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
Immigration Still a Winner
🔊 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

From the GSS:

Democrats and independents who voted for Trump in 2016 were almost as restrictionist as Republicans who voted for him. Non-Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton were split down the middle on immigration, so Trump’s putatively hardline restrictionist stance doesn’t look like it’s what turned most of them away. And 2016 campaign Clinton was, at least rhetorically, considerably more restrictionist than any of the 20+ Democrat candidates for 2020 are, all of whom want to decriminalize illegal border crossings and provide literally anyone in the entire world free healthcare if they are able to make it to a hospital waiting room.

A recent Harvard-Harris poll finds that 64% of respondents oppose opening up the southern border to additional immigrants while 36% are in favor. Independents oppose it by a 2-to-1 margin. The same poll finds a slight majority favoring president Trump both declaring a state of emergency and building the wall, 52% to 48%.

Though the GOP establishment does everything it can to avoid action on immigration for putative political reasons, the reality is immigration restrictionism is more popular than the Republican party is. Trump’s (alleged) desire to stop the influx is similarly more popular than he is.

GSS variables used: LETIN1A, PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6), PRES16(1)(2)

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Election 2020, GSS, Polling 
Hide 69 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. semi ON-topic:

    From CNN: The inside story of how a kosher meat kingpin won clemency under Trump
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/politics/kushner-rubashkin-trump-clemency/index.html

    spoiler alert: “Jewish White Privilege”

    “It was Kushner, they say, who brought the Rubashkin case up to a dispassionate Trump several times in the summer and fall of 2017, before finally persuading him to make what would be his first commutation and only his second act of clemency.”

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
    The full, ugly Agriprocessors story

    https://www.craignelsen.com/library/agriprocessors-a_blight_upon_the_land.php
  2. Hit this issue repeatedly – there’s not much evidence it’s motivating latinos to vote in larger numbers for Democrats and Trump is going to be relentlessly attacked as a racist no matter what. He just has to be himself and stick to issues like this that actually work, regardless of the endless parade of stories from NYT and WaPo warning it could cost him.

    Meanwhile, every single one of the Democrats is still trying to decide what their costume is going to be, and people will pick up on that. Witness the shameless lying about Michael Brown over the past 24 hours.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  3. Yes, it’s still a winner, but so what? I mean, while Trump is likely to be reelected he hasn’t shown the least bit interest in doing anything substantial in building that “Big Beautiful Wall!” – beyond talking about it. Nor has he sealed the border as he promised. Or brought an end to Anchor Baby citizenship. And he has gone back on his word to Second Amendment rights people when he speaks at NRA conventions and says, “I will never let you down!” but then goes on to ban bump stocks and lobbies to raise the age restriction on long guns from 18 to 21. Now he is again talking about Red Flag laws. Well, isn’t that just peachy-keen.

    “I like taking guns away early … Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
    — Trump, within two week after the Parkland Shooting.

    Bruh-ther!

    But the Republican Party will not countenance the idea of running anyone in opposition to Trump, and his loyal supporters would bolt if he were to fail to get the nomination the second time around – as they threatened to do in 2016 when talk of convention delegates voting for a better man was in the air.

    No, we’re sunk. Or very nearly. Short of another Great Awakening we are probably witnessing the end of Western Civilization.

    Sorry if that comes off sounding like a downer. I just don’t see how this is good news. It’s depressing news.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Gun rights are fucked

    Americans wouldn't even resist someone just showing up asking for guns, let alone vague threats. Its just not worth it to most to sacrifice our long struggled family safety and livelihood over.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I've done a lot of competitive card gaming in my life. As is par for the course, I've often found myself in situations where I have no way out unless my opponent commits an error. In those situations, the only thing I can do is maximize the opportunity for my opponent to make a mistake. Sometimes they do.
  4. No, we’re sunk. Or very nearly. Short of another Great Awakening we are probably witnessing the end of Western Civilization.

    “Western Civilization” can go straight to Hell. I’ll fight to advance the interests of European Christendom.

    If Jeffrey Epstein and George W Bush and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and Joe Biden and Al Gore and Dick Cheney represent so-called “Western Civilization,” then I say let it all go.

    When Jesse Jackson has his next Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civ Has Got To Go march, I’ll join in as long as it is catered by that Southern Black style restaurant called Sylvia’s in upper Manhattan. I’ll be the marcher waving the European Christendom Now placard.

  5. OT

    Proof that God loves his conspiracy theorists, especially those at the UR.

    Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein found dead by suicide in NYC jail

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    Proof that God loves his conspiracy theorists, especially those at the UR.

    Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein found dead by suicide in NYC jail
     
    More a proof that God loves conspiracies, I'd say. No way should Epstein have been able to commit suicide considering the last few days' emphasis on the likelihood that he would. It's a move so dazzling in its audacity that the account given is very unlikely to be accepted by the general public.

    And, zing, there goes another chunk of legitimacy.

    Counterinsurgency
    , @Audacious Epigone
    If assuming there is something fishy about that "suicide"--I can't even type it without quotes-- makes one a conspiracy theorist, then we're all conspiracy theorists now.
    , @Rosie

    Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein found dead by suicide in NYC jail.
     
    https://media.giphy.com/media/qiiEJt7U7UCmA/giphy.gif
  6. I have to say, I underestimated the GOPe’s fortitude in fighting Trump on immigration. They are truly impressive. They’ve dug in their heels now for 3 years and have given him nothing. I do think Trump wanted to do something about this problem. You can’t fake his Angel Mom press conferences — and there were many of them. And if he did fake them, well then he’s the most impressive of them all.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    People are aware that Trump was very anti-second amendment up in New York and only shifted his views for the GOP base? That said until these recent batches of recent studies it was believed Trump lost more by going conservative instead of the liberal Republican. This isn't true.

    The thing is immigration has never been his real motivation, his most consistent view since the 80s has been trade and the unfair practices of China. Which he is actually doing an amazing job on protecting u.s superprofits and thus hegemony from China.

    Its just that by making immigration the #1 vocal issue its made open-borders the solution to Trumpism. Guarantee the next Democrat President will let in more illegals in a term than every President since Carter combined and after that whites will be a useless political thought
  7. @Bragadocious
    I have to say, I underestimated the GOPe's fortitude in fighting Trump on immigration. They are truly impressive. They've dug in their heels now for 3 years and have given him nothing. I do think Trump wanted to do something about this problem. You can't fake his Angel Mom press conferences -- and there were many of them. And if he did fake them, well then he's the most impressive of them all.

    People are aware that Trump was very anti-second amendment up in New York and only shifted his views for the GOP base? That said until these recent batches of recent studies it was believed Trump lost more by going conservative instead of the liberal Republican. This isn’t true.

    The thing is immigration has never been his real motivation, his most consistent view since the 80s has been trade and the unfair practices of China. Which he is actually doing an amazing job on protecting u.s superprofits and thus hegemony from China.

    Its just that by making immigration the #1 vocal issue its made open-borders the solution to Trumpism. Guarantee the next Democrat President will let in more illegals in a term than every President since Carter combined and after that whites will be a useless political thought

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Trump historically is a nationalist on economic issues. Cultural issues (which guns are) have always been far down his to-do list. But given that the Reaganite GOP has only ever come to play on just two wholesome issues (guns and abortion), while actively back-stabbing on us everything else (or rather, front stabbing on some issues like global trade), it's safe to say that Trump is not a "real Republican".

    Would you rather have moderate quality leadership on a handful of cultural issues, or economic and political sovereignty?
  8. @95Theses
    Yes, it’s still a winner, but so what? I mean, while Trump is likely to be reelected he hasn’t shown the least bit interest in doing anything substantial in building that “Big Beautiful Wall!” – beyond talking about it. Nor has he sealed the border as he promised. Or brought an end to Anchor Baby citizenship. And he has gone back on his word to Second Amendment rights people when he speaks at NRA conventions and says, “I will never let you down!” but then goes on to ban bump stocks and lobbies to raise the age restriction on long guns from 18 to 21. Now he is again talking about Red Flag laws. Well, isn’t that just peachy-keen.

    “I like taking guns away early ... Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
    — Trump, within two week after the Parkland Shooting.
     
    Bruh-ther!

    But the Republican Party will not countenance the idea of running anyone in opposition to Trump, and his loyal supporters would bolt if he were to fail to get the nomination the second time around – as they threatened to do in 2016 when talk of convention delegates voting for a better man was in the air.

    No, we’re sunk. Or very nearly. Short of another Great Awakening we are probably witnessing the end of Western Civilization.

    Sorry if that comes off sounding like a downer. I just don’t see how this is good news. It’s depressing news.

    Gun rights are fucked

    Americans wouldn’t even resist someone just showing up asking for guns, let alone vague threats. Its just not worth it to most to sacrifice our long struggled family safety and livelihood over.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Well, if the hippies and Reaganites hadn't been such miserable failures at keeping track of the mentally ill, I'm sure there would be less mass shootings. Furthermore, the Reaganites promoted police statism (creeping surveillance, ripping away the rights of criminals and the accused, mass incarceration) all along, so no surprise how easily this reactionary abuse of power and authority can transform into gun-grabbing.

    The reactionary turn of the last 40-50 years has led to growing loss of intellectual and cultural freedom for the mentally and socially well-adjusted, while also encouraging elites to be corrupt and abusive. Because we now do such a poor job of reining in the most malajdusted people in the lower class, regular people have to suffer. We can't speak our minds anymore, we may no longer be able to own guns like we used to, we have to hire idiots to work for our companies, and so forth.
  9. @iffen
    OT

    Proof that God loves his conspiracy theorists, especially those at the UR.

    Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein found dead by suicide in NYC jail

    Proof that God loves his conspiracy theorists, especially those at the UR.

    Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein found dead by suicide in NYC jail

    More a proof that God loves conspiracies, I’d say. No way should Epstein have been able to commit suicide considering the last few days’ emphasis on the likelihood that he would. It’s a move so dazzling in its audacity that the account given is very unlikely to be accepted by the general public.

    And, zing, there goes another chunk of legitimacy.

    Counterinsurgency

  10. I love this GSS question, very straightforward.

    About 2/3 of immigration polls are obviously biased in their prompt. It was even worse when there were polls about the amnesty deal, which went like this:

    Do you favor a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pay a fine and back taxes and have no criminal record and speak English and have been in the USA for at least 7 years and went to college as part of a deal to get tough on border security?

    The Rubio amnesties never actually looked like that!

  11. Check.

    Here’s a preliminary analysis of the current situation. As usual, this is a guess.

    We now have two regions (Woodward’s Yankeedom and New Netherlands [1]) and two coalitions (Jewish lobby and Blacks) that were dominant or near dominant in the US prior to POTUS Obama. The Jewish lobby and Blacks were dominant in NYC and its allied cities in the US, but nowhere else.

    Obama’s term in office seems to have fundamentally changed the composition of the governing coalition. The previous dominant coalition (regions and two city based ethnic groups) is apparently being displaced by Hispanics, representing what Woodward calls El Norte. Unlike the two ethnic groups in the previous coalition, the new group is capable of dominating both city and country. It is also capable of reinforcing itself by importing foreigners (which the Black coalition can’t do in appreciable numbers, although it’s trying and apparently has financial support in this effort from the Jewish coalition. Problem is that the Africans want to take over the Black coalition, displacing both its leadership and its rank and file members.)

    This has led to a confused situation.

    The urban areas (New Netherlands and allied cities) want more immigrants to retain their population and political power, but their current ruling coalitions don’t want to be displaced by a new coalition. They are essentially dithering, supporting open borders and importation of foreigners from Africa and anywhere else that will support the Democratic Party, but the Jewish and Black ethnic groups are unable to rule the Democratic Party anymore. They seem almost irrelevant. This bothers them, but they don’t know quite what to do.

    Yankeedom still has effective control over industry and academia, but the value of that rule is declining quickly. Industry is seen as valueless to the whites it does not employ and as hostile to the whites it does employ, and academia is seen as exploitative, very near a fraud on both children and parents. Industry and academia are rather like tuberculosis was back in Oscar Wilde’s heyday: seen as romantic except by those who had it.

    Which leave the Whites and the Hispanics. Neither group is well organized or unified. The question would seem to be which can get unified first. The Democratic coalition (New Netherlands, Yankeedom, and their various allies {Left coast, scattered but large urban areas}) is trying to slow White unification by attacking POTUS Trump, but its efforts may be counterproductive. Attacks on Trump have thus far simply demonstrated that the Whites need to unify against a lying enemy. Attempts by the Hispanics to unify have not been notably successful thus far (they’ve attracted people with loud mouths but no ability to govern), but that might change.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] http://www.colinwoodard.com/americannations.html

  12. @95Theses
    Yes, it’s still a winner, but so what? I mean, while Trump is likely to be reelected he hasn’t shown the least bit interest in doing anything substantial in building that “Big Beautiful Wall!” – beyond talking about it. Nor has he sealed the border as he promised. Or brought an end to Anchor Baby citizenship. And he has gone back on his word to Second Amendment rights people when he speaks at NRA conventions and says, “I will never let you down!” but then goes on to ban bump stocks and lobbies to raise the age restriction on long guns from 18 to 21. Now he is again talking about Red Flag laws. Well, isn’t that just peachy-keen.

    “I like taking guns away early ... Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
    — Trump, within two week after the Parkland Shooting.
     
    Bruh-ther!

    But the Republican Party will not countenance the idea of running anyone in opposition to Trump, and his loyal supporters would bolt if he were to fail to get the nomination the second time around – as they threatened to do in 2016 when talk of convention delegates voting for a better man was in the air.

    No, we’re sunk. Or very nearly. Short of another Great Awakening we are probably witnessing the end of Western Civilization.

    Sorry if that comes off sounding like a downer. I just don’t see how this is good news. It’s depressing news.

    I’ve done a lot of competitive card gaming in my life. As is par for the course, I’ve often found myself in situations where I have no way out unless my opponent commits an error. In those situations, the only thing I can do is maximize the opportunity for my opponent to make a mistake. Sometimes they do.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Whether its natural selection or elite long-term planning, Western Civilization is dying. All civilizations wither and fade. We won't see the end in our life times. But in terms of history, we are in the twilight. It's too late for strategy and tactics. Think of yourself as one of the last of a dying breed, and move forward from there.
  13. @iffen
    OT

    Proof that God loves his conspiracy theorists, especially those at the UR.

    Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein found dead by suicide in NYC jail

    If assuming there is something fishy about that “suicide”–I can’t even type it without quotes– makes one a conspiracy theorist, then we’re all conspiracy theorists now.

    • Agree: 95Theses
    • Replies: @iffen
    makes one a conspiracy theorist, then we’re all conspiracy theorists now

    It's conspiracy theorists all the way down and I call myself second to none.

    They're all disinformation specialists that have people spinning their wheels over JFK, the moon landing, Epstein, dem Jews, etc., etc.

    Do you know where you get when you are spinning your wheels?

    How about dem Masons? What are we gonna do about'em?

  14. @Audacious Epigone
    If assuming there is something fishy about that "suicide"--I can't even type it without quotes-- makes one a conspiracy theorist, then we're all conspiracy theorists now.

    makes one a conspiracy theorist, then we’re all conspiracy theorists now

    It’s conspiracy theorists all the way down and I call myself second to none.

    They’re all disinformation specialists that have people spinning their wheels over JFK, the moon landing, Epstein, dem Jews, etc., etc.

    Do you know where you get when you are spinning your wheels?

    How about dem Masons? What are we gonna do about’em?

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude

    dem Jews
     
    Usually, when people name them, there is truth to it. It usually leads to them being greatly involved, and you don't even have to complicate things, or render things unintelligible. People criticize Jews, and Jewish influence correctly.

    over JFK
     
    Eh, the official story is bollocks. Too many inordinate holes and inconsistencies within the official story line, and the "evidence" confirming the conclusion.
    , @Craig Nelsen
    A common observation by American diplomats and travelers to Russia just before and just after the Bolsheviks took power was that the Russian people were confused, bewildered, and such.
  15. Because we are a nation yet, still.

  16. @iffen
    OT

    Proof that God loves his conspiracy theorists, especially those at the UR.

    Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein found dead by suicide in NYC jail

    Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein found dead by suicide in NYC jail.

  17. 216 says: • Website

    Completely O/T

    Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?

    The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.

    https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q589.htm

    This is an actual UK Government website.

    For all intents and purposes, the UK is far more of an authoritarian state than Russia is. And we don’t hear anything about “British propaganda” or “British interference”.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    So is the US, I’d wager.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    https://www.simpsonsworld.com/video/317890115701?episode=1071844931909
    , @Feryl
    To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.
  18. @216
    Completely O/T

    Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?

    The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.
     
    https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q589.htm

    This is an actual UK Government website.

    For all intents and purposes, the UK is far more of an authoritarian state than Russia is. And we don't hear anything about "British propaganda" or "British interference".

    So is the US, I’d wager.

  19. @Audacious Epigone
    I've done a lot of competitive card gaming in my life. As is par for the course, I've often found myself in situations where I have no way out unless my opponent commits an error. In those situations, the only thing I can do is maximize the opportunity for my opponent to make a mistake. Sometimes they do.

    Whether its natural selection or elite long-term planning, Western Civilization is dying. All civilizations wither and fade. We won’t see the end in our life times. But in terms of history, we are in the twilight. It’s too late for strategy and tactics. Think of yourself as one of the last of a dying breed, and move forward from there.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I can't throw in the towel. I have children.
    , @iffen
    Do not go gentle into that good night

    Dylan Thomas - 1914-1953

    Do not go gentle into that good night,
    Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
    Because their words had forked no lightning they
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
    Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
    And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
    Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    And you, my father, there on the sad height,
    Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
  20. @iffen
    makes one a conspiracy theorist, then we’re all conspiracy theorists now

    It's conspiracy theorists all the way down and I call myself second to none.

    They're all disinformation specialists that have people spinning their wheels over JFK, the moon landing, Epstein, dem Jews, etc., etc.

    Do you know where you get when you are spinning your wheels?

    How about dem Masons? What are we gonna do about'em?

    dem Jews

    Usually, when people name them, there is truth to it. It usually leads to them being greatly involved, and you don’t even have to complicate things, or render things unintelligible. People criticize Jews, and Jewish influence correctly.

    over JFK

    Eh, the official story is bollocks. Too many inordinate holes and inconsistencies within the official story line, and the “evidence” confirming the conclusion.

  21. @216
    Completely O/T

    Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?

    The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.
     
    https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q589.htm

    This is an actual UK Government website.

    For all intents and purposes, the UK is far more of an authoritarian state than Russia is. And we don't hear anything about "British propaganda" or "British interference".
  22. @SunBakedSuburb
    Whether its natural selection or elite long-term planning, Western Civilization is dying. All civilizations wither and fade. We won't see the end in our life times. But in terms of history, we are in the twilight. It's too late for strategy and tactics. Think of yourself as one of the last of a dying breed, and move forward from there.

    I can’t throw in the towel. I have children.

    • Replies: @216
    White liberals, if they put their efforts to it, could fulfill almost every political desire we have.

    They could give us home rule, demographic reset, a cohesive society. But they won't do this, because it means granting moral legitimacy to heretics.

    And it just so happens that white liberals run the culture industry, and most of Conservative Inc.

    Conservatives are not the silent majority, they are in fact the real model minority. But that means they will gradually assimilate as the price of acceptance in polite society.
    , @L Woods
    Well, conservative family men have been more than willing (eager and gleeful, I’d say) to leave unattached “loser” white males to their fate. They might one day be surprised to discover that that street runs both ways.
    , @Feryl
    For those with the means, and the right skills, at this point I would seriously suggest fully immigrating to one of the better parts of Central to Eastern Europe, or East Asia, or the less equatorial regions of South America. Western Europe and the English speaking countries* are, over time, becoming increasingly repressive of "hate speech"and anyone who "normalizes" "dangerous ideas". That's been apparent since circa 1990, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union really did a lot to enable increasing repression in the once trail-blazing and freedom loving West.

    It's obviously a major decision to turn your back (at least physically) on your home land, but just ask the Germans in 1935 if they had any idea what would become of their country (and would-be empire) within the next 10 years. Most had no idea of the tectonic shift that was just around the corner. I'm concerned, like AE is, that a Russian Revolution situation (arrogant over-educated wind-bag do gooders forcibly re-make society in their own image) could soon be upon us. I don't think Joe Biden would let that happen, but any of the other Democrats running in 2020 (or 2024 for that matter) are suspect. The "heat" of the rhetoric being used by the MSM and mainstream Democrats is in some ways even more intense that what we saw in the early-mid 2010's (even Hilary's rhetoric and platform seems quaint at this point), although BLM has evidently been shelved indefinitely due to the electorally suicidal danger of riling up inner city blacks). Instead of Dems telling blacks to be angry at cops, we are now seeing an approach focused on telling everyone to be angry at heartland "white supremacists" and New Deal nostalgists who want America to make stuff again.

    *Due to Hitler's revenge, the more Germanic a country is the more PC it will be. So Germany is the worst, much of Scandinavia and the Netherlands is awful, The UK and Canada are pretty bad, while Australia/New Zealand/America aren't that bad yet but are certainly on their way to being PC'd to death, and the recent waves of mass murders are sure to lead to increasingly mainstream calls to "de-platform" the "white supremacist" and "gun loving" Right.
  23. 216 says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone
    I can't throw in the towel. I have children.

    White liberals, if they put their efforts to it, could fulfill almost every political desire we have.

    They could give us home rule, demographic reset, a cohesive society. But they won’t do this, because it means granting moral legitimacy to heretics.

    And it just so happens that white liberals run the culture industry, and most of Conservative Inc.

    Conservatives are not the silent majority, they are in fact the real model minority. But that means they will gradually assimilate as the price of acceptance in polite society.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    White liberals, if they put their efforts to it, could fulfill almost every political desire we have.

    They could give us home rule, demographic reset, a cohesive society. But they won’t do this, because it means granting moral legitimacy to heretics.
     
    But how would a cohesive society help to make mega-corporations richer? How would it help bankers?

    White liberals are not in charge. Bankers and billionaires are in charge.
    , @Feryl
    Openly supporting degeneracy was less common in the 1940's-1980's because our then strong middle class chastised leaders who failed to set a good example for the middle and underclass.

    America is now comprised of a decadent elite class, a tiny middle class, and a vast underclass. We had a similar situation around 1900, but the difference is that more elites were

    trying
     
    to make "progress" that would benefit more people, back then. We had social Darwinism and eugenics, and it was not unheard of for some elites to openly declare that some groups of people (including some races and sexual minorities) had no business with the "civilized" people of the world.. Nowadays we have social Darwinism in tandem with elites who gliby ignore the soaring African population, and the fact that many "legacy" ethnic groups in the first (and near first) world are delaying childbearing due to career striving along with soaring living costs. Today's elites, particularly in the Western world, are also the biggest sponsors of sexual deviancy since.....Well, you'd probably have to go back to pre-Christian Europe.

    I understand that we've had periods of elite corruption and greed (which was certainly the case in the first Gilded Age), but in America we certainly have not had such open celebration of degeneracy ever before the mid-1990's.
  24. @gman
    semi ON-topic:

    From CNN: The inside story of how a kosher meat kingpin won clemency under Trump
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/politics/kushner-rubashkin-trump-clemency/index.html

    spoiler alert: "Jewish White Privilege"

    "It was Kushner, they say, who brought the Rubashkin case up to a dispassionate Trump several times in the summer and fall of 2017, before finally persuading him to make what would be his first commutation and only his second act of clemency."
  25. @iffen
    makes one a conspiracy theorist, then we’re all conspiracy theorists now

    It's conspiracy theorists all the way down and I call myself second to none.

    They're all disinformation specialists that have people spinning their wheels over JFK, the moon landing, Epstein, dem Jews, etc., etc.

    Do you know where you get when you are spinning your wheels?

    How about dem Masons? What are we gonna do about'em?

    A common observation by American diplomats and travelers to Russia just before and just after the Bolsheviks took power was that the Russian people were confused, bewildered, and such.

    • Replies: @iffen
    the Russian people were confused, bewildered, and such.

    That's standard, just read some of the Slavic slugfests in AK's comment section if you doubt it.
  26. @216
    White liberals, if they put their efforts to it, could fulfill almost every political desire we have.

    They could give us home rule, demographic reset, a cohesive society. But they won't do this, because it means granting moral legitimacy to heretics.

    And it just so happens that white liberals run the culture industry, and most of Conservative Inc.

    Conservatives are not the silent majority, they are in fact the real model minority. But that means they will gradually assimilate as the price of acceptance in polite society.

    White liberals, if they put their efforts to it, could fulfill almost every political desire we have.

    They could give us home rule, demographic reset, a cohesive society. But they won’t do this, because it means granting moral legitimacy to heretics.

    But how would a cohesive society help to make mega-corporations richer? How would it help bankers?

    White liberals are not in charge. Bankers and billionaires are in charge.

  27. @SunBakedSuburb
    Whether its natural selection or elite long-term planning, Western Civilization is dying. All civilizations wither and fade. We won't see the end in our life times. But in terms of history, we are in the twilight. It's too late for strategy and tactics. Think of yourself as one of the last of a dying breed, and move forward from there.

    Do not go gentle into that good night

    Dylan Thomas – 1914-1953

    Do not go gentle into that good night,
    Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
    Because their words had forked no lightning they
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
    Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
    And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
    Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    And you, my father, there on the sad height,
    Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

  28. @Audacious Epigone
    I can't throw in the towel. I have children.

    Well, conservative family men have been more than willing (eager and gleeful, I’d say) to leave unattached “loser” white males to their fate. They might one day be surprised to discover that that street runs both ways.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm not sure what that means. How so?
  29. There’s no reason to stop pressing to protect US sovereignty.

  30. “unattached “loser” white”

    I certainly recognize that married heterosexuals practitioners carry more value to community than single individuals because of what they provide to community.

    and

    While I appreciate the sentiments used as pressure points or encouragement for single people to get married, I am going to reject any sentiment that would suggest that single men and women are losers of any hue are losers.

    ———————-

    Obviously I am missing some previous reference here.

    “They might one day be surprised to discover that that street runs both ways.”

    But I would be curious what street ‘running both ways” refers to.

  31. @Oblivionrecurs
    People are aware that Trump was very anti-second amendment up in New York and only shifted his views for the GOP base? That said until these recent batches of recent studies it was believed Trump lost more by going conservative instead of the liberal Republican. This isn't true.

    The thing is immigration has never been his real motivation, his most consistent view since the 80s has been trade and the unfair practices of China. Which he is actually doing an amazing job on protecting u.s superprofits and thus hegemony from China.

    Its just that by making immigration the #1 vocal issue its made open-borders the solution to Trumpism. Guarantee the next Democrat President will let in more illegals in a term than every President since Carter combined and after that whites will be a useless political thought

    Trump historically is a nationalist on economic issues. Cultural issues (which guns are) have always been far down his to-do list. But given that the Reaganite GOP has only ever come to play on just two wholesome issues (guns and abortion), while actively back-stabbing on us everything else (or rather, front stabbing on some issues like global trade), it’s safe to say that Trump is not a “real Republican”.

    Would you rather have moderate quality leadership on a handful of cultural issues, or economic and political sovereignty?

  32. @Oblivionrecurs
    Gun rights are fucked

    Americans wouldn't even resist someone just showing up asking for guns, let alone vague threats. Its just not worth it to most to sacrifice our long struggled family safety and livelihood over.

    Well, if the hippies and Reaganites hadn’t been such miserable failures at keeping track of the mentally ill, I’m sure there would be less mass shootings. Furthermore, the Reaganites promoted police statism (creeping surveillance, ripping away the rights of criminals and the accused, mass incarceration) all along, so no surprise how easily this reactionary abuse of power and authority can transform into gun-grabbing.

    The reactionary turn of the last 40-50 years has led to growing loss of intellectual and cultural freedom for the mentally and socially well-adjusted, while also encouraging elites to be corrupt and abusive. Because we now do such a poor job of reining in the most malajdusted people in the lower class, regular people have to suffer. We can’t speak our minds anymore, we may no longer be able to own guns like we used to, we have to hire idiots to work for our companies, and so forth.

  33. @216
    Completely O/T

    Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?

    The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.
     
    https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q589.htm

    This is an actual UK Government website.

    For all intents and purposes, the UK is far more of an authoritarian state than Russia is. And we don't hear anything about "British propaganda" or "British interference".

    To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

  34. @216
    White liberals, if they put their efforts to it, could fulfill almost every political desire we have.

    They could give us home rule, demographic reset, a cohesive society. But they won't do this, because it means granting moral legitimacy to heretics.

    And it just so happens that white liberals run the culture industry, and most of Conservative Inc.

    Conservatives are not the silent majority, they are in fact the real model minority. But that means they will gradually assimilate as the price of acceptance in polite society.

    Openly supporting degeneracy was less common in the 1940’s-1980’s because our then strong middle class chastised leaders who failed to set a good example for the middle and underclass.

    America is now comprised of a decadent elite class, a tiny middle class, and a vast underclass. We had a similar situation around 1900, but the difference is that more elites were

    trying

    to make “progress” that would benefit more people, back then. We had social Darwinism and eugenics, and it was not unheard of for some elites to openly declare that some groups of people (including some races and sexual minorities) had no business with the “civilized” people of the world.. Nowadays we have social Darwinism in tandem with elites who gliby ignore the soaring African population, and the fact that many “legacy” ethnic groups in the first (and near first) world are delaying childbearing due to career striving along with soaring living costs. Today’s elites, particularly in the Western world, are also the biggest sponsors of sexual deviancy since…..Well, you’d probably have to go back to pre-Christian Europe.

    I understand that we’ve had periods of elite corruption and greed (which was certainly the case in the first Gilded Age), but in America we certainly have not had such open celebration of degeneracy ever before the mid-1990’s.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    but in America we certainly have not had such open celebration of degeneracy ever before the mid-1990’s.
     
    There has never been such open celebration of degeneracy ever before in history, in any place or in any nation. The Romans at their worst weren't this bad. The Weimar Republic wasn't this bad.

    America has pushed decadence to lengths that no-one in any other historical epoch could even have imagined.
  35. @Audacious Epigone
    I can't throw in the towel. I have children.

    For those with the means, and the right skills, at this point I would seriously suggest fully immigrating to one of the better parts of Central to Eastern Europe, or East Asia, or the less equatorial regions of South America. Western Europe and the English speaking countries* are, over time, becoming increasingly repressive of “hate speech”and anyone who “normalizes” “dangerous ideas”. That’s been apparent since circa 1990, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union really did a lot to enable increasing repression in the once trail-blazing and freedom loving West.

    It’s obviously a major decision to turn your back (at least physically) on your home land, but just ask the Germans in 1935 if they had any idea what would become of their country (and would-be empire) within the next 10 years. Most had no idea of the tectonic shift that was just around the corner. I’m concerned, like AE is, that a Russian Revolution situation (arrogant over-educated wind-bag do gooders forcibly re-make society in their own image) could soon be upon us. I don’t think Joe Biden would let that happen, but any of the other Democrats running in 2020 (or 2024 for that matter) are suspect. The “heat” of the rhetoric being used by the MSM and mainstream Democrats is in some ways even more intense that what we saw in the early-mid 2010’s (even Hilary’s rhetoric and platform seems quaint at this point), although BLM has evidently been shelved indefinitely due to the electorally suicidal danger of riling up inner city blacks). Instead of Dems telling blacks to be angry at cops, we are now seeing an approach focused on telling everyone to be angry at heartland “white supremacists” and New Deal nostalgists who want America to make stuff again.

    *Due to Hitler’s revenge, the more Germanic a country is the more PC it will be. So Germany is the worst, much of Scandinavia and the Netherlands is awful, The UK and Canada are pretty bad, while Australia/New Zealand/America aren’t that bad yet but are certainly on their way to being PC’d to death, and the recent waves of mass murders are sure to lead to increasingly mainstream calls to “de-platform” the “white supremacist” and “gun loving” Right.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's something we've considered, though deracination is a really hard thing to do, especially since my wife and I both have extended family whose lives we are intimately involved with.
  36. The choice: “Remain the same.” should be read as: “I’d like immigration’s impact on my community to remain the same.” This is obvious and equally obviously different from the statement: “I’d like the rate of immigration into the United States to remain the same.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The question asks about the number of immigrants rather than the rate of immigration, so meticulous survey participants would indeed read an increase as maintaining the status quo (or even increasing the rate of immigration), remaining the same as a moratorium, and decrease as a moratorium plus deportations. I doubt very many people read it that way, though.
  37. @Feryl
    Openly supporting degeneracy was less common in the 1940's-1980's because our then strong middle class chastised leaders who failed to set a good example for the middle and underclass.

    America is now comprised of a decadent elite class, a tiny middle class, and a vast underclass. We had a similar situation around 1900, but the difference is that more elites were

    trying
     
    to make "progress" that would benefit more people, back then. We had social Darwinism and eugenics, and it was not unheard of for some elites to openly declare that some groups of people (including some races and sexual minorities) had no business with the "civilized" people of the world.. Nowadays we have social Darwinism in tandem with elites who gliby ignore the soaring African population, and the fact that many "legacy" ethnic groups in the first (and near first) world are delaying childbearing due to career striving along with soaring living costs. Today's elites, particularly in the Western world, are also the biggest sponsors of sexual deviancy since.....Well, you'd probably have to go back to pre-Christian Europe.

    I understand that we've had periods of elite corruption and greed (which was certainly the case in the first Gilded Age), but in America we certainly have not had such open celebration of degeneracy ever before the mid-1990's.

    but in America we certainly have not had such open celebration of degeneracy ever before the mid-1990’s.

    There has never been such open celebration of degeneracy ever before in history, in any place or in any nation. The Romans at their worst weren’t this bad. The Weimar Republic wasn’t this bad.

    America has pushed decadence to lengths that no-one in any other historical epoch could even have imagined.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    There has never been such open celebration of degeneracy ever before in history, in any place or in any nation. The Romans at their worst weren’t this bad. The Weimar Republic wasn’t this bad.

    America has pushed decadence to lengths that no-one in any other historical epoch could even have imagined.
     

    First, if anyone would dispute or doubt that the present era at least rivals any previous one when it comes to rank depravity and degeneracy, I would suggest that a little time spent at web sites such as the following could be enlightening:

    MassResistance.org

    AmericansForTruth.com

    4thWaveNow.com

    As for your specific claim, I wonder, first of all, whether you meant to single-out the U.S., per se?

    Many countries, for example, abolished sodomy laws long before the U.S. did. (In fact, believe it or not, a number of states still have various sodomy laws on the books.) Likewise, a number of countries recognized so-called same-sex marriage before the U.S. did. Those facts pointed-out, I could still easily imagine arguments that nonetheless place the U.S., at least in the present moment, as the worst. It would be helpful if you were to elaborate and clarify your view.

  38. @dfordoom

    but in America we certainly have not had such open celebration of degeneracy ever before the mid-1990’s.
     
    There has never been such open celebration of degeneracy ever before in history, in any place or in any nation. The Romans at their worst weren't this bad. The Weimar Republic wasn't this bad.

    America has pushed decadence to lengths that no-one in any other historical epoch could even have imagined.

    There has never been such open celebration of degeneracy ever before in history, in any place or in any nation. The Romans at their worst weren’t this bad. The Weimar Republic wasn’t this bad.

    America has pushed decadence to lengths that no-one in any other historical epoch could even have imagined.

    First, if anyone would dispute or doubt that the present era at least rivals any previous one when it comes to rank depravity and degeneracy, I would suggest that a little time spent at web sites such as the following could be enlightening:

    MassResistance.org

    AmericansForTruth.com

    4thWaveNow.com

    As for your specific claim, I wonder, first of all, whether you meant to single-out the U.S., per se?

    Many countries, for example, abolished sodomy laws long before the U.S. did. (In fact, believe it or not, a number of states still have various sodomy laws on the books.) Likewise, a number of countries recognized so-called same-sex marriage before the U.S. did. Those facts pointed-out, I could still easily imagine arguments that nonetheless place the U.S., at least in the present moment, as the worst. It would be helpful if you were to elaborate and clarify your view.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Dissident:

    People often like to point out that, say, the 1920's was really decadent. But we need to focus on the "company line" spoken by leaders and authority. Many American elites were openly displeased with the high(ish) levels of drinking, prostitution, infidelity, etc. back then. Whereas in America over the last 30 years, we've seen a huge expansion of officially sanctioned gambling, legalized porn, sanctioned MMA fights, massive legal sales of dangerous prescription drugs, and so forth. On all of these matters, most American elites either said nothing or only offered the most token resistance. It's a far cry from Prohibition, or the Catholic Legion of Decency, to offer two examples of elite driven social clean-up campaigns of the Progressive era.

    From McKinley and Roosevelt to FDR, America in the Progressive era was increasingly concerned about creating messages and policies that would purify our society. That's a major contrast from the Clinton and post-Clinton era, where elites buckle on one issue and then just a few years later another thing comes along to distort society and elites buckle again.

    In terms of public stance, America's elites since 1993 have been overwhelmingly decadent, far more so than any previous era of America (as I said previously, The Gilded Age at least had leaders who openly were concerned that stupidity, drunkenness, and perversion were alarming trends among the underclass and would soon render society ungovernable; Gilded Age 1.0 was embarrassed to some degree by dysfunction and corruption, whereas Gilded Age 2.0 of the last 20-30 years has elites who celebrate degeneracy out in the open)
    , @Feryl

    First, if anyone would dispute or doubt that the present era at least rivals any previous one when it comes to rank depravity and degeneracy, I would suggest that a little time spent at web sites such as the following could be enlightening:
     
    The Anglo-Germanic countries are currently, for the most part, circling the drain as we speak.....But what happens when we go down the drain? I'm afraid we've only scratched the surface so far. It's a long way down from where we are now. Judith (((Levine))), a self-described libertarian, wrote a book back in 2002 saying that child $exuality needed to be de-stigmatized, saying that we were getting too uptight. Once the erstwhile Christian white West, particularly the Protestant spheres, has further abandoned cultural conservatism, we aren't too far off reviving the Roman gladiator specatcle, sanctioning pederasty and polygamy, and further removing sanctions on matters of public decency (like telling ghetto blacks and white trash that they need to pull their pants up).

    We could well be looking at the death of the Protestant white West, with Orthodox and Catholics Christians, plus Muslims, gaining at our expense. While the post-1980 Protestant culture swore loyalty to Israel, it bought into bigotry against Catholics and Slavs, and has thus far allowed Islamic culture to establish itself in the West.
    , @dfordoom

    I could still easily imagine arguments that nonetheless place the U.S., at least in the present moment, as the worst. It would be helpful if you were to elaborate and clarify your view.
     
    Other western countries are almost as bad. Britain is worse. The difference is that the United States intends to actively and aggressively impose its degeneracy on the rest of the planet. Through its unrivalled soft power and if necessary by force.
  39. @Dissident

    There has never been such open celebration of degeneracy ever before in history, in any place or in any nation. The Romans at their worst weren’t this bad. The Weimar Republic wasn’t this bad.

    America has pushed decadence to lengths that no-one in any other historical epoch could even have imagined.
     

    First, if anyone would dispute or doubt that the present era at least rivals any previous one when it comes to rank depravity and degeneracy, I would suggest that a little time spent at web sites such as the following could be enlightening:

    MassResistance.org

    AmericansForTruth.com

    4thWaveNow.com

    As for your specific claim, I wonder, first of all, whether you meant to single-out the U.S., per se?

    Many countries, for example, abolished sodomy laws long before the U.S. did. (In fact, believe it or not, a number of states still have various sodomy laws on the books.) Likewise, a number of countries recognized so-called same-sex marriage before the U.S. did. Those facts pointed-out, I could still easily imagine arguments that nonetheless place the U.S., at least in the present moment, as the worst. It would be helpful if you were to elaborate and clarify your view.

    Dissident:

    People often like to point out that, say, the 1920’s was really decadent. But we need to focus on the “company line” spoken by leaders and authority. Many American elites were openly displeased with the high(ish) levels of drinking, prostitution, infidelity, etc. back then. Whereas in America over the last 30 years, we’ve seen a huge expansion of officially sanctioned gambling, legalized porn, sanctioned MMA fights, massive legal sales of dangerous prescription drugs, and so forth. On all of these matters, most American elites either said nothing or only offered the most token resistance. It’s a far cry from Prohibition, or the Catholic Legion of Decency, to offer two examples of elite driven social clean-up campaigns of the Progressive era.

    From McKinley and Roosevelt to FDR, America in the Progressive era was increasingly concerned about creating messages and policies that would purify our society. That’s a major contrast from the Clinton and post-Clinton era, where elites buckle on one issue and then just a few years later another thing comes along to distort society and elites buckle again.

    In terms of public stance, America’s elites since 1993 have been overwhelmingly decadent, far more so than any previous era of America (as I said previously, The Gilded Age at least had leaders who openly were concerned that stupidity, drunkenness, and perversion were alarming trends among the underclass and would soon render society ungovernable; Gilded Age 1.0 was embarrassed to some degree by dysfunction and corruption, whereas Gilded Age 2.0 of the last 20-30 years has elites who celebrate degeneracy out in the open)

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    People often like to point out that, say, the 1920’s was really decadent.
     
    Such decadence as existed then was entirely confined to big cities.
  40. @Dissident

    There has never been such open celebration of degeneracy ever before in history, in any place or in any nation. The Romans at their worst weren’t this bad. The Weimar Republic wasn’t this bad.

    America has pushed decadence to lengths that no-one in any other historical epoch could even have imagined.
     

    First, if anyone would dispute or doubt that the present era at least rivals any previous one when it comes to rank depravity and degeneracy, I would suggest that a little time spent at web sites such as the following could be enlightening:

    MassResistance.org

    AmericansForTruth.com

    4thWaveNow.com

    As for your specific claim, I wonder, first of all, whether you meant to single-out the U.S., per se?

    Many countries, for example, abolished sodomy laws long before the U.S. did. (In fact, believe it or not, a number of states still have various sodomy laws on the books.) Likewise, a number of countries recognized so-called same-sex marriage before the U.S. did. Those facts pointed-out, I could still easily imagine arguments that nonetheless place the U.S., at least in the present moment, as the worst. It would be helpful if you were to elaborate and clarify your view.

    First, if anyone would dispute or doubt that the present era at least rivals any previous one when it comes to rank depravity and degeneracy, I would suggest that a little time spent at web sites such as the following could be enlightening:

    The Anglo-Germanic countries are currently, for the most part, circling the drain as we speak…..But what happens when we go down the drain? I’m afraid we’ve only scratched the surface so far. It’s a long way down from where we are now. Judith (((Levine))), a self-described libertarian, wrote a book back in 2002 saying that child $exuality needed to be de-stigmatized, saying that we were getting too uptight. Once the erstwhile Christian white West, particularly the Protestant spheres, has further abandoned cultural conservatism, we aren’t too far off reviving the Roman gladiator specatcle, sanctioning pederasty and polygamy, and further removing sanctions on matters of public decency (like telling ghetto blacks and white trash that they need to pull their pants up).

    We could well be looking at the death of the Protestant white West, with Orthodox and Catholics Christians, plus Muslims, gaining at our expense. While the post-1980 Protestant culture swore loyalty to Israel, it bought into bigotry against Catholics and Slavs, and has thus far allowed Islamic culture to establish itself in the West.

    • Replies: @iffen
    we aren’t too far off reviving the Roman gladiator specatcle, sanctioning pederasty and polygamy

    Don't forget the damage being done by raging sluts. Even the ancient Roman pundits of the day saw the damage being done by them.
    , @Dissident

    Judith (((Levine))), a self-described libertarian, wrote a book back in 2002 saying that child $exuality needed to be de-stigmatized, saying that we were getting too uptight.
     
    Let's say Judith Levine weren't a Jewess but held the exact same views and had written the exact same book. Would you find her any less reprehensible?
  41. @Craig Nelsen
    A common observation by American diplomats and travelers to Russia just before and just after the Bolsheviks took power was that the Russian people were confused, bewildered, and such.

    the Russian people were confused, bewildered, and such.

    That’s standard, just read some of the Slavic slugfests in AK’s comment section if you doubt it.

  42. @Feryl

    First, if anyone would dispute or doubt that the present era at least rivals any previous one when it comes to rank depravity and degeneracy, I would suggest that a little time spent at web sites such as the following could be enlightening:
     
    The Anglo-Germanic countries are currently, for the most part, circling the drain as we speak.....But what happens when we go down the drain? I'm afraid we've only scratched the surface so far. It's a long way down from where we are now. Judith (((Levine))), a self-described libertarian, wrote a book back in 2002 saying that child $exuality needed to be de-stigmatized, saying that we were getting too uptight. Once the erstwhile Christian white West, particularly the Protestant spheres, has further abandoned cultural conservatism, we aren't too far off reviving the Roman gladiator specatcle, sanctioning pederasty and polygamy, and further removing sanctions on matters of public decency (like telling ghetto blacks and white trash that they need to pull their pants up).

    We could well be looking at the death of the Protestant white West, with Orthodox and Catholics Christians, plus Muslims, gaining at our expense. While the post-1980 Protestant culture swore loyalty to Israel, it bought into bigotry against Catholics and Slavs, and has thus far allowed Islamic culture to establish itself in the West.

    we aren’t too far off reviving the Roman gladiator specatcle, sanctioning pederasty and polygamy

    Don’t forget the damage being done by raging sluts. Even the ancient Roman pundits of the day saw the damage being done by them.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The growth in tattoos, shaven heads, piercings, elaborate goatees and beards, etc. is starting to make the 60's counter-culture look like Mr. Rogers.

    What do you think the 1960's would've been like if vast numbers of people back then were MMA enthusiasts, Call of Duty fanatics, and Walking Dead viewers?

    Where I differ from the conventional narrative is not buying the story that the 60's and 70's were a "wild" time. C'mon, we didn't have state run lotteries, taste for violent sport went as far as football and ice hockey, dog maulings were rare, immigration levels were fairly low, and most people over the age of 35 were against drug legalization and homosexuality. Oh, and people wore their pants at or above the waist.

    It's only when viewed against the 1950's do the 60's and 70's seem crazy.

    Let's not forget either that morose, glowering, and scowling faces weren't that common at the time (we were still, essentially, a middle class paradise). Not everyone was protesting or rioting 24 hours per day. Whereas if you look around you these days, everyone seems very bitter, alienated, and sour.
    , @Feryl
    Not sure how much you're kidding, but really, people were more promiscuous in the 70's-early 90's than they are now. But at the risk of being a broken record, my main concern isn't actual behavior among the masses, but rather, the degree to which elites lend their imprimatur to various things. People were screwing like rabbits and doing lots of cocaine in 1983, but elites back then were much more likely to stigmatize such things, and not permit glib discussion of such things on broadcast radio and TV. We now have the opposite situation; lots of young people not having sex and not doing hard drugs, but "pop" culture (which is presided over by elites) telling people not to feel any moral or spiritual qualms about excessive hedonism.

    Elite values are more important than mass values, because if elites no longer are visibly supporting wholesome norms, than corruption and cultural dissolution are much more likely. Society was ran pretty well back in 1968, because our leaders kept their eye on the ball, so to speak. Whereas today's deviant and corrupt elites are blind.

    We can deal with teenagers screwing like rabbits, and auto-line workers smacking their wives around, so long as we have confidence that the top 20% know what they are doing and are looking out for us. But everyone these days knows that the elites would rather promote degenerate modern Western values rather than get the factories back up and running.

    Another example is that MMA fights don't involve that many combatants (so not that many people are directly hurt by it) , but what really makes them bad is that they send a message that lots of cruelty, blood, pain, and hyper-competitiveness are an acceptable and even exciting part of life. Part of "winning" in life is literally risking your life to gain status.

    Elites have to send the message that they won't glorify, or even tolerate, the cultural acceptance of highly risky and corrosive practices and professions. There will always be violence, sex, drugs, deviance etc., but it doesn't mean that publishers should glorify auto-biographies of sluts, or televise and encourage legal gambling on MMA fights. In the New Deal era, life for the moral underclass of drug addicts/drunks, violent thugs, and sexually deviant folk was either hidden altogether (most homosexuals disavowed their lifestyle and popular media generally did not acknowledge homosexuals) or was mildly visible but not terribly popular (e.g., boxing declined in popularity from about 1930-1970, but the "legend" of Muhammed Ali then grew as the 70's went and the New Deal declined, then in the neo-lib 80's Mike Tyson mowed down a series of hapless opponents to much cultural celebration, with many high profile figures attending the fights; fitting for the "just win baby" culture that intesified in the 80's and 90's, Tyson was eventually disgraced for losing his temper in a mid-90's fight and biting off someone's ear). The 1930's-1960's was quite notable for the lack of poor sportsmanship (even ice hockey had few incidents of hardcore aggression into the 60's, but by 1983-84 the NHL was setting records for penalty minutes related to violent misconduct, and Neanderthals were condoning cheap shots by players who had some "talent" or "leadership" skills)
  43. @L Woods
    Well, conservative family men have been more than willing (eager and gleeful, I’d say) to leave unattached “loser” white males to their fate. They might one day be surprised to discover that that street runs both ways.

    I’m not sure what that means. How so?

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Those with families have a stake (or rather, believe themselves to have a stake) in the present order. Dispossessed single males, not so much.
  44. @James Bowery
    The choice: "Remain the same." should be read as: "I'd like immigration's impact on my community to remain the same." This is obvious and equally obviously different from the statement: "I'd like the rate of immigration into the United States to remain the same."

    The question asks about the number of immigrants rather than the rate of immigration, so meticulous survey participants would indeed read an increase as maintaining the status quo (or even increasing the rate of immigration), remaining the same as a moratorium, and decrease as a moratorium plus deportations. I doubt very many people read it that way, though.

  45. @Feryl
    For those with the means, and the right skills, at this point I would seriously suggest fully immigrating to one of the better parts of Central to Eastern Europe, or East Asia, or the less equatorial regions of South America. Western Europe and the English speaking countries* are, over time, becoming increasingly repressive of "hate speech"and anyone who "normalizes" "dangerous ideas". That's been apparent since circa 1990, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union really did a lot to enable increasing repression in the once trail-blazing and freedom loving West.

    It's obviously a major decision to turn your back (at least physically) on your home land, but just ask the Germans in 1935 if they had any idea what would become of their country (and would-be empire) within the next 10 years. Most had no idea of the tectonic shift that was just around the corner. I'm concerned, like AE is, that a Russian Revolution situation (arrogant over-educated wind-bag do gooders forcibly re-make society in their own image) could soon be upon us. I don't think Joe Biden would let that happen, but any of the other Democrats running in 2020 (or 2024 for that matter) are suspect. The "heat" of the rhetoric being used by the MSM and mainstream Democrats is in some ways even more intense that what we saw in the early-mid 2010's (even Hilary's rhetoric and platform seems quaint at this point), although BLM has evidently been shelved indefinitely due to the electorally suicidal danger of riling up inner city blacks). Instead of Dems telling blacks to be angry at cops, we are now seeing an approach focused on telling everyone to be angry at heartland "white supremacists" and New Deal nostalgists who want America to make stuff again.

    *Due to Hitler's revenge, the more Germanic a country is the more PC it will be. So Germany is the worst, much of Scandinavia and the Netherlands is awful, The UK and Canada are pretty bad, while Australia/New Zealand/America aren't that bad yet but are certainly on their way to being PC'd to death, and the recent waves of mass murders are sure to lead to increasingly mainstream calls to "de-platform" the "white supremacist" and "gun loving" Right.

    It’s something we’ve considered, though deracination is a really hard thing to do, especially since my wife and I both have extended family whose lives we are intimately involved with.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    A "cultural revolution" would not permit any dissidents to create a refuge within the US territory, and furthermore, Germany , France, and the other Anglo countries would likely not accept the entry or residence of any American dissident. In other words: be very, very attentive to the statements and actions of future Dem election winners; I think Biden is too old and conformist to be much of a threat if elected, and moreover, unlike the Clinton's he doesn't run a criminal syndicate that assassinates many people and gave us a FedGov that murdered Americans at Waco and at Ruby Ridge*.

    I don't think Yang or Gabbard have a chance, since they aren't ID politics revolutionaries or culture warriors. Too bad since they are probably the best of the current field.

    With Sanders, his chance already came and went, went he didn't fight back against the Dems hard enough when they were screwing him. And then he started repeating token trendy narratives, although he obviously doesn't really give a damn about this stuff. So if Sanders was elected, I'm not sure we have that much to be afraid of WRT repression of dissent. But that does depend on who he would pick to be in his regime, which as we've seen with Trump is quite important.

    Harris and Warren both have a lot of alarming personal traits; Harris is a police state commander that the current empire can't get enough of, as basically any prominent prosecutor of the last 30 years is. That's exactly the type who could cold-bloodedly preside over a wrenching "re-set" that would punish the defiant. Warren started out as a Reaganite lawyer, who then switched to the Dems as they left the New Deal. She's a histrionic and highly careerist type crusader, who like Harris could easily be bent toward a toxic revolution.

    The other candidates lack any particular ideological or personality distinction.

    What concerns me is that another loss to Trump would be put down to a failure to "do enough" to stand up to the "white supremacists"/New Deal nostalgists (and Yang, BTW, essentially is a New Deal Dem which is why so much of the modern Dem base isn't moving toward him; Bernie is to some degree an old-school Leftist but his personality is more New Left, whereas Yang has both the policies and the personality down pat). Being 12+ years removed from the White House could eventually give us a Dem president or cabinet who vowed a revenge campaign on all the malign forces who "tricked" America into voting Republican during that time. Just look at a guy like John Brennan, who was allowed to remain a player by the Dems and the Deep State after he left office. Comforting, huh?

    *The only thing that has prevented the Clintons from doing even more damage is their loyalty to corporate profits, something that a future "true" crusader Dem president could easily discard in their quest to make America more Woke. The Bolsheviks and Maoists didn't let things like sensible business practices or social stability get in the way of their quest to achieve a perfect society.
  46. @iffen
    we aren’t too far off reviving the Roman gladiator specatcle, sanctioning pederasty and polygamy

    Don't forget the damage being done by raging sluts. Even the ancient Roman pundits of the day saw the damage being done by them.

    The growth in tattoos, shaven heads, piercings, elaborate goatees and beards, etc. is starting to make the 60’s counter-culture look like Mr. Rogers.

    What do you think the 1960’s would’ve been like if vast numbers of people back then were MMA enthusiasts, Call of Duty fanatics, and Walking Dead viewers?

    Where I differ from the conventional narrative is not buying the story that the 60’s and 70’s were a “wild” time. C’mon, we didn’t have state run lotteries, taste for violent sport went as far as football and ice hockey, dog maulings were rare, immigration levels were fairly low, and most people over the age of 35 were against drug legalization and homosexuality. Oh, and people wore their pants at or above the waist.

    It’s only when viewed against the 1950’s do the 60’s and 70’s seem crazy.

    Let’s not forget either that morose, glowering, and scowling faces weren’t that common at the time (we were still, essentially, a middle class paradise). Not everyone was protesting or rioting 24 hours per day. Whereas if you look around you these days, everyone seems very bitter, alienated, and sour.

  47. @Audacious Epigone
    It's something we've considered, though deracination is a really hard thing to do, especially since my wife and I both have extended family whose lives we are intimately involved with.

    A “cultural revolution” would not permit any dissidents to create a refuge within the US territory, and furthermore, Germany , France, and the other Anglo countries would likely not accept the entry or residence of any American dissident. In other words: be very, very attentive to the statements and actions of future Dem election winners; I think Biden is too old and conformist to be much of a threat if elected, and moreover, unlike the Clinton’s he doesn’t run a criminal syndicate that assassinates many people and gave us a FedGov that murdered Americans at Waco and at Ruby Ridge*.

    I don’t think Yang or Gabbard have a chance, since they aren’t ID politics revolutionaries or culture warriors. Too bad since they are probably the best of the current field.

    With Sanders, his chance already came and went, went he didn’t fight back against the Dems hard enough when they were screwing him. And then he started repeating token trendy narratives, although he obviously doesn’t really give a damn about this stuff. So if Sanders was elected, I’m not sure we have that much to be afraid of WRT repression of dissent. But that does depend on who he would pick to be in his regime, which as we’ve seen with Trump is quite important.

    Harris and Warren both have a lot of alarming personal traits; Harris is a police state commander that the current empire can’t get enough of, as basically any prominent prosecutor of the last 30 years is. That’s exactly the type who could cold-bloodedly preside over a wrenching “re-set” that would punish the defiant. Warren started out as a Reaganite lawyer, who then switched to the Dems as they left the New Deal. She’s a histrionic and highly careerist type crusader, who like Harris could easily be bent toward a toxic revolution.

    The other candidates lack any particular ideological or personality distinction.

    What concerns me is that another loss to Trump would be put down to a failure to “do enough” to stand up to the “white supremacists”/New Deal nostalgists (and Yang, BTW, essentially is a New Deal Dem which is why so much of the modern Dem base isn’t moving toward him; Bernie is to some degree an old-school Leftist but his personality is more New Left, whereas Yang has both the policies and the personality down pat). Being 12+ years removed from the White House could eventually give us a Dem president or cabinet who vowed a revenge campaign on all the malign forces who “tricked” America into voting Republican during that time. Just look at a guy like John Brennan, who was allowed to remain a player by the Dems and the Deep State after he left office. Comforting, huh?

    *The only thing that has prevented the Clintons from doing even more damage is their loyalty to corporate profits, something that a future “true” crusader Dem president could easily discard in their quest to make America more Woke. The Bolsheviks and Maoists didn’t let things like sensible business practices or social stability get in the way of their quest to achieve a perfect society.

  48. @iffen
    we aren’t too far off reviving the Roman gladiator specatcle, sanctioning pederasty and polygamy

    Don't forget the damage being done by raging sluts. Even the ancient Roman pundits of the day saw the damage being done by them.

    Not sure how much you’re kidding, but really, people were more promiscuous in the 70’s-early 90’s than they are now. But at the risk of being a broken record, my main concern isn’t actual behavior among the masses, but rather, the degree to which elites lend their imprimatur to various things. People were screwing like rabbits and doing lots of cocaine in 1983, but elites back then were much more likely to stigmatize such things, and not permit glib discussion of such things on broadcast radio and TV. We now have the opposite situation; lots of young people not having sex and not doing hard drugs, but “pop” culture (which is presided over by elites) telling people not to feel any moral or spiritual qualms about excessive hedonism.

    Elite values are more important than mass values, because if elites no longer are visibly supporting wholesome norms, than corruption and cultural dissolution are much more likely. Society was ran pretty well back in 1968, because our leaders kept their eye on the ball, so to speak. Whereas today’s deviant and corrupt elites are blind.

    We can deal with teenagers screwing like rabbits, and auto-line workers smacking their wives around, so long as we have confidence that the top 20% know what they are doing and are looking out for us. But everyone these days knows that the elites would rather promote degenerate modern Western values rather than get the factories back up and running.

    Another example is that MMA fights don’t involve that many combatants (so not that many people are directly hurt by it) , but what really makes them bad is that they send a message that lots of cruelty, blood, pain, and hyper-competitiveness are an acceptable and even exciting part of life. Part of “winning” in life is literally risking your life to gain status.

    Elites have to send the message that they won’t glorify, or even tolerate, the cultural acceptance of highly risky and corrosive practices and professions. There will always be violence, sex, drugs, deviance etc., but it doesn’t mean that publishers should glorify auto-biographies of sluts, or televise and encourage legal gambling on MMA fights. In the New Deal era, life for the moral underclass of drug addicts/drunks, violent thugs, and sexually deviant folk was either hidden altogether (most homosexuals disavowed their lifestyle and popular media generally did not acknowledge homosexuals) or was mildly visible but not terribly popular (e.g., boxing declined in popularity from about 1930-1970, but the “legend” of Muhammed Ali then grew as the 70’s went and the New Deal declined, then in the neo-lib 80’s Mike Tyson mowed down a series of hapless opponents to much cultural celebration, with many high profile figures attending the fights; fitting for the “just win baby” culture that intesified in the 80’s and 90’s, Tyson was eventually disgraced for losing his temper in a mid-90’s fight and biting off someone’s ear). The 1930’s-1960’s was quite notable for the lack of poor sportsmanship (even ice hockey had few incidents of hardcore aggression into the 60’s, but by 1983-84 the NHL was setting records for penalty minutes related to violent misconduct, and Neanderthals were condoning cheap shots by players who had some “talent” or “leadership” skills)

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    what really makes them bad is that they send a message that lots of cruelty, blood, pain, and hyper-competitiveness are an acceptable and even exciting part of life. Part of “winning” in life is literally risking your life to gain status.

    Football supplanting baseball as America's pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.
  49. @Feryl

    First, if anyone would dispute or doubt that the present era at least rivals any previous one when it comes to rank depravity and degeneracy, I would suggest that a little time spent at web sites such as the following could be enlightening:
     
    The Anglo-Germanic countries are currently, for the most part, circling the drain as we speak.....But what happens when we go down the drain? I'm afraid we've only scratched the surface so far. It's a long way down from where we are now. Judith (((Levine))), a self-described libertarian, wrote a book back in 2002 saying that child $exuality needed to be de-stigmatized, saying that we were getting too uptight. Once the erstwhile Christian white West, particularly the Protestant spheres, has further abandoned cultural conservatism, we aren't too far off reviving the Roman gladiator specatcle, sanctioning pederasty and polygamy, and further removing sanctions on matters of public decency (like telling ghetto blacks and white trash that they need to pull their pants up).

    We could well be looking at the death of the Protestant white West, with Orthodox and Catholics Christians, plus Muslims, gaining at our expense. While the post-1980 Protestant culture swore loyalty to Israel, it bought into bigotry against Catholics and Slavs, and has thus far allowed Islamic culture to establish itself in the West.

    Judith (((Levine))), a self-described libertarian, wrote a book back in 2002 saying that child $exuality needed to be de-stigmatized, saying that we were getting too uptight.

    Let’s say Judith Levine weren’t a Jewess but held the exact same views and had written the exact same book. Would you find her any less reprehensible?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    To the extent that Western Jews self-ID as conservative, it is generally in the sense of being a neo-con or a libertarian individualist.

    Strict cultural conservatism, which is also associated with localism/nationalism/ethnic tradition, is extremely uncommon among Jews, which is why "real" conservatism is generally undermined by the presence of Jews.

    American Jews were the biggest critics of things like the John Birch Society, and other pillars of traditionalist and localist conservative beliefs. So many Jews have favored creating a multi-national "marketplace" in which it becomes harder and harder for people to maintain ethnic continuity and communal tradition.

    We now live in a truly upside-down world in which cultural tradtionalists and isolationists are now derided as "racists"and enemies of "democracy spreading". Xenophile individualism and mult-culturalism have been comfortably accepted by mainstream conservatism since circa 1980. While the mainstream Right lionizes Reagan, it also anxiously attempts to distance itself as much as possible from the mon0-culturalists and isolationists who had generally been the face of conservatism in the late 19th and early 20th century, and maybe going back even further, to the founding of the country itself.

    Note also that creeping surveillance, non-stop growth of government, and so forth, all got worse after 1980, not better. Again, this fits into the context of Judeo-conservatism being a betrayal of the modest localism which used to be upheld by conservatism.

    FDR and the Dems certainly made the government bigger, but often for the better. Whereas the "party of small government" completely bamboozled modern "conservatives" into supporting American imperialism and multi-culturalism (America since 1980 has simultaneously accepted tons of foreigners who refuse to assimilate, while also exporting much of it's cultural garbage across the world which is disrespectful to these non-American cultures).
  50. @Dissident

    There has never been such open celebration of degeneracy ever before in history, in any place or in any nation. The Romans at their worst weren’t this bad. The Weimar Republic wasn’t this bad.

    America has pushed decadence to lengths that no-one in any other historical epoch could even have imagined.
     

    First, if anyone would dispute or doubt that the present era at least rivals any previous one when it comes to rank depravity and degeneracy, I would suggest that a little time spent at web sites such as the following could be enlightening:

    MassResistance.org

    AmericansForTruth.com

    4thWaveNow.com

    As for your specific claim, I wonder, first of all, whether you meant to single-out the U.S., per se?

    Many countries, for example, abolished sodomy laws long before the U.S. did. (In fact, believe it or not, a number of states still have various sodomy laws on the books.) Likewise, a number of countries recognized so-called same-sex marriage before the U.S. did. Those facts pointed-out, I could still easily imagine arguments that nonetheless place the U.S., at least in the present moment, as the worst. It would be helpful if you were to elaborate and clarify your view.

    I could still easily imagine arguments that nonetheless place the U.S., at least in the present moment, as the worst. It would be helpful if you were to elaborate and clarify your view.

    Other western countries are almost as bad. Britain is worse. The difference is that the United States intends to actively and aggressively impose its degeneracy on the rest of the planet. Through its unrivalled soft power and if necessary by force.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    The difference is that the United States intends to actively and aggressively impose its degeneracy on the rest of the planet. Through its unrivalled soft power and if necessary by force.
     
    Indeed. That is a most salient point that I had overlooked. Thank you for engaging.
    , @Dissident

    Britain is worse.
     
    Perhaps this story that I just came across is illustrative:
    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping

    Jess Tye, investigations manager at the Advertising Standards Authority, told the BBC that gender stereotypes in advertising could cause "real-world harms".
     
  51. @Feryl
    Dissident:

    People often like to point out that, say, the 1920's was really decadent. But we need to focus on the "company line" spoken by leaders and authority. Many American elites were openly displeased with the high(ish) levels of drinking, prostitution, infidelity, etc. back then. Whereas in America over the last 30 years, we've seen a huge expansion of officially sanctioned gambling, legalized porn, sanctioned MMA fights, massive legal sales of dangerous prescription drugs, and so forth. On all of these matters, most American elites either said nothing or only offered the most token resistance. It's a far cry from Prohibition, or the Catholic Legion of Decency, to offer two examples of elite driven social clean-up campaigns of the Progressive era.

    From McKinley and Roosevelt to FDR, America in the Progressive era was increasingly concerned about creating messages and policies that would purify our society. That's a major contrast from the Clinton and post-Clinton era, where elites buckle on one issue and then just a few years later another thing comes along to distort society and elites buckle again.

    In terms of public stance, America's elites since 1993 have been overwhelmingly decadent, far more so than any previous era of America (as I said previously, The Gilded Age at least had leaders who openly were concerned that stupidity, drunkenness, and perversion were alarming trends among the underclass and would soon render society ungovernable; Gilded Age 1.0 was embarrassed to some degree by dysfunction and corruption, whereas Gilded Age 2.0 of the last 20-30 years has elites who celebrate degeneracy out in the open)

    People often like to point out that, say, the 1920’s was really decadent.

    Such decadence as existed then was entirely confined to big cities.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Spikes in sex and violence affect all regions to some degree. But again, I'm not talking about the behavior of the masses but rather the degree to which elites encouraged decadence. Western elites in the early-mid 20th century were much less decadent in their espoused values than the elites of the late 20th and especially early 21st century. According to Peter Turchin, the average American's well-being improved from 1900-1960, then stagnated in the 60's and early 70's, then began to plummet in the late 70's. And this was true in spite of violent crime and promiscuity being fairly high in the 1920's. What gives? Well, mainly it's because elites in the early-mid 20th century over-saw improvements in sanitation, nutrition, education, and better pay and working conditions for low-middle class people. Elites at this time also devoted a lot of effort to cleaning up corruption.

    The 1970's and 1980's would see a spike in violent crime, street fighting, and promiscuity.....But this time, elites were beginning to renege on the social contract. So the 1970's also saw declining average height, stagnating wages, off-shoring, the legalization of porn and abortion, the release of many mentally ill people onto the streets, and so forth. All of these things happened because elites became increasingly irresponsible by 1970. Turchin also says that many elites became lawyers after 1970, instead of working in more pro-social fields.

    Elites did become much more anti-drug in the 80's, but that was the exception to the general rule of elites getting more and more decadent after circa 1970.
  52. @dfordoom

    People often like to point out that, say, the 1920’s was really decadent.
     
    Such decadence as existed then was entirely confined to big cities.

    Spikes in sex and violence affect all regions to some degree. But again, I’m not talking about the behavior of the masses but rather the degree to which elites encouraged decadence. Western elites in the early-mid 20th century were much less decadent in their espoused values than the elites of the late 20th and especially early 21st century. According to Peter Turchin, the average American’s well-being improved from 1900-1960, then stagnated in the 60’s and early 70’s, then began to plummet in the late 70’s. And this was true in spite of violent crime and promiscuity being fairly high in the 1920’s. What gives? Well, mainly it’s because elites in the early-mid 20th century over-saw improvements in sanitation, nutrition, education, and better pay and working conditions for low-middle class people. Elites at this time also devoted a lot of effort to cleaning up corruption.

    The 1970’s and 1980’s would see a spike in violent crime, street fighting, and promiscuity…..But this time, elites were beginning to renege on the social contract. So the 1970’s also saw declining average height, stagnating wages, off-shoring, the legalization of porn and abortion, the release of many mentally ill people onto the streets, and so forth. All of these things happened because elites became increasingly irresponsible by 1970. Turchin also says that many elites became lawyers after 1970, instead of working in more pro-social fields.

    Elites did become much more anti-drug in the 80’s, but that was the exception to the general rule of elites getting more and more decadent after circa 1970.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But again, I’m not talking about the behavior of the masses but rather the degree to which elites encouraged decadence.
     
    Prior to the late 20th century had there ever been a case of elites actively encouraging decadence among the masses?
  53. @Dissident

    Judith (((Levine))), a self-described libertarian, wrote a book back in 2002 saying that child $exuality needed to be de-stigmatized, saying that we were getting too uptight.
     
    Let's say Judith Levine weren't a Jewess but held the exact same views and had written the exact same book. Would you find her any less reprehensible?

    To the extent that Western Jews self-ID as conservative, it is generally in the sense of being a neo-con or a libertarian individualist.

    Strict cultural conservatism, which is also associated with localism/nationalism/ethnic tradition, is extremely uncommon among Jews, which is why “real” conservatism is generally undermined by the presence of Jews.

    American Jews were the biggest critics of things like the John Birch Society, and other pillars of traditionalist and localist conservative beliefs. So many Jews have favored creating a multi-national “marketplace” in which it becomes harder and harder for people to maintain ethnic continuity and communal tradition.

    We now live in a truly upside-down world in which cultural tradtionalists and isolationists are now derided as “racists”and enemies of “democracy spreading”. Xenophile individualism and mult-culturalism have been comfortably accepted by mainstream conservatism since circa 1980. While the mainstream Right lionizes Reagan, it also anxiously attempts to distance itself as much as possible from the mon0-culturalists and isolationists who had generally been the face of conservatism in the late 19th and early 20th century, and maybe going back even further, to the founding of the country itself.

    Note also that creeping surveillance, non-stop growth of government, and so forth, all got worse after 1980, not better. Again, this fits into the context of Judeo-conservatism being a betrayal of the modest localism which used to be upheld by conservatism.

    FDR and the Dems certainly made the government bigger, but often for the better. Whereas the “party of small government” completely bamboozled modern “conservatives” into supporting American imperialism and multi-culturalism (America since 1980 has simultaneously accepted tons of foreigners who refuse to assimilate, while also exporting much of it’s cultural garbage across the world which is disrespectful to these non-American cultures).

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Strict cultural conservatism, which is also associated with localism/nationalism/ethnic tradition, is extremely uncommon among Jews, which is why “real” conservatism is generally undermined by the presence of Jews.
     
    Weren't Jews pretty socially conservative until the 19th century? And aren't the more Orthodox Jewish sects today pretty socially conservative?

    Maybe it's been a case of Jews becoming more socially radical as they've become less Jewish culturally. Jewish social radicalism appears to be associated with extreme secularism.

    We often overlook the fact that as Christianity began to decay in the late 18th century Judaism as a religion was also declining. By the beginning of the 20th century how many European Jews were still practising Jews as compared to a century earlier? My guess is that the proportion was probably similar to the proportion of European Christians who were still practising Christians in a genuine sense. I'm also guessing that just as was the case among Christians actual practising Jews were probably less common among the more educated and wealthier Jews who were becoming more assimilated.

    But I'm no expert on Judaism so any Jews in the commenting section should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!
  54. @Feryl
    Spikes in sex and violence affect all regions to some degree. But again, I'm not talking about the behavior of the masses but rather the degree to which elites encouraged decadence. Western elites in the early-mid 20th century were much less decadent in their espoused values than the elites of the late 20th and especially early 21st century. According to Peter Turchin, the average American's well-being improved from 1900-1960, then stagnated in the 60's and early 70's, then began to plummet in the late 70's. And this was true in spite of violent crime and promiscuity being fairly high in the 1920's. What gives? Well, mainly it's because elites in the early-mid 20th century over-saw improvements in sanitation, nutrition, education, and better pay and working conditions for low-middle class people. Elites at this time also devoted a lot of effort to cleaning up corruption.

    The 1970's and 1980's would see a spike in violent crime, street fighting, and promiscuity.....But this time, elites were beginning to renege on the social contract. So the 1970's also saw declining average height, stagnating wages, off-shoring, the legalization of porn and abortion, the release of many mentally ill people onto the streets, and so forth. All of these things happened because elites became increasingly irresponsible by 1970. Turchin also says that many elites became lawyers after 1970, instead of working in more pro-social fields.

    Elites did become much more anti-drug in the 80's, but that was the exception to the general rule of elites getting more and more decadent after circa 1970.

    But again, I’m not talking about the behavior of the masses but rather the degree to which elites encouraged decadence.

    Prior to the late 20th century had there ever been a case of elites actively encouraging decadence among the masses?

  55. @Feryl
    To the extent that Western Jews self-ID as conservative, it is generally in the sense of being a neo-con or a libertarian individualist.

    Strict cultural conservatism, which is also associated with localism/nationalism/ethnic tradition, is extremely uncommon among Jews, which is why "real" conservatism is generally undermined by the presence of Jews.

    American Jews were the biggest critics of things like the John Birch Society, and other pillars of traditionalist and localist conservative beliefs. So many Jews have favored creating a multi-national "marketplace" in which it becomes harder and harder for people to maintain ethnic continuity and communal tradition.

    We now live in a truly upside-down world in which cultural tradtionalists and isolationists are now derided as "racists"and enemies of "democracy spreading". Xenophile individualism and mult-culturalism have been comfortably accepted by mainstream conservatism since circa 1980. While the mainstream Right lionizes Reagan, it also anxiously attempts to distance itself as much as possible from the mon0-culturalists and isolationists who had generally been the face of conservatism in the late 19th and early 20th century, and maybe going back even further, to the founding of the country itself.

    Note also that creeping surveillance, non-stop growth of government, and so forth, all got worse after 1980, not better. Again, this fits into the context of Judeo-conservatism being a betrayal of the modest localism which used to be upheld by conservatism.

    FDR and the Dems certainly made the government bigger, but often for the better. Whereas the "party of small government" completely bamboozled modern "conservatives" into supporting American imperialism and multi-culturalism (America since 1980 has simultaneously accepted tons of foreigners who refuse to assimilate, while also exporting much of it's cultural garbage across the world which is disrespectful to these non-American cultures).

    Strict cultural conservatism, which is also associated with localism/nationalism/ethnic tradition, is extremely uncommon among Jews, which is why “real” conservatism is generally undermined by the presence of Jews.

    Weren’t Jews pretty socially conservative until the 19th century? And aren’t the more Orthodox Jewish sects today pretty socially conservative?

    Maybe it’s been a case of Jews becoming more socially radical as they’ve become less Jewish culturally. Jewish social radicalism appears to be associated with extreme secularism.

    We often overlook the fact that as Christianity began to decay in the late 18th century Judaism as a religion was also declining. By the beginning of the 20th century how many European Jews were still practising Jews as compared to a century earlier? My guess is that the proportion was probably similar to the proportion of European Christians who were still practising Christians in a genuine sense. I’m also guessing that just as was the case among Christians actual practising Jews were probably less common among the more educated and wealthier Jews who were becoming more assimilated.

    But I’m no expert on Judaism so any Jews in the commenting section should feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Ashkenazi Western Jews are the dominant Jews of the West. Modern Ashkenazis are the most culturally liberal people to ever walk the Earth.

    Secular Christians are still not as liberal as secular Jews. Sorry, dude. That's what the facts suggest. I seem to recall the GSS indicating that secular urban white gentiles are still more conservative than suburban and even small town Jews.

    Note that "conservative" here is defined by opposition towards drugs, abortion, and homosexuality (what I call the "holy trinity" of moral-cultural issues). We aren't talking about wars for Israel, losing the capital gains tax, and other things that Jewish elites support.

    My hunch is that traditional European anti-semitism is strongly derived from stoic or happy gentiles getting tired of neurotic Ash. Jews complaining and actively de-stabilizing the emotional and cultural peace favored by most European gentiles.
    , @Dissident
    I found just about everything that you wrote about Jews and Judaism correct and I have been wanting to elaborate somewhat. My apologies for the delay.

    Judaism is a deeply traditionalist, conservative, patriarchal religion. Up until at least some point in the 19th-century, nearly all Jews in Europe were practicing adherents of Judaism and there was really no Jewish identity or culture to speak-of that was distinct from the religion.

    That reality became inverted as a result of the Haskalah or Jewish Enlightenment, "a late 18th- and 19th-century intellectual movement among the Jews of central and eastern Europe" (Britannica.com) which had a vast, overwhelming influence upon European Jewry. By the end of the Haskalah period, most Jews had, at the very least become lapsed to a considerable degree in traditional Judaic observance, and a very large number had abandoned it entirely. Many such Jews were drawn to various radical Left-wing and Utopian movements. (I would hardly be the first to suggest that this was a means of trying to fill an obvious void in their life left by their abandonment of Judaic practice and community.) Most of the remainder of Jews were drawn to Zionism, a Judaic heresy* which was a predominately secular and even overtly anti-religious movement*. (*See note at end) Within Zionism were both Leftist as well as Rightist factions.

    The term Orthodox Judaism is in a sense redundant, for only by radically redefining Judaism from any traditional understanding of the term can any of the so-called other forms of Judaism be considered Judaism at all. Nonetheless, to differentiate authentic Judaism from the ersatz forms, use of the term Orthodox has become necessary.

    The most well-known of such ersatz "Judaisms" are, respectively, Reform Judaism [sic]; Conservative Judaism [sic]; Liberal Judaism [sic]; Reconstructionist Judaism [sic]; and Renewal Judaism [sic]. All are, from any traditional Judaic perspective, perversions of Judaism that qualify as heresies on any number of counts. And, in sharp contradistinction to Orthodoxy, all of them have embraced radical social values, going so far as to ordain openly homosexual "rabbis" and recognize same-sex "marriages".

    Within the broad outer category of Orthodoxy, there are many sub-categories, factions and sub-factions. Thus, there really is no single Orthodox Jewish community to speak-of but many. To take just one salient example, all Hasidim are Orthodox but not all Orthodox Jews are Hasidim. And Hasidim themselves are highly fractured, with many different sects.

    *Initially fiercely opposed by a nearly-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become rather complicated by the time the Zionist State that calls itself 'Israel' was established. Since then, there are basically three main groups that Orthodox Jews fall into as concerns their position on Zionism and its State. The first are those who are emphatically anti-Zionist, often zealously so. Not recognizing the Zionist State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government. The second group are those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values is to work from within the State. The third and final group are those that are explicitly and fully Zionist, insisting that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. (I would contend that such a position can only be maintained by selective and tendentious treatment of both the relevant canonical texts as well as of the received traditions from rabbinical authorities.) Within each of these three main groups are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. There are also more than a few Orthodox Jews who straddle the fence either between between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps or between the Zionist and (at least nominally) non-Zionist ones.

  56. @Feryl
    Not sure how much you're kidding, but really, people were more promiscuous in the 70's-early 90's than they are now. But at the risk of being a broken record, my main concern isn't actual behavior among the masses, but rather, the degree to which elites lend their imprimatur to various things. People were screwing like rabbits and doing lots of cocaine in 1983, but elites back then were much more likely to stigmatize such things, and not permit glib discussion of such things on broadcast radio and TV. We now have the opposite situation; lots of young people not having sex and not doing hard drugs, but "pop" culture (which is presided over by elites) telling people not to feel any moral or spiritual qualms about excessive hedonism.

    Elite values are more important than mass values, because if elites no longer are visibly supporting wholesome norms, than corruption and cultural dissolution are much more likely. Society was ran pretty well back in 1968, because our leaders kept their eye on the ball, so to speak. Whereas today's deviant and corrupt elites are blind.

    We can deal with teenagers screwing like rabbits, and auto-line workers smacking their wives around, so long as we have confidence that the top 20% know what they are doing and are looking out for us. But everyone these days knows that the elites would rather promote degenerate modern Western values rather than get the factories back up and running.

    Another example is that MMA fights don't involve that many combatants (so not that many people are directly hurt by it) , but what really makes them bad is that they send a message that lots of cruelty, blood, pain, and hyper-competitiveness are an acceptable and even exciting part of life. Part of "winning" in life is literally risking your life to gain status.

    Elites have to send the message that they won't glorify, or even tolerate, the cultural acceptance of highly risky and corrosive practices and professions. There will always be violence, sex, drugs, deviance etc., but it doesn't mean that publishers should glorify auto-biographies of sluts, or televise and encourage legal gambling on MMA fights. In the New Deal era, life for the moral underclass of drug addicts/drunks, violent thugs, and sexually deviant folk was either hidden altogether (most homosexuals disavowed their lifestyle and popular media generally did not acknowledge homosexuals) or was mildly visible but not terribly popular (e.g., boxing declined in popularity from about 1930-1970, but the "legend" of Muhammed Ali then grew as the 70's went and the New Deal declined, then in the neo-lib 80's Mike Tyson mowed down a series of hapless opponents to much cultural celebration, with many high profile figures attending the fights; fitting for the "just win baby" culture that intesified in the 80's and 90's, Tyson was eventually disgraced for losing his temper in a mid-90's fight and biting off someone's ear). The 1930's-1960's was quite notable for the lack of poor sportsmanship (even ice hockey had few incidents of hardcore aggression into the 60's, but by 1983-84 the NHL was setting records for penalty minutes related to violent misconduct, and Neanderthals were condoning cheap shots by players who had some "talent" or "leadership" skills)

    what really makes them bad is that they send a message that lots of cruelty, blood, pain, and hyper-competitiveness are an acceptable and even exciting part of life. Part of “winning” in life is literally risking your life to gain status.

    Football supplanting baseball as America’s pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The sad thing is that the inability of MMA fighters to sustain high performance over a period of at least 5 years, with a fair number of bouts, is actually making the sport more successful. We usually don't see the past their "prime" guys lumbering around the ring, instead there are lots of newbie fighters to cheer on*. I was listening to Joe Rogan, and every now and then he discusses injury and disability issues with people involved in MMA....It's not pretty. The constant wrenching on the neck means that some of these guys don't have full movement of their neck anymore, and are getting often unpredictable surgeries to their spine. Practicing many of the holds in itself puts pressure on the neck, let alone what you deal with in an actual fight.

    Compare this to boxing, where Mike Tyson was considered to be at least a competent fighter a good 10 years into his career, and had he handled his life better he could've continued after that.

    Football supplanting baseball as America’s pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.
     
    In the race to the bottom of the last 40-50 years, cheering on brutality has become more and more important, rather than following the personalities who can stick around for years in more gentle sports like baseball and basketball.

    *The 1975 movie Rollerball predicted that in the future, the elites would cook up a sport so brutal that no superstar could sustain a long career, which would unwittingly demoralize the populace into not doing more to fight for freedom and individuality.
    , @Dissident

    Football supplanting baseball as America’s pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.
     
    I agree. I would add, though, that even boxing is rather violent in its own right.
  57. @Audacious Epigone
    what really makes them bad is that they send a message that lots of cruelty, blood, pain, and hyper-competitiveness are an acceptable and even exciting part of life. Part of “winning” in life is literally risking your life to gain status.

    Football supplanting baseball as America's pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.

    The sad thing is that the inability of MMA fighters to sustain high performance over a period of at least 5 years, with a fair number of bouts, is actually making the sport more successful. We usually don’t see the past their “prime” guys lumbering around the ring, instead there are lots of newbie fighters to cheer on*. I was listening to Joe Rogan, and every now and then he discusses injury and disability issues with people involved in MMA….It’s not pretty. The constant wrenching on the neck means that some of these guys don’t have full movement of their neck anymore, and are getting often unpredictable surgeries to their spine. Practicing many of the holds in itself puts pressure on the neck, let alone what you deal with in an actual fight.

    Compare this to boxing, where Mike Tyson was considered to be at least a competent fighter a good 10 years into his career, and had he handled his life better he could’ve continued after that.

    Football supplanting baseball as America’s pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.

    In the race to the bottom of the last 40-50 years, cheering on brutality has become more and more important, rather than following the personalities who can stick around for years in more gentle sports like baseball and basketball.

    *The 1975 movie Rollerball predicted that in the future, the elites would cook up a sport so brutal that no superstar could sustain a long career, which would unwittingly demoralize the populace into not doing more to fight for freedom and individuality.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Are the Hunger Games and this recent reboot of it with Trump supporters as the hunted this elite desire taken to the 'logical' extreme?
  58. @dfordoom

    Strict cultural conservatism, which is also associated with localism/nationalism/ethnic tradition, is extremely uncommon among Jews, which is why “real” conservatism is generally undermined by the presence of Jews.
     
    Weren't Jews pretty socially conservative until the 19th century? And aren't the more Orthodox Jewish sects today pretty socially conservative?

    Maybe it's been a case of Jews becoming more socially radical as they've become less Jewish culturally. Jewish social radicalism appears to be associated with extreme secularism.

    We often overlook the fact that as Christianity began to decay in the late 18th century Judaism as a religion was also declining. By the beginning of the 20th century how many European Jews were still practising Jews as compared to a century earlier? My guess is that the proportion was probably similar to the proportion of European Christians who were still practising Christians in a genuine sense. I'm also guessing that just as was the case among Christians actual practising Jews were probably less common among the more educated and wealthier Jews who were becoming more assimilated.

    But I'm no expert on Judaism so any Jews in the commenting section should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

    Ashkenazi Western Jews are the dominant Jews of the West. Modern Ashkenazis are the most culturally liberal people to ever walk the Earth.

    Secular Christians are still not as liberal as secular Jews. Sorry, dude. That’s what the facts suggest. I seem to recall the GSS indicating that secular urban white gentiles are still more conservative than suburban and even small town Jews.

    Note that “conservative” here is defined by opposition towards drugs, abortion, and homosexuality (what I call the “holy trinity” of moral-cultural issues). We aren’t talking about wars for Israel, losing the capital gains tax, and other things that Jewish elites support.

    My hunch is that traditional European anti-semitism is strongly derived from stoic or happy gentiles getting tired of neurotic Ash. Jews complaining and actively de-stabilizing the emotional and cultural peace favored by most European gentiles.

  59. @dfordoom

    I could still easily imagine arguments that nonetheless place the U.S., at least in the present moment, as the worst. It would be helpful if you were to elaborate and clarify your view.
     
    Other western countries are almost as bad. Britain is worse. The difference is that the United States intends to actively and aggressively impose its degeneracy on the rest of the planet. Through its unrivalled soft power and if necessary by force.

    The difference is that the United States intends to actively and aggressively impose its degeneracy on the rest of the planet. Through its unrivalled soft power and if necessary by force.

    Indeed. That is a most salient point that I had overlooked. Thank you for engaging.

  60. @Audacious Epigone
    what really makes them bad is that they send a message that lots of cruelty, blood, pain, and hyper-competitiveness are an acceptable and even exciting part of life. Part of “winning” in life is literally risking your life to gain status.

    Football supplanting baseball as America's pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.

    Football supplanting baseball as America’s pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.

    I agree. I would add, though, that even boxing is rather violent in its own right.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Eventually we will be able to figure out who is more susceptible to head injuries over the long run, and prevent them from playing contact sports. And we might also be able to tell which athletes are better at mentally bouncing back. The ones who take the longest to recover will be urged to retire before more severe damage is done.

    Because MMA involves every part of the body, and puts a lot of emphasis on holds that are extremely strenuous to joints and/or the spine, MMA in totality is probably more immediately physically debilitating as a whole., compared to boxing. Often times many MMA fighters are never truly in 100% shape because even the training and sparring is highly damaging. Some boxers, of course, can do a lot of damage to their brains, although some are more sensitive than others. Whereas MMA, just like some football positions, seems to exact an overall permanent physical toll on anyone who does it "seriously" for a certain number of years.

    WRT to a sense of honor, boxing and football at least have a certain number of rules designed to give the impression of fairness and restraint, to prevent these sports from turning into ugly carnage and chaos. Whereas MMA derives it's mystique from the (almost) anything goes parameters of it, and what has to be noted as particularly savage and disturbing is the tolerance of jumping on a fallen opponent and pounding on them (whereas all other sports heavily penalize this brutality).
  61. @dfordoom

    I could still easily imagine arguments that nonetheless place the U.S., at least in the present moment, as the worst. It would be helpful if you were to elaborate and clarify your view.
     
    Other western countries are almost as bad. Britain is worse. The difference is that the United States intends to actively and aggressively impose its degeneracy on the rest of the planet. Through its unrivalled soft power and if necessary by force.

    Britain is worse.

    Perhaps this story that I just came across is illustrative:
    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping

    Jess Tye, investigations manager at the Advertising Standards Authority, told the BBC that gender stereotypes in advertising could cause “real-world harms”.

  62. @Feryl
    The sad thing is that the inability of MMA fighters to sustain high performance over a period of at least 5 years, with a fair number of bouts, is actually making the sport more successful. We usually don't see the past their "prime" guys lumbering around the ring, instead there are lots of newbie fighters to cheer on*. I was listening to Joe Rogan, and every now and then he discusses injury and disability issues with people involved in MMA....It's not pretty. The constant wrenching on the neck means that some of these guys don't have full movement of their neck anymore, and are getting often unpredictable surgeries to their spine. Practicing many of the holds in itself puts pressure on the neck, let alone what you deal with in an actual fight.

    Compare this to boxing, where Mike Tyson was considered to be at least a competent fighter a good 10 years into his career, and had he handled his life better he could've continued after that.

    Football supplanting baseball as America’s pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.
     
    In the race to the bottom of the last 40-50 years, cheering on brutality has become more and more important, rather than following the personalities who can stick around for years in more gentle sports like baseball and basketball.

    *The 1975 movie Rollerball predicted that in the future, the elites would cook up a sport so brutal that no superstar could sustain a long career, which would unwittingly demoralize the populace into not doing more to fight for freedom and individuality.

    Are the Hunger Games and this recent reboot of it with Trump supporters as the hunted this elite desire taken to the ‘logical’ extreme?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I'm not familiar with that series, but I do understand that it took off with later Millennials/Gen Z because of the narrative involving an anxiously high pressure and high stakes situation that society knowingly engineers.

    Back to Rollerball, it's very 70's but it also had a good read on what the future would hold. The world is globalized and each region of each nation is officially represented by a particular corporate interest. So, for example, Texas is run by the oil industry. Corporate society allows elites (it's not clear if proles get to do some of these things) to party, be promiscious, and do drugs, so long as they don't rock the boat. The corporate masters figure that they've done a good job at curing diseases, fighting crime , fighting poverty, etc. So they can't understand why anyone would ever question the system. They expect the masses to dutifully go to work, shop, watch entertainment. The movie seems to be suggesting that superficial peace and order is not spiritually or emotionally rewarding, if it comes about via conformity to a soulless and amoral system.
  63. @Dissident

    Football supplanting baseball as America’s pass time and MMA surpassing boxing are two very salient examples of this trend.
     
    I agree. I would add, though, that even boxing is rather violent in its own right.

    Eventually we will be able to figure out who is more susceptible to head injuries over the long run, and prevent them from playing contact sports. And we might also be able to tell which athletes are better at mentally bouncing back. The ones who take the longest to recover will be urged to retire before more severe damage is done.

    Because MMA involves every part of the body, and puts a lot of emphasis on holds that are extremely strenuous to joints and/or the spine, MMA in totality is probably more immediately physically debilitating as a whole., compared to boxing. Often times many MMA fighters are never truly in 100% shape because even the training and sparring is highly damaging. Some boxers, of course, can do a lot of damage to their brains, although some are more sensitive than others. Whereas MMA, just like some football positions, seems to exact an overall permanent physical toll on anyone who does it “seriously” for a certain number of years.

    WRT to a sense of honor, boxing and football at least have a certain number of rules designed to give the impression of fairness and restraint, to prevent these sports from turning into ugly carnage and chaos. Whereas MMA derives it’s mystique from the (almost) anything goes parameters of it, and what has to be noted as particularly savage and disturbing is the tolerance of jumping on a fallen opponent and pounding on them (whereas all other sports heavily penalize this brutality).

  64. @Audacious Epigone
    Are the Hunger Games and this recent reboot of it with Trump supporters as the hunted this elite desire taken to the 'logical' extreme?

    I’m not familiar with that series, but I do understand that it took off with later Millennials/Gen Z because of the narrative involving an anxiously high pressure and high stakes situation that society knowingly engineers.

    Back to Rollerball, it’s very 70’s but it also had a good read on what the future would hold. The world is globalized and each region of each nation is officially represented by a particular corporate interest. So, for example, Texas is run by the oil industry. Corporate society allows elites (it’s not clear if proles get to do some of these things) to party, be promiscious, and do drugs, so long as they don’t rock the boat. The corporate masters figure that they’ve done a good job at curing diseases, fighting crime , fighting poverty, etc. So they can’t understand why anyone would ever question the system. They expect the masses to dutifully go to work, shop, watch entertainment. The movie seems to be suggesting that superficial peace and order is not spiritually or emotionally rewarding, if it comes about via conformity to a soulless and amoral system.

  65. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm not sure what that means. How so?

    Those with families have a stake (or rather, believe themselves to have a stake) in the present order. Dispossessed single males, not so much.

  66. @dfordoom

    Strict cultural conservatism, which is also associated with localism/nationalism/ethnic tradition, is extremely uncommon among Jews, which is why “real” conservatism is generally undermined by the presence of Jews.
     
    Weren't Jews pretty socially conservative until the 19th century? And aren't the more Orthodox Jewish sects today pretty socially conservative?

    Maybe it's been a case of Jews becoming more socially radical as they've become less Jewish culturally. Jewish social radicalism appears to be associated with extreme secularism.

    We often overlook the fact that as Christianity began to decay in the late 18th century Judaism as a religion was also declining. By the beginning of the 20th century how many European Jews were still practising Jews as compared to a century earlier? My guess is that the proportion was probably similar to the proportion of European Christians who were still practising Christians in a genuine sense. I'm also guessing that just as was the case among Christians actual practising Jews were probably less common among the more educated and wealthier Jews who were becoming more assimilated.

    But I'm no expert on Judaism so any Jews in the commenting section should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

    I found just about everything that you wrote about Jews and Judaism correct and I have been wanting to elaborate somewhat. My apologies for the delay.

    Judaism is a deeply traditionalist, conservative, patriarchal religion. Up until at least some point in the 19th-century, nearly all Jews in Europe were practicing adherents of Judaism and there was really no Jewish identity or culture to speak-of that was distinct from the religion.

    That reality became inverted as a result of the Haskalah or Jewish Enlightenment, “a late 18th- and 19th-century intellectual movement among the Jews of central and eastern Europe” (Britannica.com) which had a vast, overwhelming influence upon European Jewry. By the end of the Haskalah period, most Jews had, at the very least become lapsed to a considerable degree in traditional Judaic observance, and a very large number had abandoned it entirely. Many such Jews were drawn to various radical Left-wing and Utopian movements. (I would hardly be the first to suggest that this was a means of trying to fill an obvious void in their life left by their abandonment of Judaic practice and community.) Most of the remainder of Jews were drawn to Zionism, a Judaic heresy* which was a predominately secular and even overtly anti-religious movement*. (*See note at end) Within Zionism were both Leftist as well as Rightist factions.

    The term Orthodox Judaism is in a sense redundant, for only by radically redefining Judaism from any traditional understanding of the term can any of the so-called other forms of Judaism be considered Judaism at all. Nonetheless, to differentiate authentic Judaism from the ersatz forms, use of the term Orthodox has become necessary.

    [MORE]

    The most well-known of such ersatz “Judaisms” are, respectively, Reform Judaism [sic]; Conservative Judaism [sic]; Liberal Judaism [sic]; Reconstructionist Judaism [sic]; and Renewal Judaism [sic]. All are, from any traditional Judaic perspective, perversions of Judaism that qualify as heresies on any number of counts. And, in sharp contradistinction to Orthodoxy, all of them have embraced radical social values, going so far as to ordain openly homosexual “rabbis” and recognize same-sex “marriages”.

    Within the broad outer category of Orthodoxy, there are many sub-categories, factions and sub-factions. Thus, there really is no single Orthodox Jewish community to speak-of but many. To take just one salient example, all Hasidim are Orthodox but not all Orthodox Jews are Hasidim. And Hasidim themselves are highly fractured, with many different sects.

    *Initially fiercely opposed by a nearly-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become rather complicated by the time the Zionist State that calls itself ‘Israel’ was established. Since then, there are basically three main groups that Orthodox Jews fall into as concerns their position on Zionism and its State. The first are those who are emphatically anti-Zionist, often zealously so. Not recognizing the Zionist State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government. The second group are those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values is to work from within the State. The third and final group are those that are explicitly and fully Zionist, insisting that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. (I would contend that such a position can only be maintained by selective and tendentious treatment of both the relevant canonical texts as well as of the received traditions from rabbinical authorities.) Within each of these three main groups are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. There are also more than a few Orthodox Jews who straddle the fence either between between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps or between the Zionist and (at least nominally) non-Zionist ones.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I would hardly be the first to suggest that this was a means of trying to fill an obvious void in their life left by their abandonment of Judaic practice and community.
     
    It would make sense.

    Thanks for detailed reply - I need to do some reading up on the Jewish Enlightenment!
    , @iffen
    Excellent comment. More like these every chance that you get.
  67. @Dissident
    I found just about everything that you wrote about Jews and Judaism correct and I have been wanting to elaborate somewhat. My apologies for the delay.

    Judaism is a deeply traditionalist, conservative, patriarchal religion. Up until at least some point in the 19th-century, nearly all Jews in Europe were practicing adherents of Judaism and there was really no Jewish identity or culture to speak-of that was distinct from the religion.

    That reality became inverted as a result of the Haskalah or Jewish Enlightenment, "a late 18th- and 19th-century intellectual movement among the Jews of central and eastern Europe" (Britannica.com) which had a vast, overwhelming influence upon European Jewry. By the end of the Haskalah period, most Jews had, at the very least become lapsed to a considerable degree in traditional Judaic observance, and a very large number had abandoned it entirely. Many such Jews were drawn to various radical Left-wing and Utopian movements. (I would hardly be the first to suggest that this was a means of trying to fill an obvious void in their life left by their abandonment of Judaic practice and community.) Most of the remainder of Jews were drawn to Zionism, a Judaic heresy* which was a predominately secular and even overtly anti-religious movement*. (*See note at end) Within Zionism were both Leftist as well as Rightist factions.

    The term Orthodox Judaism is in a sense redundant, for only by radically redefining Judaism from any traditional understanding of the term can any of the so-called other forms of Judaism be considered Judaism at all. Nonetheless, to differentiate authentic Judaism from the ersatz forms, use of the term Orthodox has become necessary.

    The most well-known of such ersatz "Judaisms" are, respectively, Reform Judaism [sic]; Conservative Judaism [sic]; Liberal Judaism [sic]; Reconstructionist Judaism [sic]; and Renewal Judaism [sic]. All are, from any traditional Judaic perspective, perversions of Judaism that qualify as heresies on any number of counts. And, in sharp contradistinction to Orthodoxy, all of them have embraced radical social values, going so far as to ordain openly homosexual "rabbis" and recognize same-sex "marriages".

    Within the broad outer category of Orthodoxy, there are many sub-categories, factions and sub-factions. Thus, there really is no single Orthodox Jewish community to speak-of but many. To take just one salient example, all Hasidim are Orthodox but not all Orthodox Jews are Hasidim. And Hasidim themselves are highly fractured, with many different sects.

    *Initially fiercely opposed by a nearly-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become rather complicated by the time the Zionist State that calls itself 'Israel' was established. Since then, there are basically three main groups that Orthodox Jews fall into as concerns their position on Zionism and its State. The first are those who are emphatically anti-Zionist, often zealously so. Not recognizing the Zionist State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government. The second group are those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values is to work from within the State. The third and final group are those that are explicitly and fully Zionist, insisting that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. (I would contend that such a position can only be maintained by selective and tendentious treatment of both the relevant canonical texts as well as of the received traditions from rabbinical authorities.) Within each of these three main groups are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. There are also more than a few Orthodox Jews who straddle the fence either between between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps or between the Zionist and (at least nominally) non-Zionist ones.

    I would hardly be the first to suggest that this was a means of trying to fill an obvious void in their life left by their abandonment of Judaic practice and community.

    It would make sense.

    Thanks for detailed reply – I need to do some reading up on the Jewish Enlightenment!

  68. @Dissident
    I found just about everything that you wrote about Jews and Judaism correct and I have been wanting to elaborate somewhat. My apologies for the delay.

    Judaism is a deeply traditionalist, conservative, patriarchal religion. Up until at least some point in the 19th-century, nearly all Jews in Europe were practicing adherents of Judaism and there was really no Jewish identity or culture to speak-of that was distinct from the religion.

    That reality became inverted as a result of the Haskalah or Jewish Enlightenment, "a late 18th- and 19th-century intellectual movement among the Jews of central and eastern Europe" (Britannica.com) which had a vast, overwhelming influence upon European Jewry. By the end of the Haskalah period, most Jews had, at the very least become lapsed to a considerable degree in traditional Judaic observance, and a very large number had abandoned it entirely. Many such Jews were drawn to various radical Left-wing and Utopian movements. (I would hardly be the first to suggest that this was a means of trying to fill an obvious void in their life left by their abandonment of Judaic practice and community.) Most of the remainder of Jews were drawn to Zionism, a Judaic heresy* which was a predominately secular and even overtly anti-religious movement*. (*See note at end) Within Zionism were both Leftist as well as Rightist factions.

    The term Orthodox Judaism is in a sense redundant, for only by radically redefining Judaism from any traditional understanding of the term can any of the so-called other forms of Judaism be considered Judaism at all. Nonetheless, to differentiate authentic Judaism from the ersatz forms, use of the term Orthodox has become necessary.

    The most well-known of such ersatz "Judaisms" are, respectively, Reform Judaism [sic]; Conservative Judaism [sic]; Liberal Judaism [sic]; Reconstructionist Judaism [sic]; and Renewal Judaism [sic]. All are, from any traditional Judaic perspective, perversions of Judaism that qualify as heresies on any number of counts. And, in sharp contradistinction to Orthodoxy, all of them have embraced radical social values, going so far as to ordain openly homosexual "rabbis" and recognize same-sex "marriages".

    Within the broad outer category of Orthodoxy, there are many sub-categories, factions and sub-factions. Thus, there really is no single Orthodox Jewish community to speak-of but many. To take just one salient example, all Hasidim are Orthodox but not all Orthodox Jews are Hasidim. And Hasidim themselves are highly fractured, with many different sects.

    *Initially fiercely opposed by a nearly-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become rather complicated by the time the Zionist State that calls itself 'Israel' was established. Since then, there are basically three main groups that Orthodox Jews fall into as concerns their position on Zionism and its State. The first are those who are emphatically anti-Zionist, often zealously so. Not recognizing the Zionist State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government. The second group are those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values is to work from within the State. The third and final group are those that are explicitly and fully Zionist, insisting that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. (I would contend that such a position can only be maintained by selective and tendentious treatment of both the relevant canonical texts as well as of the received traditions from rabbinical authorities.) Within each of these three main groups are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. There are also more than a few Orthodox Jews who straddle the fence either between between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps or between the Zionist and (at least nominally) non-Zionist ones.

    Excellent comment. More like these every chance that you get.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS