have consistently achieved their objectives. They are not losers. They are winners. It's just that their objectives are totally evil. They're not weak or stupid. They're smart and evil.

    That’s an interesting point, and you’ve got me musing philosophically for a bit.

    I am prone to say that historically, only the Left wins, but in a certain other sense, the Right always wins also.

    Selfishness and greed – the Right – always win in a deep underlying sense, but moral vision always wins in a superficial public sense.

    Morality masking greed – what we have today – is the killer unstoppable combo.

    And a genuinely moral movement will always get coopted by greed. Always, over time.

    I suppose if the dissident Right wants to win, it must do two things – 1) craft a public moral persosa, which it is abysmally failing at 2) secretly ally with the powers of greed, find a way the “new world order” they envision will benefit them. And then voila everything will fall into place as if by magic.

    God!

    The deep underlying rules of the world, the more you understand them, makes you more and more lose interest in the whole thing.

    It seems genuine morality, not allied to greed, cannot win. However, maybe morality can make a sort of temporary detente with greed, a compromise, that results in periods of relative benignity.

    Of course they don’t last, but a compromise with greed may be the best “paradise on earth” possible for humans.

    But one thing is for sure that we must come to terms on Earth with the powers of greed and selfishness – we cannot banish them, much as we like. No final victory is possible. We must coopt them and enlist them on our side by way of compromise – the devil must get his due on Earth, his domain after all.

    And Utopia may be just a period in which the powers of greed don’t absolutely predominate.

    So much for our poor sad earth….

    And that is why our ultimate concern cannot be with this earth.

    • Replies: @iffen
    and you’ve got me musing philosophically for a bit.

    LOL

    Sorry, AaronB, I couldn't help myself.
  221. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    Perhaps.

    But then where has this sudden desire for personal autonomy and business careers come from? After all, for millennia women had neither of these things, so desire for them could not have been selected for.

    Yet these Japanese women, when allowed to choose, suddenly manifest a burning desire for things that could not have been selected for.

    I love it when white men who avoid all types of non-whites and non-men act surprised when they find out that colored people and women desire personal autonomy.

    Desire for personal autonomy is the human default. It’s not just something that white men desire. Everybody wants personal autonomy. You white nationalist types would understand this if you didn’t avoid women and colored folk like the plague.

    This is why black American slaves ran away from their slave owners. It didn’t matter that they were fed and housed, and that they were given daily directions in how to work and live their lives. Almost 100% of black Americans would prefer the freedom to make their own mistakes and to live their own chaotic lives. They don’t want orderly, mistake free lives if it means cosntantly having to obey some overlord with 100% life or death control over them.

    It’s the same reason why British India, and the black African/Caribbean colonies fought for independence. They are poorer, and their government systems are more chaotic, but they are happier. I understand it. Almost everyone would prefer to be poor and free than a fed and housed slave.

    It is 100000x better to be a white American woman than it is to be a Saudi woman, who is legally considered a minor her entire life. Who can’t drive, can’t leave the house without her husband or father, and can’t work or go to university without their permission.

    Just because someone doesn’t show outward signs of wanting personal autonomy, doesn’t mean they don’t want it. Japanese women, like all other human subgroups, have probably wanted personal autonomy from the beginning. It’s just that they were not allowed to say it until the late 20th century.

    As for “business careers”. Most women pursue them out of necessity, or perceived necessity. There is a minority of women who really do enjoy them. You need to accept that each bellcurve has a standard deviation. Just because the AVERAGE woman wants to be married, have 2 kids, and have a part time job, doesn’t mean that all do. It’s not feminism, or liberalism, it’s just nature. Not all women want marriage and kids. Not all women are heterosexual. Not all women love babies.

    In the 2019 economy, most women are correct to pursue business careers out of necessity. Economic conditions don’t favor women who drop out of the workforce at age 25 to become a full time housewife. It only works these days for women whose fathers or husbands are UC. Even UMC families can no longer afford a stay at home wife like they could in the 80s and 90s.

    • Troll: L Woods
    • Replies: @Anounder

    It’s the same reason why British India, and the black African/Caribbean colonies fought for independence. They are poorer, and their government systems are more chaotic, but they are happier. I understand it. Almost everyone would prefer to be poor and free than a fed and housed slave.
     
    Decolonization was dependent on the work Euros and/or Non-Whites who studied Euro learning.

    It is 100000x better to be a white American woman than it is to be a Saudi woman, who is legally considered a minor her entire life. Who can’t drive, can’t leave the house without her husband or father, and can’t work or go to university without their permission.
     
    White American women outside of the likes of Amish don't breed within their own kind. Saudi women do, and report just as much satisfaction with how they live as Muricans do at the least.

    Just because someone doesn’t show outward signs of wanting personal autonomy, doesn’t mean they don’t want it. Japanese women, like all other human subgroups, have probably wanted personal autonomy from the beginning. It’s just that they were not allowed to say it until the late 20th century.
     
    And the Japanese have the lowest births of any notable county. Filled with feral sluts for women and the chodes they despise.
    , @Anounder
    You're an obvious liberal. Just read the posts in this account:

    https://twitter.com/TAJackson20
  222. @AaronB
    That's an interesting point, and you've got me musing philosophically for a bit.

    I am prone to say that historically, only the Left wins, but in a certain other sense, the Right always wins also.

    Selfishness and greed - the Right - always win in a deep underlying sense, but moral vision always wins in a superficial public sense.

    Morality masking greed - what we have today - is the killer unstoppable combo.

    And a genuinely moral movement will always get coopted by greed. Always, over time.

    I suppose if the dissident Right wants to win, it must do two things - 1) craft a public moral persosa, which it is abysmally failing at 2) secretly ally with the powers of greed, find a way the "new world order" they envision will benefit them. And then voila everything will fall into place as if by magic.

    God!

    The deep underlying rules of the world, the more you understand them, makes you more and more lose interest in the whole thing.

    It seems genuine morality, not allied to greed, cannot win. However, maybe morality can make a sort of temporary detente with greed, a compromise, that results in periods of relative benignity.

    Of course they don't last, but a compromise with greed may be the best "paradise on earth" possible for humans.

    But one thing is for sure that we must come to terms on Earth with the powers of greed and selfishness - we cannot banish them, much as we like. No final victory is possible. We must coopt them and enlist them on our side by way of compromise - the devil must get his due on Earth, his domain after all.

    And Utopia may be just a period in which the powers of greed don't absolutely predominate.

    So much for our poor sad earth....

    And that is why our ultimate concern cannot be with this earth.

    and you’ve got me musing philosophically for a bit.

    LOL

    Sorry, AaronB, I couldn’t help myself.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I've cone to think if you as the Great Hater of Spirituality.

    The pattern with you is that whenever I discuss spirituality, you pop up and make some sarcastic, petty, snide, low level attack.

    Its like you see your duty as trying to suppress any revolt against materialism or desire for higher truth.

    I find this so emblematic of our predicament - a 69 year old classic old school white dude, classic white heterosexual old white Southern male, who is implacably hostile to any higher truth and tries his best to bring everyone down to materialism, and uses snide, petty sarcasm whenever he encounters something "higher".

    It reminds of why, as grotesque as things have become, that old white Western European culture had to be destroyed - or more correctly put, why it was already dead.
  223. @iffen
    and you’ve got me musing philosophically for a bit.

    LOL

    Sorry, AaronB, I couldn't help myself.

    I’ve cone to think if you as the Great Hater of Spirituality.

    The pattern with you is that whenever I discuss spirituality, you pop up and make some sarcastic, petty, snide, low level attack.

    Its like you see your duty as trying to suppress any revolt against materialism or desire for higher truth.

    I find this so emblematic of our predicament – a 69 year old classic old school white dude, classic white heterosexual old white Southern male, who is implacably hostile to any higher truth and tries his best to bring everyone down to materialism, and uses snide, petty sarcasm whenever he encounters something “higher”.

    It reminds of why, as grotesque as things have become, that old white Western European culture had to be destroyed – or more correctly put, why it was already dead.

    • Replies: @iffen
    low level attack.

    Low level?

    Its like you see your duty as trying to suppress any revolt against materialism or desire for higher truth.

    But materialism is the higher truth. If you were a materialist you would understand that morality is a biological and cultural human trait shaped by evolution to facilitate the survival of the group. If you understood this you would not be so discombobulated by the existence of greed.

    I find this so emblematic of our predicament – a 69 year old classic old school white dude, classic white heterosexual old white Southern male, who is implacably hostile to any higher truth and tries his best to bring everyone down to materialism, and uses snide, petty sarcasm whenever he encounters something “higher”.

    The number of "olds" is hurtful. As for "higher," see the above.

    I sincerely apologize for using you for my entertainment (especially after I said that I would stop). I can see that you are in some sort of spiritual crises and I do not wish to add to it. This can happen when "spiritual types" have run themselves ragged trying to find the "right" one.

    I would like for you to remember that Nazis and neo-Nazis do not have a sense of humor so please try and regain yours.

    Happy Trails!
  224. @AaronB
    I've cone to think if you as the Great Hater of Spirituality.

    The pattern with you is that whenever I discuss spirituality, you pop up and make some sarcastic, petty, snide, low level attack.

    Its like you see your duty as trying to suppress any revolt against materialism or desire for higher truth.

    I find this so emblematic of our predicament - a 69 year old classic old school white dude, classic white heterosexual old white Southern male, who is implacably hostile to any higher truth and tries his best to bring everyone down to materialism, and uses snide, petty sarcasm whenever he encounters something "higher".

    It reminds of why, as grotesque as things have become, that old white Western European culture had to be destroyed - or more correctly put, why it was already dead.

    low level attack.

    Low level?

    Its like you see your duty as trying to suppress any revolt against materialism or desire for higher truth.

    But materialism is the higher truth. If you were a materialist you would understand that morality is a biological and cultural human trait shaped by evolution to facilitate the survival of the group. If you understood this you would not be so discombobulated by the existence of greed.

    I find this so emblematic of our predicament – a 69 year old classic old school white dude, classic white heterosexual old white Southern male, who is implacably hostile to any higher truth and tries his best to bring everyone down to materialism, and uses snide, petty sarcasm whenever he encounters something “higher”.

    The number of “olds” is hurtful. As for “higher,” see the above.

    I sincerely apologize for using you for my entertainment (especially after I said that I would stop). I can see that you are in some sort of spiritual crises and I do not wish to add to it. This can happen when “spiritual types” have run themselves ragged trying to find the “right” one.

    I would like for you to remember that Nazis and neo-Nazis do not have a sense of humor so please try and regain yours.

    Happy Trails!

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  225. @dfordoom

    The most consistent gripe that X-ers (and later generations) have with Boomers is that they were suckered into “trickle down economics”, yuppieism/consumerism, massive deficits, “free trade”, and the like.
     
    The Boomers I used to know were old-fashioned leftists who supported the kinds of policies that you equate with the New Deal. They loathed yuppies. And amazingly enough they weren't running the country so they had no control over the deficit. Most, being actual old-fashioned leftists, were suspicious of free trade.

    It's almost as if generations were just vague meaningless abstractions with no connection to reality.

    I know a Gen X-er with a Boomer dad, the latter of whom is a retired former auto worker. This guy has always told his son that the union for whom he worked was venal and a nuisance, and responsible for hurting the company’s competitiveness and eventually causing off-shoring.

    Well, great, thanks to corporate apologist excuses most post-Boomers no longer have unionized private sector jobs.

    The Boomers I used to know were old-fashioned leftists who supported the kinds of policies that you equate with the New Deal. They loathed yuppies. And amazingly enough they weren’t running the country so they had no control over the deficit. Most, being actual old-fashioned leftists, were suspicious of free trade.

    What yer really describing is the last remnants of mid-century egalitarian culture. But this attitude pretty much declined every year after about 1975. Supposing that anti-elitism (and anti-corruption) sentiment was that high, it should’ve resulted in our leaders being put on notice that they better not dare sell us out. But, you see, by the late 70′ s a not insubstantial number of Americans were beginning to resent unions and strong market controls. That’s why so much “post-apocalyptic” culture began to be popularized around circa 1980; we knew that order and stability were slipping away, and collectively the masses felt impotent, knowing that they could not organize and mount any resistance to the looming corruption.

    I mean, the air-headed sentiment that business owners are always worth sympathy and excuses is something which most people would not have dared even speak in say, the early 1960’s. But by 1980′, there many prominent voices (who had a shameful number of apologists) pleading on behalf of Capital.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But, you see, by the late 70′ s a not insubstantial number of Americans were beginning to resent unions and strong market controls
     
    I don't think that's what happened at all. What actually happened was that a not insubstantial number of capitalists, large and small, were beginning to resent unions and strong market controls. They took steps to destroy the unions. Their first step was to launch a campaign of vilification against unions. And they took more direct steps, pushing the tame politicians they owned to destroy the unions.

    Ordinary people had nothing to do with it.

    the air-headed sentiment that business owners are always worth sympathy and excuses is something which most people would not have dared even speak in say, the early 1960’s. But by 1980′, there many prominent voices (who had a shameful number of apologists) pleading on behalf of Capital.
     
    Agreed. The corporate sector wanted a more favourable environment in which to operate, an environment that favoured greed, and they took steps to get. Largely by making sure that media treatment of business was suitably worshipful.

    Again, ordinary people had nothing to do with it.
  226. @Mr. Rational

    that’s why since the late 70’s we’ve been attacking unions, de-regulating the market, cutting taxes for rich people, and de-fanging anti-trust enforcement.
     
    Unions acted very (make that VERY) badly in the run up to the anti-union movement.  When unionized unskilled workers were making more money than the intelligent AND hard-working engineers who created the things they merely put together, they created one fuckton of a lot of resentment.  Those engineers (and managers, and others) lost huge amounts of wealth to people of lesser accomplishment who often lived as well or better than they did.

    I saw this happen.  The pounding on unions, like the two-tier wage system for the UAW, was payback for the UAW's abuses of the past.  The pendulum swung too far, and then it swung back.  Fucking deal with it.  And try not to repeat past mistakes.

    Were unions perfect? No, of course not. Nothing is.

    But nobody in their right mind would seriously suggest that the corporate pork neo-liberal era of the last 40 years has been an overall positive, economically or socially. We now have massive levels of overt corruption, a massive excess of labor, lots of jobs that pay awful and give few or no benefits/pensions, massive inequality and so forth.

    I suppose that the nice thing about everything being so awful these days is that a lot of people no longer blow smoke about some things being so “bad” in the 60’s and 70’s. And to the extent that people still do this, nobody under the age of about 45 really is buying it.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    nobody in their right mind would seriously suggest that the corporate pork neo-liberal era of the last 40 years has been an overall positive, economically or socially.
     
    I will be the last to argue that there aren't a whole bunch of ways to strip-mine or just destroy entire industries, and that plutocratic vampires aren't one of them.  But after watching the UAW strip-mine the Big Three for decades so they and especially their union honchos could live like fatcats for doing unskilled work, shortchanging the innovation required to keep pace with the likes of Japan (how do you think we got all these Japanese auto plants in the USA?), I have to say that excessively empowered (and entitled, because black) labor is deadly all by itself.
  227. @Audacious Epigone
    Regarding the cycles too, the more immigrants from way, way beyond the English-speaking world we have here, the less their whole theme means anything.

    I've long appreciated the generational lens Feryl views things through. It's certainly opened my eyes to things I hadn't noticed before. But this is the biggest reservation I have about its future utility. Boomers are pre-1965 America--90% white, 10% black--while Zoomers are "majority-minority".

    The ’65 immigration act wasn’t phased in until 1968.

    The main reason younger generations are so diverse is due to the twin factors of native fertility collapsing around 1970, while immigration levels were going up a lot by the Carter Admin. Had immigration remained at New Deal era levels, America would’ve ended up, by 2010, with 3 Boomers for every Gen X-ers, and 2.25 Boomers for every Millennial. Now eventually, with the Boomer die off, American would’ve begun having a lot of kids again. For that matter, native birth rates in the late 80’s and 90’s probably would’ve been higher also, after the understandable fall in births of the mid-60’s-early 80’s (America’s population back then was so young, we didn’t need anymore kids).

    I’ve long appreciated the generational lens Feryl views things through. It’s certainly opened my eyes to things I hadn’t noticed before. But this is the biggest reservation I have about its future utility. Boomers are pre-1965 America–90% white, 10% black–while Zoomers are “majority-minority”.

    I’d argue that the racial homogeneity of Boomers actually validates generational differences. Why? Because the Boomers are so individualistic, experimental, and ideologically diverse, compared to other generations. In other words, the circumstances of our experiences (be they social, economic, political, or spiritual) exert some kind of effect on us, no matter what demographic we fall into.

    It’s been noted that a lot of underclass Millennials resent the notion that they got the soccer mom white suburban upbringing that some Millennials got in the 90’s. However, that would suggest that some “minorities” are trying to act as if everyone in their ethnic group has the same experience one generation after another. Golly, judging from the state of political and cultural affiars across the world, it’s just a tad…..Improbable, to suggest that many ethnic groups are denied unique generation forming experiences (the ethnic ID politics angle is clearly an attempt to downplay generational angles lest people think that something besides ethnicity actually matters).

    I’ll give you that jungle dwelling pre-historic people (like Adamandan Islanders) never deal with generational cycles, but I think other ethnic groups do. Even many tribes of Sub-Saharan Africans.

    Let’s face it, why do you ever feel…..Uncomfortable around strangers who are 20, 30, 40 years older than you are, even if they share your race or regional background? It’s a lot easier to approach a stranger from your generation, because you have a shared set of psychologically important formative events, and practices. With that similarity comes a certain level of kinship and camaraderie.

    Part of what motivated by Strauss and Howe was the history of many cultures openly acknowledging the creation of one generation and the death of another. It was often observed that one generation seemed to consciously reject the mores and objectives of another, for better or for worse. And indeed, some generations seemed to be particularly wistful in older age, as they understood that the world they built or wanted to build, was being undone by youngster who did not share the same vision.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Let’s face it, why do you ever feel…..Uncomfortable around strangers who are 20, 30, 40 years older than you are, even if they share your race or regional background?

    I get some mileage out of that, but not as much as I suspect you do. What about someone my age who doesn't speak English well if at all? Hard to relate to that.
  228. @Feryl
    I know a Gen X-er with a Boomer dad, the latter of whom is a retired former auto worker. This guy has always told his son that the union for whom he worked was venal and a nuisance, and responsible for hurting the company's competitiveness and eventually causing off-shoring.

    Well, great, thanks to corporate apologist excuses most post-Boomers no longer have unionized private sector jobs.

    The Boomers I used to know were old-fashioned leftists who supported the kinds of policies that you equate with the New Deal. They loathed yuppies. And amazingly enough they weren’t running the country so they had no control over the deficit. Most, being actual old-fashioned leftists, were suspicious of free trade.
     
    What yer really describing is the last remnants of mid-century egalitarian culture. But this attitude pretty much declined every year after about 1975. Supposing that anti-elitism (and anti-corruption) sentiment was that high, it should've resulted in our leaders being put on notice that they better not dare sell us out. But, you see, by the late 70' s a not insubstantial number of Americans were beginning to resent unions and strong market controls. That's why so much "post-apocalyptic" culture began to be popularized around circa 1980; we knew that order and stability were slipping away, and collectively the masses felt impotent, knowing that they could not organize and mount any resistance to the looming corruption.

    I mean, the air-headed sentiment that business owners are always worth sympathy and excuses is something which most people would not have dared even speak in say, the early 1960's. But by 1980', there many prominent voices (who had a shameful number of apologists) pleading on behalf of Capital.

    But, you see, by the late 70′ s a not insubstantial number of Americans were beginning to resent unions and strong market controls

    I don’t think that’s what happened at all. What actually happened was that a not insubstantial number of capitalists, large and small, were beginning to resent unions and strong market controls. They took steps to destroy the unions. Their first step was to launch a campaign of vilification against unions. And they took more direct steps, pushing the tame politicians they owned to destroy the unions.

    Ordinary people had nothing to do with it.

    the air-headed sentiment that business owners are always worth sympathy and excuses is something which most people would not have dared even speak in say, the early 1960’s. But by 1980′, there many prominent voices (who had a shameful number of apologists) pleading on behalf of Capital.

    Agreed. The corporate sector wanted a more favourable environment in which to operate, an environment that favoured greed, and they took steps to get. Largely by making sure that media treatment of business was suitably worshipful.

    Again, ordinary people had nothing to do with it.

  229. @Anonymous
    I love it when white men who avoid all types of non-whites and non-men act surprised when they find out that colored people and women desire personal autonomy.

    Desire for personal autonomy is the human default. It's not just something that white men desire. Everybody wants personal autonomy. You white nationalist types would understand this if you didn't avoid women and colored folk like the plague.

    This is why black American slaves ran away from their slave owners. It didn't matter that they were fed and housed, and that they were given daily directions in how to work and live their lives. Almost 100% of black Americans would prefer the freedom to make their own mistakes and to live their own chaotic lives. They don't want orderly, mistake free lives if it means cosntantly having to obey some overlord with 100% life or death control over them.

    It's the same reason why British India, and the black African/Caribbean colonies fought for independence. They are poorer, and their government systems are more chaotic, but they are happier. I understand it. Almost everyone would prefer to be poor and free than a fed and housed slave.

    It is 100000x better to be a white American woman than it is to be a Saudi woman, who is legally considered a minor her entire life. Who can't drive, can't leave the house without her husband or father, and can't work or go to university without their permission.

    Just because someone doesn't show outward signs of wanting personal autonomy, doesn't mean they don't want it. Japanese women, like all other human subgroups, have probably wanted personal autonomy from the beginning. It's just that they were not allowed to say it until the late 20th century.

    As for "business careers". Most women pursue them out of necessity, or perceived necessity. There is a minority of women who really do enjoy them. You need to accept that each bellcurve has a standard deviation. Just because the AVERAGE woman wants to be married, have 2 kids, and have a part time job, doesn't mean that all do. It's not feminism, or liberalism, it's just nature. Not all women want marriage and kids. Not all women are heterosexual. Not all women love babies.

    In the 2019 economy, most women are correct to pursue business careers out of necessity. Economic conditions don't favor women who drop out of the workforce at age 25 to become a full time housewife. It only works these days for women whose fathers or husbands are UC. Even UMC families can no longer afford a stay at home wife like they could in the 80s and 90s.

    It’s the same reason why British India, and the black African/Caribbean colonies fought for independence. They are poorer, and their government systems are more chaotic, but they are happier. I understand it. Almost everyone would prefer to be poor and free than a fed and housed slave.

    Decolonization was dependent on the work Euros and/or Non-Whites who studied Euro learning.

    It is 100000x better to be a white American woman than it is to be a Saudi woman, who is legally considered a minor her entire life. Who can’t drive, can’t leave the house without her husband or father, and can’t work or go to university without their permission.

    White American women outside of the likes of Amish don’t breed within their own kind. Saudi women do, and report just as much satisfaction with how they live as Muricans do at the least.

    Just because someone doesn’t show outward signs of wanting personal autonomy, doesn’t mean they don’t want it. Japanese women, like all other human subgroups, have probably wanted personal autonomy from the beginning. It’s just that they were not allowed to say it until the late 20th century.

    And the Japanese have the lowest births of any notable county. Filled with feral sluts for women and the chodes they despise.

  230. @AaronB
    So the disease has hit Japan...I wonder if in the next decade or so, Japan will begin to experience obesity as all aspects of its traditional culture erode.

    What is shocking here are the comments by Americans - most celebrating that Japanese women are no longer marrying.

    This is clearly a worldwide cultural issue with economic cost of family formation having little to with it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/world/asia/japan-single-women-marriage.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

    Modern Man doesn’t want to live. But he’s afraid to die. He’s living through the world after God’s death.

  231. @Anonymous
    I love it when white men who avoid all types of non-whites and non-men act surprised when they find out that colored people and women desire personal autonomy.

    Desire for personal autonomy is the human default. It's not just something that white men desire. Everybody wants personal autonomy. You white nationalist types would understand this if you didn't avoid women and colored folk like the plague.

    This is why black American slaves ran away from their slave owners. It didn't matter that they were fed and housed, and that they were given daily directions in how to work and live their lives. Almost 100% of black Americans would prefer the freedom to make their own mistakes and to live their own chaotic lives. They don't want orderly, mistake free lives if it means cosntantly having to obey some overlord with 100% life or death control over them.

    It's the same reason why British India, and the black African/Caribbean colonies fought for independence. They are poorer, and their government systems are more chaotic, but they are happier. I understand it. Almost everyone would prefer to be poor and free than a fed and housed slave.

    It is 100000x better to be a white American woman than it is to be a Saudi woman, who is legally considered a minor her entire life. Who can't drive, can't leave the house without her husband or father, and can't work or go to university without their permission.

    Just because someone doesn't show outward signs of wanting personal autonomy, doesn't mean they don't want it. Japanese women, like all other human subgroups, have probably wanted personal autonomy from the beginning. It's just that they were not allowed to say it until the late 20th century.

    As for "business careers". Most women pursue them out of necessity, or perceived necessity. There is a minority of women who really do enjoy them. You need to accept that each bellcurve has a standard deviation. Just because the AVERAGE woman wants to be married, have 2 kids, and have a part time job, doesn't mean that all do. It's not feminism, or liberalism, it's just nature. Not all women want marriage and kids. Not all women are heterosexual. Not all women love babies.

    In the 2019 economy, most women are correct to pursue business careers out of necessity. Economic conditions don't favor women who drop out of the workforce at age 25 to become a full time housewife. It only works these days for women whose fathers or husbands are UC. Even UMC families can no longer afford a stay at home wife like they could in the 80s and 90s.

    You’re an obvious liberal. Just read the posts in this account:

  232. GOP has stood for “Greedy Oblivious Pussies” for decades now.

  233. @Feryl
    Were unions perfect? No, of course not. Nothing is.

    But nobody in their right mind would seriously suggest that the corporate pork neo-liberal era of the last 40 years has been an overall positive, economically or socially. We now have massive levels of overt corruption, a massive excess of labor, lots of jobs that pay awful and give few or no benefits/pensions, massive inequality and so forth.

    I suppose that the nice thing about everything being so awful these days is that a lot of people no longer blow smoke about some things being so "bad" in the 60's and 70's. And to the extent that people still do this, nobody under the age of about 45 really is buying it.

    nobody in their right mind would seriously suggest that the corporate pork neo-liberal era of the last 40 years has been an overall positive, economically or socially.

    I will be the last to argue that there aren’t a whole bunch of ways to strip-mine or just destroy entire industries, and that plutocratic vampires aren’t one of them.  But after watching the UAW strip-mine the Big Three for decades so they and especially their union honchos could live like fatcats for doing unskilled work, shortchanging the innovation required to keep pace with the likes of Japan (how do you think we got all these Japanese auto plants in the USA?), I have to say that excessively empowered (and entitled, because black) labor is deadly all by itself.

  234. @Feryl
    The '65 immigration act wasn't phased in until 1968.

    The main reason younger generations are so diverse is due to the twin factors of native fertility collapsing around 1970, while immigration levels were going up a lot by the Carter Admin. Had immigration remained at New Deal era levels, America would've ended up, by 2010, with 3 Boomers for every Gen X-ers, and 2.25 Boomers for every Millennial. Now eventually, with the Boomer die off, American would've begun having a lot of kids again. For that matter, native birth rates in the late 80's and 90's probably would've been higher also, after the understandable fall in births of the mid-60's-early 80's (America's population back then was so young, we didn't need anymore kids).

    I’ve long appreciated the generational lens Feryl views things through. It’s certainly opened my eyes to things I hadn’t noticed before. But this is the biggest reservation I have about its future utility. Boomers are pre-1965 America–90% white, 10% black–while Zoomers are “majority-minority”.
     
    I'd argue that the racial homogeneity of Boomers actually validates generational differences. Why? Because the Boomers are so individualistic, experimental, and ideologically diverse, compared to other generations. In other words, the circumstances of our experiences (be they social, economic, political, or spiritual) exert some kind of effect on us, no matter what demographic we fall into.

    It's been noted that a lot of underclass Millennials resent the notion that they got the soccer mom white suburban upbringing that some Millennials got in the 90's. However, that would suggest that some "minorities" are trying to act as if everyone in their ethnic group has the same experience one generation after another. Golly, judging from the state of political and cultural affiars across the world, it's just a tad.....Improbable, to suggest that many ethnic groups are denied unique generation forming experiences (the ethnic ID politics angle is clearly an attempt to downplay generational angles lest people think that something besides ethnicity actually matters).

    I'll give you that jungle dwelling pre-historic people (like Adamandan Islanders) never deal with generational cycles, but I think other ethnic groups do. Even many tribes of Sub-Saharan Africans.

    Let's face it, why do you ever feel.....Uncomfortable around strangers who are 20, 30, 40 years older than you are, even if they share your race or regional background? It's a lot easier to approach a stranger from your generation, because you have a shared set of psychologically important formative events, and practices. With that similarity comes a certain level of kinship and camaraderie.

    Part of what motivated by Strauss and Howe was the history of many cultures openly acknowledging the creation of one generation and the death of another. It was often observed that one generation seemed to consciously reject the mores and objectives of another, for better or for worse. And indeed, some generations seemed to be particularly wistful in older age, as they understood that the world they built or wanted to build, was being undone by youngster who did not share the same vision.

    Let’s face it, why do you ever feel…..Uncomfortable around strangers who are 20, 30, 40 years older than you are, even if they share your race or regional background?

    I get some mileage out of that, but not as much as I suspect you do. What about someone my age who doesn’t speak English well if at all? Hard to relate to that.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS